Matthew Ogden: Jeg vil kort gennemgå, hvad der sker i verden og de udviklinger, der har været i ugens løb. Der foregår virkelig meget i verden; se bare på det tempo, udviklinger finder sted i: fra Kinas Bælte & Vej Forum i midten af maj til Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum, der fandt sted i sidste uge i Skt. Petersborg, Rusland. Vi er nu midt Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationens (SCO) møde, der finder sted i Astana, Kasakhstan. Både Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin og Narendra Modi er til stede ved dette SCO-møde, der finder sted netop nu. Der finder bilaterale møder sted på sidelinjen af dette meget vigtige topmøde, mellem præsident Xi og Modi, Xi og præsident Putin, og Xi og præsident Nazarbajev fra Kasakhstan.

Det, vi er vidne til i hele denne række af verdenshistoriske topmøder, er i realiteten en konsolidering af det, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, under sin deltagelse i Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing, kaldte »dannelsen af en Ny Økonomisk Verdensorden«. Hun sagde:

»Med Bælte & Vej Forum etablerede vi dannelsen af en Ny Økonomisk Verdensorden. Det var et i sandhed historisk øjeblik; en ny æra for civilisationen. Dette er et faseskifte for menneskeheden.«

Det, vi ser, er en reel konsolidering af dette faseskifte for menneskeheden.

Præsident Xi Jinpings artikel, som han offentliggjorde aftenen før SCO-forummet i Astana, gav genlyd af denne karakteristik. Han erklærede, at den Nye Silkevej var blevet en succes i løbet af de fire år, der var gået, siden han oprindeligt annoncerede dette initiativ på præcis samme sted – Astana, Kasakhstan – i 2013. Han sagde, initiativet i løbet af disse fire år med held var gået fra idé til handling; og at dette initiativ nu fungerer som et »globalt offentligt gode«. Jeg mener, at denne karakteristik understreger det faktum, at denne nye, internationale orden ikke alene omfatter de økonomiske, diplomatiske og sikkerhedsmæssige relationer, der nu bliver konsolideret; men også, grundlæggende set, et fælles forpligtende engagement til fundamentalt fremskridt for den menneskelige art. Det, som Xi Jinping kalder for »menneskehedens fælles skæbne«.

Hvis vi ser på de spændende budskaber, der netop er kommet fra det kinesiske rumprogram, mener jeg, dette er en absolut korrekt karakteristik. Det bekræftes nu, at Kina, med deres Chang’e-mission, følger planen for at sende en mission til Månen for at returnere med prøver, få prøver af månejord og vende hjem til Jorden med dem; dette vil ske i november i år. Chang’e IV-missionen til Månens bagside, som man har store forventninger til, vil finde sted til næste år.

Lad os se på, hvad der finder sted her i USA. I denne uge så vi, at der virkelig blev lagt ved på bålet i kampen for Glass-Steagall. Marcy Kaptur og Walter Jones er begge i offensiven i denne uge i forbindelse med den såkaldte »Financial Choice Act«. De fremlagde begge en fremragende begrundelse for Rules Committee tidligere på ugen, for deres lovtillæg til Financial Choice Act, nemlig Prudent Banking Law (loven om ’klog of forsigtig’ bankpraksis), som ville genindføre Glass-Steagall. Selv om dette desværre blev nedstemt i Rules Committee (dvs. komiteen vil ikke lade dette alternative lovforslag komme til afstemning i salen, -red.), så har begge fået mulighed for at tale i Repræsentanternes Hus’ sal imod Henserling-lovforslaget. Walter Jones var den eneste Republikaner, der stemte imod Financial Choice Act og til støtte for Glass-Steagall, sammen med Tulsi Gabbard, der også er medsponsor af Glass/Steagall-loven.

Jeg vil afspille først Marcy Kapturs tale, efterfulgt af Tulsi Gabbards tale:

Her følger videoklippene og resten af webcastet på engelsk:     

MARCY KAPTUR:  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
Financial Choice Act, which abandons the American people, as well
as safety and soundness in favor of Wall Street. Six mega-banks
now control two-thirds of the financial sector in our country,
and reap record profits of over $170 billion in 2016.  That’s too
much power in too few hands.  Current law has made progress in
protecting consumers from predatory practices.  Repeal of these
consumer protections is not what the American want.  This week,
Congressman Jones and I proposed to table the current legislation
and replace it with our bipartisan bill, the Prudent Banking Act;
which reinstates Glass-Steagall protections by separating prudent
banking from risky Wall Street speculation that tanked our
economy in 2008.  The Rules Committee refused to allow our bill a
vote; nevertheless, we remain resolute.  Glass-Steagall is
something President Trump ran on, as did Bernie Sanders.  In
2016, both the Republican and Democratic platforms enshrined
policies to restore Glass-Steagall protections.  Americans should
know there is a growing bipartisan consensus fighting to protect
the progress we have made, rein in Wall Street, and keep the
wolves at bay and out of your pocketbook.  I will be voting “no”
on this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.  I yield back
my remaining time.

TULSI GABBARD:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Rolling back
financial regulations that are in place to protect the American
people will put them and our country’s economic security at risk.
However, the Financial Choice Act that is being considered by
Congress today does just that.  It erodes protections against
dishonest, big bank practices that rob people of their
hard-earned salaries.  The bill repeals the Volcker Rule, it
dismantles the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, strips
regulations in place to protect the American people’s savings,
and actually lets the big banks maintain even less capital that
they need to absorb catastrophic losses; making it so that
they’re relying once again on the American taxpayer to bail them
out.  We don’t need to remind the families who have suffered so
much about the pain caused by the Great Recession.  In my own
home state of Hawaii, from 2008 to 2010, our unemployment rate
more than doubled; and 11 million people in America lost their
homes.  The big banks of 2008 are even bigger and more powerful
today.  I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous bill and
instead pass HR790, the Return to Prudent Banking Act, which
would reinstate a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act.  I yield back.

OGDEN:  So, along with Glass-Steagall, the rest of the
debate around what constitutes the core of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche’s
Four Economic Laws, is also beginning to open up.  While you have
President Trump touring the country as part of his so-called
“National Infrastructure Week”, this has really been put on the
table in a very real way.  The credit for this infrastructure.
How do you increase the productivity of the American workforce?
How do you increase the productivity of the American territory,
and how do you apply the American System — the Hamiltonian
system — to make this happen?
Just to give you flavor of what Mr. Trump has been saying on
the subject over the past week — and we will get into this a lot
more — I’m going to play for you a clip of his speech that he
gave in Cincinnati.  I think you’ll find the setting very
appropriate; right against the backdrop of the Ohio River, with
barge traffic going back and forth behind him as he speaks.  So,
here’s President Trump:

DONALD TRUMP:  [as heard] Thank you all very much.  It is
great to be back in Ohio.  We love Ohio.  You remember Ohio, oh
boy.  It was supposed to be close; it wasn’t close.  So wonderful
to speak on the shores of the very magnificent Ohio River.  We’re
here today to talk about rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.
Isn’t it about time?  Spending money all over the world, except
here.  We don’t spend our money here, we spend it all over.  And
we’ll do it using American labor, American energy, American iron,
aluminum, and steel.
The American people deserve the best infrastructure anywhere
in the world.  We are a nation that created the Panama Canal, the
Transcontinental Railroad, and if you think about this, the great
highway system — the Interstate highway system.  We don’t do
that anymore, we really don’t.  We don’t even fix the old
highways anymore.  We’ll take even fixing them, but we’re going
to get them going again like they’ve never been before.  These
projects not only open new lanes of commerce, but inspired the
immigration and the dreams of millions and millions of people.
We crafted monuments to the American spirit; it’s time to
recapture our legacy as a nation of builders and to create new
lanes of travel, commerce, and discovery.  We’re going to see all
the way into the future; and the future’s going to be beautiful.
And the future is going to be bright.
In my campaign for President, I travelled all across the
nation.  I saw the crumbling infrastructure.  I met with
communities that were desperate for new roads and new bridges.
The bridges were so dangerous, they couldn’t use them; they were
worried they would fall down.  You’ve seen that happen.  I heard
the pleas from the voters who wanted to know why we could rebuild
foreign countries?  My big thing.  We build in foreign countries,
we spend trillions and trillions of dollars outside of our
nation; but we can’t build a road, a highway, a tunnel, a bridge
in our own nation.  We watch everything falling into disrepair.
It’s time to rebuild {our} country, to bring back {our} jobs, to
restore {our} dreams.  And yes, it’s time — finally — to put
American first; and that’s what I’ve been doing, if you haven’t
noticed.
We’re going to restore America’s industrial might; creating
the jobs and tax base to put new infrastructure all over our
country.  That’s what’s happening.  I’m calling on all Democrats
and Republicans to join together — if that’s possible — in the
great rebuilding of America.  Countless American industries,
businesses, and jobs depend on rivers, runways, roads, and rails
that are in dire and even desperate condition.  Millions of
American families rely on their water and pipes and pumps that
are on the verge of total failure and collapse.
We are pleased to be joined today by representatives from
many, many industries that depend on a truly critical component
of our nation’s infrastructure.  These citizens know firsthand
that the rivers, like the beautiful Ohio River, carry the
lifeblood of our heartland.  Roughly 60% of United States grain
exports travel down these waterways to the Gulf.  More than half
of all the American steel is produced within 250 miles of where
we’re standing right now, and its production depends on the
inland waterway system.  Up to 25% of the nation’s energy cargo
relies on these channels, and the refineries along their shores.
But these critical guarders of commerce depend on a dilapidated
system of locks and dams that is more than half a century old.
And their condition, as you know better than anybody, is in very
bad shape.  It continues to decay.
Capital improvements of this system which is so important,
have been massively underfunded.  There is an $8.7 billion
maintenance backlog that is only getting bigger and getting
worse.  Last December, up the Ohio River near Pittsburgh, one
lock built more than 50 years ago had to be shut down for five
days due to hydraulic failure.  You know what that means.  Five
days means everything comes to a halt.  We simply cannot tolerate
a five-day shutdown on a major thoroughfare for American coal,
American oil, and American steel which is going to get more and
bigger.  America must have the best, fastest, and most reliable
infrastructure anywhere in the world.  We cannot accept these
conditions any longer.
A few years ago, a gate broke from its hinges at the
Markland Locks on the Ohio River in Kentucky.  It took nearly
five months to repair.  Any of you know about that?  Wasn’t a
pretty picture, was it?  I don’t think so.  In 2011, a massive
section of canal wall collapsed near Chicago, delaying
everything; and it seemed like forever.
America built the Golden Gate Bridge in just four years, and
the Hoover Dam in five years.  Think of that.  It shouldn’t take
ten years to get approvals for a very small little piece of
infrastructure; and it won’t.  Because under my administration,
it’s not going to happen like that anymore.
So, I want to thank all of the great workers for being here
today.  I want to thank all of the great business leaders; you
have some business leaders who are legendary people in the
audience.  Running massive, massive companies.  And being slowed
down, but now they’ll be able to speed it up.
Not only are we going to repair much of the depleted
infrastructure, but we’re going to create brand new projects that
excite and inspire.  Because that is what a great country does;
that is what a great country has to do.  America wants to build.
Across the nation, our amazing construction workers, steel
workers, iron workers, fitters, electricians, and so many others
are just waiting to get back to work.  With the talent and skill
they represent — which believe me, I grew up in the building
business.  I know the talent and the skill and the courage and
everything else that they have.  There is no limit to what we can
achieve.  All it takes is a bold and daring vision and the will
to make it happen.
Nearly two centuries ago, one American governor had just
such a vision and a will.  His name was Governor DeWitt Clinton.
As the governor of New York State, he dreamed of a canal
stretching nearly 400 miles to connect the Atlantic Ocean in the
east with the Great Lakes in the west.  He predicted that its
construction would place New York City at the very center of
worldwide commerce.  He took the idea to Washington, but
President Thomas Jefferson — great President — didn’t agree
with him; and he dismissed that concept as total madness.  I’d
like to thank all of the people that helped so much in that
incredible event, and I think that Jefferson simply understood
who he was and who he was dealing with.  If you want a New Yorker
to do something, just tell them — like our great past governor
— that it’s impossible to do.  The governor didn’t give up, and
New York State achieved what they thought was the impossible.
When the Erie Canal opened in 1825, he was on the first boat.  He
personally deposited a bucket of water from the Great Lakes into
the New York Harbor.  The new canal exceeded even the governor’s
bold vision.  It dramatically reduced the time and cost to
transport goods from the heartland.  As a result, new settlers
rushed into the Midwest, including to right smack here.  Probably
some of you indirectly, right?  Definitely some of you.
Just as the daring dreams of our ancestors opened new paths
across our land, today we will build the dreams that open new
paths to a better tomorrow.  We, too, will see jobs and wealth
flood into the heartland, and see new products and new produce
made and grown right here in the U.S.A.  You don’t hear that much
anymore.  We will buy American, and we will hire American.  We
will not — so importantly — be content to let our nation become
a museum of former glories.  We will construct incredible new
monuments to American grit that inspire wonder for generations
and generations to come.  We will build because our people want
to build, and because we need them to build.  We will build
because our prosperity demands it.  And above all, we will build
because that is how we make America great again.
Thank you.  God bless you.  Go out there and work.  You’re
going to see some amazing things happen over the next long period
of time.  Thank you, everyone.  It’s a great honor to be with
you.  Thank you.

OGDEN:  So, to address some of what President Trump covered
in that frankly inspiring speech, I want to hand it over to
Jason.  I know we have some other things to cover, but we’ll get
to those later in the show.  I think this is a good point to let
Jason tell us how we’re going to get to work.

JASON ROSS:  OK, this article that Matt referred to earlier,
that I wrote about New York City’s infrastructure — New York’s a
case-study, but it really says something about the nation as a
whole, namely, that if the biggest, greatest city in the United
States is an infrastructure disaster, what does that say about
our economic thinking, about the way we think about
infrastructure?  How did we let ourselves get into a situation
that’s this bad?
First, from a national perspective, just some of the
numbers, briefly.  The American Society of Civil Engineers every
few years does a report card on American infrastructure.  We got
a D+.  Now, they say that there’s $4.5 trillion of infrastructure
that’s needed and of that, only about half of it actually is
funded.  That over the next decade, there is a little over $2
trillion in infrastructure needs that currently are not provided
for, that won’t happen, that aren’t scheduled to take place:
Things like the locks and dams on our inland waterway system that
President Trump mentioned, which are in terrible shape!  Where
the failure — take one example — the failure of the Soo locks
on the Great Lakes, if that were to go, for the shipping season
during the warmer months, the estimates from the Department of
Homeland Security are that {11 million jobs} would be lost by the
failure of that one piece of infrastructure because it’s so
critical to so much of manufacturing:  Of bringing ore from one
place to another, bringing products from one place to another.
Without it, there’s no alternative way of moving these goods.
You’re not going to ship it by truck.  It won’t happen.  It’s
just going to dramatically collapse our productive abilities.
Now, these estimates are a little low.  The head of China
Investment Corp.  Ding Xuedong estimated U.S. infrastructure
needs at $8 trillion!  What  this really all comes down to,
though is what we consider our needs to be.  Do we think of what
we need to do in the future, in terms of repairing what we’ve
already got, which we certainly should repair locks and dams that
are threatening failure.  But is that what our needs are?
It isn’t.  You’ve got to say what is going to make us proud
a century from now.  What is going to be the groundwork that 100
years from now, we will say, “Oh, this was the basis for the
prosperity that we had over this century; this is what made it
possible.”  And if you look at the past, at things like the canal
that President Trump mentioned, if you look at what Eisenhower
did 51 years ago in setting up the Highway Trust Fund and the
ability to go out and build the Interstate Highway System, which
was a pretty phenomenal thing in its time: 40,000 miles of
expressway were built in a decade and a half.  That’s pretty
fast.  It was a large project.  Every year, 15,000 families were
relocated, 40,000 miles built altogether, at a cost in today’s
terms of about $500 billion —  a big project.  A big project.
Now, for what we need to do today, to make the groundwork
for what we’re going to need over the next century, we’ve got to
think about leapfrogging.  What’s the next level of technology?
Improving Amtrak trains?–ugh.  Instead, think about how are we
going to have a high-speed rail network?  Where will these
high-speed rail stations be?  There’s just no way, for example,
on the route that goes from New York to Boston, it can’t be
upgraded — forget it!  It won’t happen; we’re not going to build
a maglev line that runs along the current Northeast Corridor from
New York to Boston.  Not going to happen.  Too crooked, too
curved, goes through too many downtowns and narrow types of
passageways — not going to happen.  We’re going to build an
entirely new rail network in the United States, new high-speed
rail network.
We should build maglev rail, magnetic levitation is the
leapfrog.  That’s the next level of technology.  It’s more
efficient, it’s safer, it’s quieter, less vibration, less
disruption to people nearby.  Fast, safe, efficient — this is
what would be the next generation of technology, that would be a
basis for a higher potential of our country as a whole.
Think about the history of the United States; think about
the history of any country.  What makes it possible to achieve a
certain level of wealth of economic activity, of development?
Well, there’s a lot of aspects to it, but the primary one that
makes everything else possible, is your infrastructure platform.
Do you have a network of roads?  Do you have availability of
power?  How about water?  Think about where cities are located in
the country, or in other countries — where do cities locate
themselves?  They don’t wind up in the middle of the desert or on
the top of a mountain peak or someplace like that.  It’s based on
the, you might say “natural,” infrastructure.  Is it near a
river?  Why is New York where it is?  The Hudson River isn’t just
an inconvenience to traffic because you have to build bridges and
tunnels above it or below it.  It’s the Hudson River!  This is a
major aspect of shipping that goes into the country.  That’s why
New York is where it is.
Other cities, they are where they are due in large part to
rivers for our older cities; and then when you think about what
the potential is in building rail networks and building road
networks, you create a synthetic environment of infrastructure,
that says, OK, this is a place where we should build a new city;
this is a place where it makes sense to have production.  We can
get materials easily, we can work on them, we can ship them out;
we’ve got water, we’ve got power, we’ve got transportation, that
increases the potential of every bit of land that is developed in
that way.
So when you string electric lines out, as Roosevelt did with
the Rural Electrification Act, with the help from the Federal
government for rural residents to get electricity to their towns,
to their farms, this dramatically increased their productivity.
The building of the Transcontinental Railroad; it didn’t just
mean it as cheaper to ship some thing you ordered from a
manufacturer in New York to San Francisco.  Yes, it was cheaper
and quicker than going by boat, all the way around; but what did
it make possible in the entire rest of the country?  You build a
rail line, all the places along it are now increased in their
potential, increased in their value.
So what we need to do, is take advantage of the incredible
renaissance in infrastructure that’s occurring all around the
world — it’s led by China.  And I’ve got to say, the incredible
success that China’s having with its own domestic infrastructure,
with the building of 22,000 km of high-speed rail over the past
decade.  And let’s think about this:  China is a country, where a
decade ago there was zero high-speed rail in China.  What you see
here [{{Figure 1}}] is a map of a future 8 by 8 grid of
high-speed rail planned by China.  It’s double the length of
current high-speed rail, 45,000 km.  They’re going to have that
in place in 2035.
Where do these lines go?  Does it go to currently existing
cities?  Yes.  It would be silly not to link up currently
existing cities.  Where are the stations? Are they in the
downtowns?  Not necessarily.  Maybe it’s difficult to get there;
there’s already a lot of buildings there.  So new areas are
opening up for development in China, as a result of these
high-speed rail lines.  They’re tremendously successful.  Most of
the trips made along this network, are new trips, ones that would
not have been made if the network did not exist.  So it’s not
just people getting somewhere they were already going more
quickly, it’s actually increasing the transportation throughput
in the country.
That’s what it would be like in the United States as well,
as we develop a national network of high-speed rail [{{Figure
2}}]; this will change the productivity throughout the country.
And another aspect of this, I want to show one more thing we
can learn from China, which is the increase in energy, to take
another metric.  I had mentioned transportation.  Here’s a chart
[{{Figure 3}}]: In blue, you see total per-capita energy use in
China, from 1972-2012, so, 40 years.  Look at that difference:
Total energy use per capita in China is more than four times as
big, almost five times as big.  Now, look especially at the red
line:  That’s the amount of {electricity} used per person in
China.  Now, I know, in this chart the red line goes above the
blue line, because they’re different units, so don’t worry about
that.  The relative change is what’s important:  {Per-capital}
electricity use in China, has gone up {by 25 times}, in past four
decades — 25 times. Think about what that means.  Look at the
percentage of energy use in China, that comes from electricity,
that’s in the form of electricity:  It’s gone from 3% to
15%–that’s a {wonderful} accomplishment!  Because electricity is
a higher form of power than energy in general.  There’s things
that you can do with energy, such as burning fuels for cooking,
let’s say, or heat to power a diesel train engine, or steam
engine or something like this.  Electricity is the next level of
technology.  You can do much more with it:  You can power motors
that are controlled by computer equipment; you can have laser
manufacturing technologies, electric-discharge machining,
electron beam welding.  The next level of productivity is made
possible through the use of electricity as a higher platform.
I think we can definitely learn some lessons from China.
And the speed at which they have been doing this, I think
absolutely — I wouldn’t want to say “vindicates” but it’s a
successful experiment that shows that the method of Lyndon
LaRouche is right!
This proposal that China has made of the Belt and Road
Initiative, whereby China is engaged with multilateral financing
institutions and with its own domestic financial institutions,
like its state banks, its Export-Import Bank, etc., it’s been
involved in {major} infrastructure deals with its neighbors along
the Belt and Road, and even in more distant locations, such as
Africa, where the incredibly new rail opening in Kenya that
reduces travel time from Mombasa to Nairobi from 10 hours down to
4 hours, with the building of the Standard Gauge Railway there,
this is the type of project that is just going to dramatically
improve the productivity of Kenya.  A Chinese-financed project,
by the Chinese Export-Import Bank.
These kinds of deals are wonderful.  It’s a “win-win”
approach where China is able to export its technology, export its
know-how, the train sets that it builds, and the nations in which
the infrastructure is being built, of course, benefit from having
a great new set of infrastructure.  So everybody benefits from
this.  And the speed that this is being done with, the way that
it’s being financed, I think it says, “Hey, we could be doing
this here.”
This isn’t some sort of distant plan.  We should take the
outlook that President Trump expressed in that speech that we
just heard him make and say, we’re going to do this right now.
We can start building these things right now.  The whole
Interstate system was built in 15 years, that’s pretty fast, when
you think about the size of the thing.  What does it look like to
build a high-speed rail network in the United States?  Who’s
going to build the train sets?  Where’s the rail going to come
from? We can gear up to build the rail, but as far as high-speed
trains go, we don’t produce those!  We actually don’t have the
know-how among American domestic manufacturers.  We’re going to
be looking to China, as contractors, to build these kinds of
train sets, and also to assist with the financing.  China has
huge foreign reserves right now, and the head of China Investment
Corp. Ding Xuedong, the guy I had mentioned earlier, he said that
he’d be interested in investing some of the tens of billions of
dollars in U.S. Treasuries that China Investment Corp. holds,
happy to invest that in U.S. infrastructure.
I think from that standpoint, when we look at New York, for
example, and New York is a disaster — it’s on such a thin
thread, the ability for the over 1 million who come into
Manhattan every day for work, the ability for them to get to
work, it is incredibly precarious!  This summer, for two months,
two of the four tunnels heading east from Manhattan are going to
be closed for maintenance.  That’s going to really upset the Long
Island Railroad.  The two tunnels coming into Manhattan from the
west, the rail tunnels going into Penn Station, — which is
operating at over 100% capacity; as many trains as could possibly
fit through that tunnel are already making the trip.  New Jersey
transit commuters going into New York has tripled over the past
couple of decades.  It’s just  — you can’t fit any more people
through that tunnel!  It’s not possible.
These tunnels, the ones that I’d mentioned, these are 100
years old, or older!  {1910}, the Hudson tunnels were opened up!
These are in {desperate} need of repair — but it’s impossible to
close them to do any maintenance, because so many people are
riding on them all the time.
The only way that this can be fixed is to build an entirely
new set of tunnels, to build a new train station — here we go,
[{{Figure 4}}] this is the Gateway Project from Amtrak, where
additional lines would be built so you could have four tracks
going all the way from Penn Station, Newark; there’d be a new
loop built at Secaucus — my apologies if you’re not familiar
with the area, I know this is going fast. You’re going to have
more than double the flow of people and trains that could be
brought into New York.
This is a major and essential project.  Some work was
actually begun on it in 2009, before New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie killed it in 2010.  But, it’s not enough.  Yes, this
should happen, but this isn’t the real outlook we ought to have.
We need to think, how is New York going to fit in a broader,
regional scheme of things?  What’s the high-speed rail going to
look like in the area?  How can we totally transform the region’s
rail stations so that instead of New Jersey Transit trains coming
into Penn Station and then turning around, they keep going to the
east? [{{Figure 5}}] To Sunnyside, Queens, to a new terminal at
Port Morris, the Bronx; this is a proposal by ReThink New York
City, a public advocacy group up there.  We need entirely new
subway lines, and a national high-speed rail network.
I just want to say one more thing about the Interstate
system here [{{Figure 6}}] which you see on the screen.  This is
the original 1955 plan.  And I’d like to talk a little bit about
how Eisenhower made this reality.  First off, in terms of where
the demand for roads came from: The real push for an improvement
in public roads came in 1880 and it was promoted by bicycle
riders, who  thought rail was great for trains, but people wanted
a smooth way to ride a bike without being quite so bumpy. By the
1930s, trucks only hauled about 10% of freight in the United
States; 75% of freight moved by rail in ’20s, with trucking doing
a small amount at that time, and then inland waterways, the
infrastructure that President Trump mentioned in that clip.
By 1958, when the highway system was starting to get built,
rail was 50% of freight, highways 20%, inland waterways 16%,
pipelines 16%; and the ability to build up a broader expressway
system was hampered by the fact of how are you going to pay for
it? So the Bureau of Public Roads had been getting
appropriations: Congress would vote up some appropriations to the
Bureau of Public Roads to give grants to help build up the U.S.
highway system. It was unreliable, you didn’t know how Congress
was going to vote every year; it made it very difficult to do
long-term planning.
What Eisenhower did was he set up the — and this is lessons
for today for national banking for how to finance these projects
— Eisenhower set up the Highway Trust Fund in 1956.  It was a
separate fund, it wasn’t part of the annual budget.  Congress
wasn’t going to vote on it every year, to say, “gee should we
build the highway system or not?” and re-debate it every single
year.  Forget it!  Eisenhower set up this special fund that had a
dedicated tax system where the money would go straight into it,
as a separate capital budget, not part of the annual operating
budget.  A tax on gasoline — by the way the current gas tax
right now, it’s too low.  It hasn’t been increased in a couple of
decades.  It should be higher.  That’s why the Highway Trust Fund
doesn’t have enough money; the gas tax hasn’t been increased to
keep pace.  What else? Tire taxes, for trucks.  Trucks have big
wear on the roads; a tax for the sale of large trucks, and also a
tax for the yearly registration of large trucks.  So these kind
of indirect taxes ended up sending the money into the Highway
Trust Fund, so that it was able to build out this whole road
system and not be repaid directly.  The emphasis was {not} toll
roads! That was actually a condition for some of the turnpikes to
get Interstate Highway System funding, was they had to get rid of
their tolls. So, along Interstate-95, I-95, a lot of these roads
used to be tollways; in Connecticut that used to be a tollway.
In ’80s, after paying off bonds for repair and upgrade of a
bridge, the tolls had to be taken down, that was in keeping with
the interstate system.
That’s the way we’ve got to think about it.  Not a
public-private partnership, where you say, “I’m going to directly
pay for this project and I’ll make the money back through tolls,”
forget it.  That’ll work for an airport upgrade or something like
that.  But for a national high-speed rail network, for these
other things, what we need is national banking, so that we can
have long-term, low-interest loans, and we can get it away from
the annual squabbles about appropriations; have the ability to
have separate capital budgeting to finance this long-term
outlook.  And of course, none of that is going to happen without
Glass-Steagall.

OGDEN:  I think that’s the vision that people are looking
for, and you even heard President Trump say, “this is the kind of
bold vision.” People are ready to work!  People are ready to
build and it is true, that if you look at the history of the
American System, what is it that conquered the West?  It was the
spirit of building; this is a nation of builders.  This is the
kind of spirit that Gov. DeWitt Clinton, a strong advocate of the
American System was a believer in.
This article that you wrote, Jason, it’s available in the
current issue of {Executive Intelligence Review}
[http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/private/2017/2017_20-29/2017-23/
pdf/12-28_4423.pdf]
and we’ll make a link available.  But I want to ask our viewers
at this point, what have you been reading in the press this week?
What have you been seeing on television?  Have you been seeing
coverage of National Infrastructure Week?  Did you see coverage
of this inspiring speech by President Trump in Cincinnati?  Did
you see coverage, unless you’re a C-Span wonk, [laughter] did you
see the speeches that Marcy Kaptur [D-OH] and Tulsi Gabbard
[D-HI] made on the floor of the House for Glass-Steagall?  This
is one of the most historic fights in present history:  Did you
see the coverage of this fight in the Rules Committee, which was
very dramatic, over their proposal to repeal the “Financial
CHOICE Act,” a Dodd-Frank, and replace it immediately with
Glass-Steagall?  That’s a {real} repeal and replace!
Did you hear coverage of this new international order that’s
being consolidated in Eurasia?  These three back-to-back summits
with world leaders: The Belt and Road Forum, the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum, and the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization summit that’s happening now?  Have you see coverage
of these unprecedented missions that China is sending to the
Moon? The same return mission, lunar sample return? The mission
to the far side of the Moon?
Or even, did you see coverage of this absolutely historic
election, general election that happened just last night in Great
Britain, when Theresa May got completely trounced and Jeremy
Corbyn shocked everybody, and gained unprecedented seats for
Labour Party and consolidated his control over Labour, despite
all of the opposition from within his own party.  Did you see
coverage of that?  No!
What have you been seeing?  Twenty-four hours a day, around
the clock, you’ve been seeing Comey, Comey, Comey, Comey.  This
is the sideshow, — it really reminded me of an episode from the
“People’s Court” or something. [laughter]

ROSS:  Or, “Twilight Zone.”

OGDEN:  Right.  I actually want to point your attention to
an article which is available as the lead of the LaRouche PAC
website today, called “LaRouche: Stop the FBI Fraud, Stop the
Coup against the President — What the Lying Media Is Not Telling
You”
[https://larouchepac.com/20170609/larouche-stop-fbi-fraud-stop-
coup-against-president-what-lying-media-not-telling-you].
And that’s a screenshot there from the LaRouche PAC website; this
is the lead for today. And it begins as follows:  “Lyndon
LaRouche called upon the American people to shut down the coup
underway against President Trump which was fed Thursday by the
lying testimony of fired FBI Director James Comey before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. LaRouche said that the
coup is an FBI-type operation attempting to destroy the United
States, and if it is not stopped, the world will face general
warfare.”
And then it goes on to say the following: “On June 7, former
Director of National Intelligence Clapper revealed the actual
motivation for the coup against Trump in remarks in Australia. He
said that Trump’s openness to peace with Russia–the platform
upon which Trump was elected by the American people–was itself
wholly against U.S. national security interests, in effect,
equivalent to treason.”  And then the article goes on to say: “It
was already known in official Washington well before the
election, that President Obama, in collusion with the British,
candidate Clinton, DNI head Clapper, CIA head Brennan, and FBI
head Comey, had steered the U.S. on a war course with Russia and
China, which was meant to be fully activated with Clinton’s
election. Trump was elected instead, triggering the coup which
has followed.”  And then it makes the very clear point:
“President Trump has kept his promise and established better
relations with both Russia and China, who are seeking cooperation
with the United States in developing the world based on great
infrastructure projects. That is the only issue here.”
Again, that’s the beginning of the article, “LaRouche: Stop
the FBI Fraud, Stop the Coup against the President — What the
Lying Media Is Not Telling You” which is available on the
LaRouche PAC website.  And then it goes on from there, and goes
through a very detailed examination of what this process really
has been ever since Inauguration Day; so we encourage you to read
that article. And let me put on the screen again, the link to the
petition: http://action.larouchepac.com/lets_rebuild_the_country.
It’s called “Congress, Suck It Up and Move On — It’s Time To
Rebuild the Country.”  And the url is http://lpac.co/rebuild ,
that’s where you can sign this petition online.  And we also have
a mobile phone app that you can text the word REBUILD to
2025248709.
And that petition continues to accumulate signatures, and
it’s your opportunity to get involved.
I just want to let Jason say a little more in terms of the
process that’s ongoing.  The opportunity that we have ahead of
us, — Helga LaRouche’s attendance at the Belt and Road Forum
that occurred in Beijing, the campaign which we’ve been running
for the United States to join this Silk Road — what better
opportunity do we have than now, when you actually have your
President, whatever you want to say about him, is strongly
advocating a modernization of U.S.  infrastructure and an
exciting program to give Americans the opportunity to build a new
era of U.S. infrastructure.

ROSS:  Well, Trump’s initiative is right.  His direction on
this is right.  He likes to build things;  you’ve heard that
speech, this is a good direction for this country.  What is
really not very present is how to finance it.  And that’s the big
weakness and that’s what we are responsible for correcting.
That’s what Lyndon LaRouche has been working on for decades, is a
real science of economics and doing that in opposition to what
has taken over United States policy: monetarism.
The Trump idea is that $200 billion in Federal financing is
going to be leveraged to create a total of $1 trillion over a
decade for U.S. infrastructure. That’s the Trump outlook. That’s
grossly insufficient.  The idea that you’re going to leverage
$200 billion into a total of $1 trillion is a difficult thing if
you don’t have the ability to capture the indirect value of
infrastructure.  Because, look, think about the value of building
up a platform.  The value of building up an infrastructure
platform, isn’t to make money by charging people to use it.  Now
you open up some business where you’re making cookies, well sure,
you sell your cookies; people pay to eat your cookies or
whatever, that’s fine, that’s how a business works.
That’s now how an infrastructure platform works:  The return
is indirect, the return isn’t local to the place where the
infrastructure is built.  It changes the nation as a whole.  And
when we think about linking in to the full World Land-Bridge
proposal, crossing the Bering Straits, not only will we be able
to ship things from the Americas over to Asia more quickly than
you can by ship, but you’re opening up the Arctic.  There’s tons
of resources in the Arctic!  There’s petroleum, we know about
that; but mineral resources, all sorts of potential up there.
It’s not worth anything if you can’t get to it.  So building up
that whole network, as Dr. Hal Cooper has put forward in his
engineering proposals on this, tremendous change.  To the south,
bridging the Darién Gap, connecting North, Central and South
America as one: These are tremendous potentials.
The value of infrastructure, it’s indirect, it’s not local;
{and}, it’s not commensurable.  A dollar into infrastructure,
maybe has, you might calculate $2.5  of benefit or something like
this.  It’s not the same dollars.  That chart I had showed
earlier about China’s use of electricity as a percentage of its
total power, this represents a transformation of the economy.
The fact that total power went up five times, but electrical
power went up 25 times, China’s not doing five times more of what
it used to do, or leaving the lights on longer, or something like
this.  This represents {a change in the structure of the economy
as a whole.}  And it’s made possible by building out a network of
power. China needs {much} more power into the future; China is
building nuclear power plants into the future, and this is really
the next level of platform of energy, just as high-speed and
maglev rail is the future of transportation, nuclear power,
developing fusion power, that’s the next level of electricity.
So we’ve got to think of those leapfrogging type steps.  And
our message to Trump is:  Good direction, we’ve got some very
serious proposals for you about how to make it all possible;
Glass-Steagall is absolutely essential, as you, Mr. President,
promised in your campaign.  And then, we need national banking,
as a way of indirectly financing these projects that just won’t
give money back to a private investor, it’s not how they work.
{And} finance fusion, so we get that next level, the next
platform will be possible

OGDEN:  Yeah, absolutely.  OK.  I think that’s an exciting
and very direct message.  We’ve got a lot going on, clearly.
This has been a very, very eventful week! And I think we can just
expect the pace of the things to continue to increase.
So thank you very much for watching today, and please
encourage other people to watch this broadcast; there is a lot of
material, and it’s a lot to absorb and a lot to teach others
about.
Thank you very much, Jason.  I know you’re going to be up in
New York City next week, and presenting some of this, for our
friends who are up there, I encourage you to directly participate
in that discussion with Jason. And please read Jason’s article,
“Case Study New York City: A Future Platform of U.S.
Infrastructure.”  We’re making that available in the description
for today’s broadcast.
Thank you Jason, and thank you for watching.  Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

Kongresmedlem Marcy Kaptur (Dem.-Ohio), med støtte af kongresmedlem Walter Jones (Rep.-NC), havde her til aften foretræde for Husets Rules Committee (der afgør, hvilke alternative lovforslag, der kan komme til afstemning i salen, -red.) og anmodede om, at komiteen »etablerer en fair debat om genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven« i Repræsentanternes Hus (’Huset’), for at vende tilbage til et »sundere, mere konkurrencedygtigt, mere solidt banksystem i stedet for grasserende [Wall Street] spekulation«. Hun sagde, »Dette hviler på en opdeling af risikabel spekulation og ’klog og forsigtig’ bankpraksis … en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling.«

Kaptur sagde til komiteen, at de årtier, hvor Glass-Steagall udgjorde nationens primære banklov, »refereres til som guldalderen« for økonomisk vækst, rigelig udlånskredit og fair renter til forbrugerne på deres bankindskud. Hun sagde, at næsten to tredjedele af de lokalbanker, der tjente denne æra, var forsvundet siden 1990’erne, hvor Glass-Steagall blev fjernet (endegyldigt i 1999), og at antallet af kreditforeninger var halveret. Kaptur fordømte de seks største, amerikanske banker, der tjente $141 mia. om året i profit, mens »Bedstemor Moses intet tjener på sit kontoindskud«.

»Bernie Sanders førte kampagne for at bryde disse banker op«, sagde Kaptur. Det samme gjorde Donald Trump. Begge partiernes valgplatforme støttede det, og Republikanernes Nationale Komite brugte færre ord end Demokraterne: ’Vi støtter genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven af 1933’.«

»Vores nation har muligheden for at gøre dette rigtigt, før endnu en overhængende finanskrise, der måske har rod i private foretagenders gæld (altså ikke statsgæld), rammer«, sluttede Kaptur. »Kongressen må ikke vente; muligheden for at genindføre Glass-Steagall, er nu.«

Kongressens ’Rules Committee’, i en afstemning blandt Republikanere, nedstemte Kaptur-Jones forslaget som en del af den forestående debat om Republikanernes »Lov om finansielt VALG« (CHOICE Act). Kaptur vil få mulighed for at anke dette, når CHOICE-loven kommer til afstemning i salen, muligvis i denne uge.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 29. maj, 2017 – Verden ser meget anderledes ud, når den anskues fra Kina, end den gør fra USA eller Europa, lød Helga Zepp-LaRouches kommentar, da hun vendte hjem fra sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, der fandt sted 14.-15. maj. Kina befinder sig i en udvikling, der foregår i et forbløffende tempo, og deler nu denne succesfulde model med hele planeten, gennem Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Som en opstigende kraft i hele planetens økonomiske og kulturelle udvikling har Kina et optimistisk og forhåbningsfuldt syn – og ikke den pessimisme og fortvivlelse, der har hersket i det meste af Europa og USA, siden mordet på John F. Kennedy.

Der foregår nu en global omgruppering, bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med fornuftige regeringer, der bringer deres nationer om bord i Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Kun de dumdristige vil blive stående udenfor og ’kigge ind’ sådan, som Angela Merkel nu gør med Tyskland.

Præsident Donald Trump må nu handle hurtigt for at sikre, at USA bliver en del af denne omgrupperede orientering. Han valgte klogt at sende en personlig toprådgiver, Matt Pottinger, som sin repræsentant til Bælt & Vej Forum. Nu må han forhandle Amerikas fulde deltagelse i alle aspekter af dette Nye Paradigme, inklusive investering af billioner af dollars i genopbygningen af Amerikas totalt ødelagte infrastruktur. Trump må handle hurtigt for at skabe reel, fysisk-økonomisk forandring – det er, hvad de millioner, der stemte på ham, venter på. Han må handle hurtigt, for at genindsætte FDR’s Glass/Steagall-lov fra 1933 for at skabe den nødvendige bank- og kreditramme for en sådan massiv indsats for genopbygning – dét er mandatet, han fik ved præsidentvalget i 2016. Den idémæssige køreplan for, hvordan disse politikker skal implementeres i USA, har Lyndon LaRouche gentagent leveret – senest i sine Fire Love (til USA’s – og verdens – omgående redning).

Præsident Trump bør ikke tillade, at han presses eller distraheres bort fra denne hastedagsorden, af disse tendentiøse og grundløse anklager, der slynges ud mod hans regering, den ene efter den anden. Det er netop formålet med disse, af briterne påbudte operationer, at de skal forhindre præsident Trump i at vedtage de nationale, og internationale, politikker, som Det britiske Imperium i den grad frygter. At fordømme og afsløre disse løgne er selvfølgelig nyttigt, og endda nødvendigt. Men, denne eneste måde, hvorpå disse beskidte operationer på afgørende vis kan begraves, er at gøre præcis dét, som briterne er mest bange for; og begynde at bygge infrastrukturen og andre store projekter, nu.

En mere passende hyldest til John F. Kennedy i hundredeåret for hans fødsel, end netop atter at hellige vor nation disse politikker, eksisterer ikke.

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche på Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj, 2017.

Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing den 14.-15. maj, hvor 130 lande havde takket ja til præsident Xi Jinpings invitation, Ruslands Putin var æresgæst, men hvor også USA sendte en vigtig delegation, kan meget vel være starten på en sådan ny, retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden, hvor alle nationer får adgang til udvikling. Trump taler stadig godt med Xi Jinping og forbereder at løse krisen med Nordkorea. USA og Rusland samarbejder i Syrien. Krigsfraktionen i Vesten fortsætter heksejagten på Trump, og medierne skriger »Watergate« uden, at der er substans. Kan medierne sammen med efterretningstjenesterne få afsat Trump? Eller vil Trump rense op i overvågningssamfundet? Trump skal have gang i infrastrukturprojekter, men pengene vil ikke komme fra Wall Street. Vil vi se Glass/Steagall og LaRouches tre andre love blive gennemført, så USA kan overleve det bankerotte finanssystem og blive stort igen? Vil USA og Europa gå med i dette nye, globale paradigme? Præsident Trumps afvisning, ved NATO-topmødet i Bruxelles den 25. maj, og ved det efterfølgende G7-topmøde i Italien, af at lade USA under hans ledelse fortsætte den gamle, vestlige politik, kan være startskuddet til en helt ny verdensorden, hvor USA samarbejder tæt med de tidligere fjendebilleder Kina og Rusland.

Dette er en redigeret udgave af en tale, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets formand i Danmark, holdt den 17. maj 2017. Se og hør talen inklusive den efterfølgende diskussion på www.schillerinstitut.dk.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

»Det er 4. maj; ti dage, inden det går løs i Beijing med det store Bælt & Vej Forum, som bliver et afgørende punkt i den fortsatte udvikling her på planeten Jorden; det tror jeg allerede nu ligger klart. Det er jo så spændende, at den danske statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen ikke kunne vente. Han havde så travlt, at han sagde, ’jamen, jeg vil ikke vente til 14. maj; jeg tager derover allerede 2. maj til Kina og besøger pandaer, men også den kinesiske præsident og statsminister, og det er selvfølgelig en god impuls, at det er det første – ikke statsbesøg – men det første besøg fra dansk side med statsministeren, officielt besøg, siden 2008, da Danmark og Kina indgik et strategisk partnerskab, hvor Danmark ligesom blev det første land i Norden til at indgå et sådant særligt strategisk partnerskab med Kina. Så det er en god impuls at tage derover. Det, der så bare er vigtigt, er, at der er andet på dagsordenen end de pandaer …

Fordi, dét, Danmark SKAL med på, det er det nye paradigme, som Kina er drivkraften i, men hvor det ikke bare drejer sig om Kina, næh, det drejer sig om størstedelen af verden; det er det nye paradigme, som Kina samarbejder tæt om sammen med Rusland, sammen med stadig større dele af Asien, efterhånden det meste af Asien, men hvor Sydamerika, Afrika og andre lande også står i kø for at være med. Til dette Bælt & Vej Forum er der 30 stats- eller regeringschefer, der indtil nu har annonceret deres deltagelse, men der vil være delegationer fra over 100 lande, mange på meget højt niveau, fordi det her er stort; fordi Kina er blevet drivkraften i global udvikling. Den tankegang, man har haft i Kina, er simpelthen, at man har sagt, ’Vi har været i stand til at løfte 6 til 700.000 millioner mennesker, fattige kinesere, ud af fattigdom til et langt bedre liv; man har så en ambition om, at, i 2020 skal der ikke længere findes fattige i Kina; der skal ikke findes folk, der har problemer med, at de ikke får mad, osv. Fattigdommen skal afskaffes; men hvorfor skal det kun gælde Kina? Man har fundet ud af, at, hvis man investerer i infrastruktur, hvis man bruger penge på at investere i infrastruktur, i moderne teknologi, i modernisering af forskellige ting, jamen, så kan man løfte hele samfundet op; og det er ikke en speciel ting, der gælder for kinesere; det gælder for alle mennesker …«     

Lyd:

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 27. april, 2017 – USA og det transatlantiske finanssystem befinder sig nu ved et punkt, hvor det er på vej til en snarlig eksplosion, der overgår 2007-08. Foretagendernes gældsboble i dag, som er på $14 billion, er større end ejendomsmarkedsboblens $11 billion i 2007-08, og raten med 20 % betalingsstandsninger, som forudses for denne gæld i dag, er langt større end det, vi faktisk oplevede med ejendomslånene for et årti siden. Vi befinder os allerede i »The Big Short«, hvor Wall Street udlåner flere penge til naive tåber for at hjælpe dem til at opkøbe Wall Streets værdiløse værdipapirer – for derefter at spille imod sine egne kunder.

Hysteriet, der udstilles i Wall Streets daglige, offentlige udgydelser imod Glass-Steagall, reflekterer bankernes bevidsthed om den forestående nedsmeltning.

Intet som den nuværende situation er nogensinde blevet oplevet før, nogetsteds – det, der f.eks. skete i 2007-08, tåler ikke sammenligning med noget som helst i den nuværende verdenssituation.

Gene Kranz, mission controller i NASA, der senere blev chef mission controller for Apollo 13, beskrev i sin bog fra 2009, Failure is Not an Option (Fiasko er ikke en mulighed), hvordan hans chef, den legendariske mission controller Chris Kraft, kom hen til hans skrivebord blot to uger efter, at Kranz først startede i NASA i Langley i 1960. Kraft sagde:

»Alle andre er optaget. Jeg har kun dig tilbage. Vi har vores første Redstone-opsendelse foran os. Jeg vil gerne have, at du tager til Cape, går sammen med dem, der udfører testene og skriver en nedtælling. Skriv dernæst nogle regler for missionen. Når du er færdig, så ring til mig, og vi kommer ned og begynder træningen.«

Kranz fortsatte med at sige, at

»han må have bemærket chokket i mit ansigt, da Kraft fortsatte med at sige, ’jeg giver Paul Johnson besked om at tage imod dig i Mercury Control og give dig en hånd med’.

Min tid som iagttager var forbi, min mulighed for at nå at komme i omdrejninger afsluttet … Fra mit arbejde, senest ved Holloman Air Force Base i New Mexico, kendte jeg til flyvning, systemer, procedurer og checklister. Jeg kunne godt regne ud, hvad en nedtælling skulle indeholde. Men regler for en mission var noget andet. Der havde aldrig tidligere været en sådan mission i USA’s historie – jeg måtte simpelthen kaste mig ud i det. Eftersom der ikke var skrevet nogen bøger om den faktiske metodologi inden for rumfart, måtte vi skrive dem hen ad vejen.«

I dag er situationen den samme. Der findes ingen instruktionshåndbog. Det, vi ved, er, at vi må komme krakket i forkøbet, gennem en dybtgående mobilisering af befolkningen – ligesom en krigsmobilisering, men en dybtgående nationaløkonomisk mobilisering. Tænk på Franklin Roosevelts »100 dages program«. Stiftende redaktør for EIR, Lyndon LaRouche, forklarede, hvad dette vil sige i sine »Fire Nye Love« fra juni 2014. Revolutionen, der vælder frem fra hans »Basement« forskningsteam, giver genlyd af dette, sammen med hans »Manhattan Projekt«. Det sås i lederen af Basement-teamet Benjamin Denistons 15 minutter lange præsentation ved Schiller Instituttets konference på Manhattan den 13. april, og ligeledes af Basement-teamleder Megan Beets’ kursus den 15. april, om »Fusion; At hæve den menneskelige art.«

Det findes i hele Manhattanprojektets musikalske arbejde, ledet af Schiller Instituttets musikdirektør, John Sigerson.

»Det, man kan efterprøve, er det, I laver i Basement team, og det virker«, sagde LaRouche i dag.

»Det er funktionelt. Det, vi har gjort i Manhattan-området, har været en præstationsmæssig revolution. Så hvis I vil synke, kan I synke ved at være tåbelige. Hvis I ikke vil synke, så er det, I må gøre, at opføre jer ordentligt.«

LaRouche bemærkede, at USA og andre nationer har en iboende økonomisk kraft, der demonstreres i superhøje vækstrater, som impulser i visse perioder. Men

»så kom tyveknægtene og lukkede det ned og udbredte den myte, at det er sådan her, systemet fungerer. Men det er en myte! Det fungerer ikke sådan.«

Det, vi gør med Manhattan Projektet, hvor vi skaber en kraft for økonomisk kreativitet, må fortsættes. Der må være skabelsen af en udviklingsproces. Vi må indføre økonomisk virkelighed. Hvis det gøres, vil der ikke være noget problem, for døre vil åbne sig – før eller siden.

»Problemet i nationaløkonomier opstår, når nationaløkonomier ødelægges. Hvis man ser på det, som jeg ser på det«, sagde LaRouche,

»så har vi portene til fremgang lige frem for os. Men, vi må fastholde dem – det er forskellen.«       

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Lyd:

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 10. april, 2017 – Kinas præsident stod bogstavelig talt ved præsident Donald Trumps side i et nyt paradigme, der hastigt udvikler sig, med produktiv, økonomisk vækst, videnskabeligt fremskridt og optimisme for fremtiden, som den deprimerede amerikanske befolkning har desperat brug for. I stedet lod præsident Donald Trump sig narre af den britiske imperieillusion om en »unipolær verden« og med briterne, der er besat af ideen om at få Amerika til at gå i krig.

Præsident Trumps chokerende, totale kovending, inden for en enkelt uge, i forhold til sin årelange, stærke opposition mod de katastrofale Bush-Obama-krige for regimeskifte, blev frembragt af britiske svindelnumre. De falske påstande om russisk kontrol over Trump kommer alle sammen fra britisk efterretnings-»rapporter« og »-dossierer« og har bevirket, at han har mistet kontrollen over sit eget Nationale Sikkerhedsråd og fået hans få allierede i Kongressen til at kapitulere. Under hele Trumps kortvarige præsidentskab har britiske regeringsfolk uophørligt krævet »alliancens« militærangreb mod Syrien og nye sanktioner mod Rusland. Med præsidentens meddelelser af 30. marts om, at hans politik ikke gik ud på at »regime-udskifte« Assad i Syrien, gik de britiske og amerikanske allierede, såsom senatorerne McCain og Rubio, amok og kastede sig over »bombningen i Idlib med kemiske våben« i Syrien. Denne kunne i sig selv meget vel have været et svindelnummer, hvis ENESTE kilde til bevis er de af britiske intelligens skabte og finansierede »Hvide Hjelme«, der opererer i syriske territorier, som kontrolleres af jihadistiske ekstremister.

EIR’stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, har, lige siden den dag, da den libyske præsident Gaddafi blev væltet og myrdet af et britisk/fransk/Obama-kup i 2011, advaret om, at disse krige for regimeskifte var en march hen imod et mål, der hedder global krigskonfrontation med Rusland i særdeleshed, og også med Kina. Trump var fast besluttet på at standse denne trussel; nu er den, med denne britiske manipulation, vendt hævnende tilbage.

Som LaRouche bemærkede, så må præsident Trump nu afholde et topmøde med den russiske præsident Putin for at omstøde denne britiske march mod verdenskrig. Kreml har sagt, at Putin ikke vil mødes med den amerikanske udenrigsminister Tillerson i Moskva på onsdag, til trods for, at Tillerson har holdt stand mod den katastrofale politik for regimeskifte. Der må komme et Trump-Putin topmøde.

Det, vi ser her, er, at USA’s præsident lod sig narre af britisk imperialisme, den imperialisme, mod hvilken vi amerikanere udkæmpede vores Revolution, og det angloamerikanske dogme »verdens politibetjent«, som præsident Franklin Roosevelt forkastede.

Det amerikanske folk må nu komme sammen imod krige for regimeskifte – som de gjorde i 2013, da de forhindrede Obama i at bombe Syrien. Men mere endnu: de må komme sammen for den idé, som præsident Trump er begyndt at forsvare: det »Amerikanske Økonomiske System«, der går tilbage til Alexander Hamilton; til Clay og Lincoln; og som i dag betyder et partnerskab med Kinas Nye Silkevej og en gennemførelse af LaRouches »Fire Love til nationens redning«. 

Det er formålet med Schiller Instituttets todages konference i New York City kommende torsdag og fredag; og formålet med vore aktivisters landsdækkende mobilisering for at lægge pres på Det Hvide Hus. Trump må rydde ud i sit hus for fortalere, der er agenter for briternes krigskonfrontation med Rusland; og vende tilbage til kampagnen for det Amerikanske System.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

»Det er den 10. april, og vi befinder os i en meget dramatisk, meget uhyggelig, eskalerende situation internationalt: På baggrund af denne dybt uansvarlige og britisk fremprovokerede Trump-aktion, hvor Donald Trump torsdag aften amerikansk tid, fredag morgen europæisk tid, giver besked om, at amerikanske missiler skulle ramme mål, denne flybase i Syrien. Det skete på baggrund af, hvad der helt klart er ’fake news’: beskeden om, at syriske fly skulle have brugt kemiske våben, sarin, i et angreb i Syrien; og der er ikke nogen tvivl om – og det er der i efterretningsverden meget stor diskussion om – at det syriske luftvåben ikke brugte kemiske våben til dette angreb. Ikke desto mindre, så, i vanlig stil, som vi har set det, hver gang, man ønsker at skabe krig, så har man ellers lanceret historien med fuld musik i medierne; der er ingen snak om sagen, det her er Assad, Assad har gjort det her; hvad er russernes ansvar; vi må gøre noget; Trump som repræsentant for den frie verden har gjort det rigtige, han går ind og trækker en streg i sandet, gør det, Obama aldrig turde gøre, nemlig … og så stilles Assad til ansvar … og de går ind og bomber. Og det her er jo totalt i modstrid med alt det, Donald Trump blev valgt på; hvorfor valgte den amerikanske befolkning Donald Trump …?«            

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

»Det er i dag 6. april, den første dag i et todages møde i Florida … mellem Donald Trump og Xi Jinping. Der er mange spekulationer om, hvad der skal komme ud af det. Det er meget, meget tidligt i Trumps præsidenttid, at man tager et så stort møde; det er trods alt mellem verdens to største økonomiske magter. Meget vigtigt møde; det er givet, at begge sider har forberedt sig rigtig godt. Donald Trump er også assisteret af udenrigsminister Tillerson, der jo som bekendt … skulle have været til NATO-topmøde netop nu, men hvor han på forhånd annoncerede, at han ikke kom til NATO ministertopmødet, fordi han havde vigtigere ting at tage sig til, nemlig dette møde med Kina, og så flyttede man NATO ministertopmødet … Tillerson var som bekendt for meget kort tid siden i Kina og havde lange diskussioner med Xi Jinping, og i den forbindelse ikke mindre end to gange sagde de magiske ord: USA under Donald Trump ønsker et meget positivt forhold til Kina, baseret på politikken om ingen konfrontation, ingen konflikt, gensidig respekt, og at man altid vil søge efter win-win-løsninger … «       

Lyd:

Jeg tror, vi meget klart kan sige, med en omskrivning af den store statsmand fra det 19. århundrede, Henry C. Carey, at to systemer er stedt for verden. Det ene er det Amerikanske System, og det andet er det Britiske System. Vi befinder os i et fuldt optrappet opgør; et opgør, som Lyndon LaRouche har været engageret i, i mere end 40 år, men som nu har nået et afgørende punkt. Som vi diskuterede i mandags, så har præsident Trump eksplicit torpederet den britisk-amerikanske, ’særlige relation’, med sin afvisning af at tilbagevise den påstand, at GCHQ var involveret i aflytning af medlemmer af Trump-administrationen efter valgene i november. Udenrigsminister Tillerson har netop været på besøg i Kina, hvor han eksplicit sagde, at USA og Kina vil udforske en »win-win«-relation; så vi vil få en win-win-relation med Kina, til erstatning for den særlige relation med Det britiske Imperium. Og, hvad der er meget vigtigt, så har præsident Trump, i løbet af denne uge, gjort sig selv til den første, amerikanske præsident siden præsident McKinley[1], der eksplicit har nævnt det Amerikanske Økonomiske System som den økonomiske model, som han søger at anvende i det nuværende USA. Det sagde han, ikke kun ved én lejlighed, med ved to forskellige lejligheder.

Jeg tror, vi meget klart kan sige, med en omskrivning af den store statsmand fra det 19. århundrede, Henry C. Carey, at to systemer er stedt for verden. Det ene er det Amerikanske System, og det andet er det Britiske System. Vi befinder os i et fuldt optrappet opgør; et opgør, som Lyndon LaRouche har været engageret i, i mere end 40 år, men som nu har nået et afgørende punkt. Som vi diskuterede i mandags, så har præsident Trump eksplicit torpederet den britisk-amerikanske, ’særlige relation’, med sin afvisning af at tilbagevise den påstand, at GCHQ var involveret i aflytning af medlemmer af Trump-administrationen efter valgene i november. Udenrigsminister Tillerson har netop været på besøg i Kina, hvor han eksplicit sagde, at USA og Kina vil udforske en »win-win«-relation; så vi vil få en win-win-relation med Kina, til erstatning for den særlige relation med Det britiske Imperium. Og, hvad der er meget vigtigt, så har præsident Trump, i løbet af denne uge, gjort sig selv til den første, amerikanske præsident siden præsident McKinley[1], der eksplicit har nævnt det Amerikanske Økonomiske System som den økonomiske model, som han søger at anvende i det nuværende USA. Det sagde han, ikke kun ved én lejlighed, med ved to forskellige lejligheder.

Vi begynder dagens udsendelse med to korte klip af disse to taler, hvor præsident Trump diskuterer det Amerikanske System, ved navns nævnelse. Det første klip er fra begyndelsen af hans tale i Louisville, Kentucky; hvor han citerer Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Boone og Henry Clay, grundlæggeren af det Amerikanske, økonomiske System. Her kommer klippet:

Trump: »Vores første Republikanske præsident, Abraham Lincoln, blev født her i Kentucky. Det er ikke så dårligt. Den legendariske pioner Daniel Boone var med til at kolonisere Kentucky. Og den store, 1800-tals amerikanske statsmand, Henry Clay, repræsenterede Kentucky i USA’s Kongres. Henry Clay var tilhænger af det, han kaldte det Amerikanske System; og han foreslog told for at beskytte amerikansk industri og finansiere amerikansk infrastruktur.«

Ogden: Dernæst deltog præsident Trump i en fundraiser for den Nationale Republikanske Kongres-komite, og brugte størstedelen af sin tale til at diskutere det Amerikanske System endnu en gang, såvel som også den historiske anvendelse af det Amerikanske System; inklusive Abraham Lincoln og andre præsidenter. Vi afspiller to korte klip fra denne tale:

Trump: »Jeg har kaldt denne model, den model, som I har iagttaget, den model, der har skabt så meget værdi, modellen for at bringe jobs tilbage og for at bringe industri tilbage; jeg har kaldt det for den Amerikanske Model. Det er det system, som vore grundlæggere ønskede. Vore største, amerikanske ledere – inkl. George Washington, Hamilton, Jackson, Lincoln – de var alle enige i, at, for at Amerika kunne blive en stærk nation, må det også være en stor, vareproducerende nation; må tjene penge. Den Republikanske partiplatform for 1896 – for mere end hundrede år siden – erklærede, at beskyttelse (protektion) og gensidighed er tvillingemetoder i amerikansk politik, og går hånd i hånd. Vi har situationer, hvor andre lande har nul respekt for vores land – har I for resten lagt mærke til, at de er begyndt at respektere os meget? Rigtig meget. De pålægger os 100 % skat på nogle ting – 100 %; og vi pålægger ikke dem noget som helst. De vil gøre det umuligt gennem regler for vores produkter at blive solgt i deres land; og alligevel sælger de rutinemæssigt deres produkter i vores land. Det vil ikke fortsætte. Ordet gensidighed; de gør det, vi gør det. Hvem kan klage over det? Stor forskel. Vi taler store, store dollars, for resten. Denne platform fortsatte med, ’Vi fornyer og understreger vores troskab over for politikken for protektion som bolværket for amerikanske, industriel uafhængighed og som fundamentet for amerikansk udvikling og velstand.’«

»Vores første Republikanske præsident, Abraham Lincoln, kørte sin første kampagne for offentligt embede i 1832, da han var blot 23 år gammel. Han begyndte med at forestille sig, hvilke fordele en jernbane ville bringe hans del af Illinois, uden nogensinde at have set et damplokomotiv. Han havde ingen idé om det; og dog vidste han, hvad det kunne være. Tredive år senere underskrev han som præsident den lov, der byggede den Transkontinentale Jernbane; som forenede vores land fra hav til hav. Stor præsident; de fleste mennesker ved ikke engang, at han var Republikaner. Er der nogen, der ved det? Mange mennesker ved det ikke; det må vi opbygge lidt mere. Lad os bruge en af disse PACs (Political Action Committee). Disse PACs, man ved aldrig, hvad pokker der kommer fra disse PACs. Man tror, de er venligtsindede. Selvom den bedste annonce, jeg nogensinde har haft, var én imod mig fra Hillary; den var så god, at jeg sagde, ’Jeg håber, hun bliver ved med at køre den annonce’.

»En anden stor, Republikansk præsident, Dwight Eisenhower, havde en vision for en national infrastrukturplan.  Som officer i hæren efter Første Verdenskrig gik han med i et militært land, der trekkede tværs over landet til Stillehavskysten. De rejste langs Lincoln Highway, det hed dengang Lincoln Highway. Rejsen begyndte ved Det Hvide Hus’ sydlige plæne, ved et monument, som i dag kendes som ’Zero-Milepælen’. Ved I, hvor det er? Turen gjorde et stort indtryk på den dengang unge Eisenhower. Mere end tre årtier senere, som præsident, underskrev han en lov, der skabte vores store, inter-delstats-jernbanesystem; som atter forenede os som nation. Tiden er nu kommet til, at en ny Republikansk administration, i samarbejde med en Republikansk Kongres, vedtager den næste store infrastrukturlov.«

Matthew Ogden: Han fortsætter med at sige, at vi må drømme lige så stort og dristigt som Lincoln og Eisenhower. Det var et kort uddrag af en meget længere tale for den Nationale Republikanske Kongres-komite; men vi er her for at indgå i en diskussion med jer, det amerikanske folk, og med administrationen, om de afgørende principper, der er fundamentet for det Amerikanske Økonomiske System. LaRouchePAC har en meget enestående autoritet på dette felt, for det har været Lyndon LaRouche, der, hen over de seneste 35-40 år, har været den førende person, der har været fortaler for en tilbagevenden til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System.

Før vi går videre, vil Paul [Gallagher] forklare lidt nærmere om baggrunden, så folk ved, hvad det Amerikanske System rent faktisk er.

Paul Gallagher: Jeg vil først komme med en iagttagelse, som først blev gjort af Lyndon LaRouche i sin første rapport – han så begge disse fremlæggelser af Trump – og det er, at Trump ikke siger disse ting for en politik fordel. Han taler om specifikke ting i det Amerikanske System, der grundlæggende set er ukendte for hans Republikanske tilhørere i det ene tilfælde, og til hans store publikum i Kentucky i det andet tilfælde. Han siger ikke, »Ophæv Obamacare« eller andre samtaleemner, der skaffer politisk fordel. Men i stedet instruerer, underviser han lytterne; i det ene tilfælde, en stor gruppe af den amerikanske befolkning, og i det andet tilfælde, Republikanske aktivister og fundraisers. Han underviser dem i noget, som de bogstavelig talt intet ved om; så der er ingen politisk fordel her. Han siger disse ting, fordi han virkelig mener det; fordi han mener, at dette er den politik, som USA bør [have]. Dette anti-britiske Amerikanske System, og sådan blev det beskrevet af den store økonom, som var Lincolns økonomiske chefrådgiver, Henry C. Carey. Sådan blev det beskrevet af Carey, som det Amerikanske System; i hele verden – ikke kun i det unge USA, men i hele verden – i opposition til det Britiske System, som indtil da havde domineret og styret verden finansielt og økonomisk. Dette var en ny måde at organisere en nations økonomi for først og fremmest at frembringe hurtigt, teknologisk fremskridt; især inden for vareproduktion og inden for erobring af fremskudte grænser inden for infrastruktur, som jernbaner og kanaler, der strakte sig dybt ind i landets indre; havne, der kunne rumme en flåde og en handelsflåde, der kunne konkurrere, og sluttelig endda overgå, de tilsvarende britiske flåder. Og, hvad der er meget vigtigt, noget, han kaldte for »En interesseharmoni«; noget, der er så fuldstændig fremmed for de politikker, som Trump nu blander sig i. At interesserne hos, på den ene side, de ansatte arbejdere, med hensyn til fundamentalt fremskridt, er identiske med interessen hos deres arbejdsgivere; at der er en »interesse-harmoni« imellem dem. Og for det andet, at der er en interesse-harmoni i det, vi er begyndt at kalde »win-win« mellem nationer, der i fællesskab investerer i nye infrastrukturplatforme, i nye rejser til Månen, i nye rejser til Månens bagside, og i videnskabelige eventyr, der ikke tidligere er foretaget; at disse virkelig udgør et interessefællesskab. En fundamental interesse i disse to nationers befolkningers fremskridt, og at der ikke er nogen geopolitisk modsætning mellem disse nationer i det tilfælde, hvor de følger denne form for udviklingspolitikker.

Det Amerikanske System have altså tre grundpiller i det 19. århundrede, eller ansås at have tre grundpiller; og disse tre grundpiller var, anvendelsen af protektion af nationale industrier, som præsidenten talte om. Protektion og gensidighed inden for handel, for at sikre, at vareproducerende industrier kunne udvikles. For det andet, anvendelsen af national (statslig) kredit i form af en statslig bankpraksis (nationalbank) – som den blev opfundet af Alexander Hamilton – for at drive nationens økonomi frem mod nye fremskudte grænser for varefremstilling, for teknologi, for videnskab, ved at yde det, som lokal og privat kredit ikke kunne yde, gennem statslig bankpraksis. Og for det tredje, anvendelse af denne regeringsmyndighed til rent faktisk at frembringe de mest avancerede forbedringer internt i landet – som vi i dag kalder infrastruktur – og ligeledes frembringe en reel harmoni – en overensstemmelse – mellem interesser, eller en ramme, inden for hvilken der kan være harmoni mellem interesserne hos både de ansattes og deres arbejdsgiveres bestræbelser. Og ligeledes [en harmoni] mellem USA og andre republikker; så Monroe-doktrinen var også en del af det Amerikanske System på det tidspunkt, hvilket betød, at USA ville gøre, hvad der stod i dets magt som en ung nation, for at blokere for de Britiske og Franske Imperiers forsøg på at overtage kontrollen over unge republikker i Sydamerika i særdeleshed; og ved at blokere for dette, ville det muliggøre en gensidig fordel og udvikling mellem de sydamerikanske republikker og Amerikas Forenede Stater.

Disse elementer var fantastisk succesrige. Selvom præsident Trump sagde, ophavsmanden var Henry Clay – meget vigtig med hensyn til lovgivning, og mht. at kæmpe for dette i Kongressen – men ophavsmanden er faktisk Alexander Hamilton. Man kan f.eks. læse denne vidunderlige og store bog af James G. Blaine, der var udenrigsminister. Han var tæt på at blive Republikansk præsidentkandidat i 1880, og han var mangeårigt medlem af Senatet. Hans bog, der handler om det 19. århundredes økonomiske historie i USA, og som han kaldte Twenty Years of Congress, handlede i virkeligheden om 80 år af hele Amerikas økonomiske historie. Når man læser denne bog, ser man, at han i detaljer forklarer, at, når disse principper for det Amerikanske System var lig med den amerikanske regerings og den amerikanske nationaløkonomis principper, så blomstrede økonomien. Og når de ikke var, især i perioden fra midten af 1830’erne og frem til Borgerkrigen, f.eks., hvor Nationalbanken blev frataget sit charter og blev ødelagt af Jackson; når principperne ikke var, så var resultatet finanskaos, panikker, økonomiske sammenbrud, ubegrænset import og mangel på amerikansk eksport. Og sluttelig, som det kunne forudses, opbrydningen af nationen i en borgerkrig; hvor præsident Lincoln måtte genetablere det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, som præsidenten (Trump) nævnte, at han gjorde, i processen med at vinde krigen for Unionen og samle nationen igen.

Anton Chaitkin, der har skrevet historiske artikler for Executive Intelligence Review og LaRouche-bevægelsen, har ligeledes i endnu større detaljer dokumenteret og forklaret, at det Amerikanske System var enormt succesrigt mht. dette lands fremskridt. Og når dets principper blev opgivet, kom vi ind i alvorlige vanskeligheder, både politisk, militært, økonomisk, finansielt – meget alvorlige vanskeligheder. Det er absurd at antage, at disse principper skulle være ophørt at være sande – disse principper for økonomi skulle være ophørt at være sande, på et eller andet tidspunkt i løbet af det 20. århundrede, og dernæst forsvandt. Det er ekstraordinært, at præsident Trump nu siger, at det er principperne – selv om I, de amerikanske borgere, i det store og hele ikke engang ved, hvad de er eller hvad de betyder – dette er de principper, på hvilke vi igen kan gøre dette land stort, som han hele tiden siger.

Det er en ekstraordinært vigtig indgriben, og det bringer omgående frem i forreste linje de seneste 50 års økonom i det Amerikanske Systems tradition; den herskende, og næsten eneste, og ganske bestemt den mest berømte økonom i det Amerikanske Systems tradition i de seneste 50 år, Lyndon LaRouche, der har bearbejdet disse principper til en moderne form (LaRouches Fire Love).

Så kan vi gå i gang.

(Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift):   

        MICHAEL STEGER: Okay, I can follow that up, I guess. I think
what Paul just laid out is very critical to grasping the
potential this Trump administration represents. One of the
biggest problems we have right now in the American population is
the outright treason of this Obama faction, this British faction
in American politics. Much of what we just presented from Trump's
speeches I would recommend people going back to them. There's
also the speech he made over a week ago at Willow Run Airport
near Detroit, where not only does he call for a second industrial
revolution — the first being the one that Abraham Lincoln
launched in the middle of the Civil War, which was consolidated
by the 1876 Centennial Exposition — he also referenced this in
his February 28 Address to a Joint Session Congress. But he also
calls for having faith in the American worker, American
companies, and to have faith in foreign nations who built
factories in our land — really, clearly, opening up the door for
the questions of China, Japan, and other nations to rebuild the
U.S. manufacturing base that's so desperately needed.
        And that's what I think is so important about this political
situation, one the media is not presenting at all. So we have to
make a breakthrough. People have to get a sense of what President
Trump is presenting in this perspective, and to recognize other
moments when the American System was applied both by Hamilton, by
Lincoln, by those following in Lincoln's tradition like Grant and
McKinley, also Franklin Roosevelt. It was interesting in that
speech, Matt, that he presented in Washington, D.C. to the
Republican Committee dinner on March 21, he does make a very
clear reference to FDR. He references a child born in poverty
with dreams in its heart, waiting. He says the waiting is over,
the time for action is now, which is a clear reference to the
kind of urgency that Franklin Roosevelt came into the Presidency
in 1933, to address the economic depression.

        OGDEN:  The other explicit reference that he makes right
after that Franklin Roosevelt reference is John F. Kennedy. He
says "Now is the time for New Frontiers," which was the Kennedy
phrase, and looking forward into space, the exploration of space,
and these are the kinds of dreams that a child born today can
realize in the future — a new era of optimism.

        STEGER: The American people are absolutely ignorant of any
of this at this point. Largely the media, regardless, left, right
Fox News, CNN — it's all right now either outright treason or
just intellectually stupid, incapable of understanding what's
actually taking place; that there is a revival of this political
tradition. It's the one that the modern Democratic Party was
based on from Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, and that Obama
destroyed. It's now being revived by Donald Trump against
outright ideological opposition throughout most of the Republican
Party, as we see with this disastrous health care bill put
forward by Paul Ryan, Wall Street, and the health insurance
companies.
        One, they're just not aware of it. The second part, which is
where this actually comes from. What did Lyndon LaRouche actually
revive? Lyn made a unique discovery. It wasn't just simply a
historical redevelopment or re-finding of this American
tradition, referenced by Lincoln, McKinley, and others. Lyn made
a fundamental advancement to the entire sense of what this
American System was. He was able to situate it in a higher
conception of scientific thought. That's not surprising, because,
as Lincoln and others made these advancements in the United
States, the profound scientific revolutions especially in
Germany, by people like Carl Gauss, Bernard Riemann, the Weber
brothers. There were major advancements, then, later, by
Einstein, that opened up a scientific era of advancement and
development that mankind had never seen before. This was partly
unleashed by Franklin Roosevelt with the Manhattan Project, to
unleash the power of the atom, as Eisenhower captured, and the
Atoms for Peace project.
        In the wake of that, Lyndon LaRouche recognized that these
basic conceptions of scientific advancement had not yet been
applied to economic thought, in the way that they needed to be.
In having recognized a unique discovery of economic science, in
that process, he revived this American System. That unfolded.
There was a process of rediscovery of these principles that Paul
just laid out. What Lyn has done in presenting, just a few years
ago now, the Four Laws, the four new laws, if you look at this
document, it's stunning. The Four Laws, as they're stated in a
positive statement, are clearly rooted in Hamilton, Lincoln,
Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy. They're clearly rooted in
the American System. In an article you wrote recently, Paul, the
first step, obviously, is the Glass-Steagall. Tax reform, health
care? These things are total diversions from addressing the real
economic crisis the country faces: to stop this collapse of
lifespan, to shut down this drug epidemic, to get the American
people working. The Glass-Steagall, and a launch of this kind of
infrastructure development and a national bank, are absolutely
key.
        But then, in the broader sense of the Four Laws, is that
higher question of principle. That's really what's key, because
history does not work by parts. Economy does not work by parts.
It's a question of a domain of principle that is unified uniquely
within the powers of the human mind. That is that great
scientific tradition of Cusa and Kepler, Gauss and Riemann. It's
this conception of actually acting upon history effectively.
Because as the questions of the Glass-Steagall are raised — and
Paul, perhaps you can say more because there is an ongoing
discussion of this — the questions of the National Bank have yet
been raised, and that's absolutely key. We've got to get a way of
increasing the credit towards this development project, because
we are unable to turn to the current banking system. Wall Street
is {incapable}, both philosophically and I think financially, of
really making the investments necessary to get this nation moving
again.
        This higher characteristic of the principle of the discovery
is essential to the change in the historical process. As Mr.
LaRouche has said, President Trump does seem to capture this. The
people around him certainly don't. But it's {obviously} clear
that there is practically {no one} in Congress who understands
this. Otherwise why would they have paid heed for so long to
President Obama's absolute treason to the country and its people?
You see it in Paul Ryan's failed leadership in the House today.
        If we're going to have a revival of this American System
foundations, unlike during the 19th Century,  when these
characteristics of a sense of the unique nature of mankind were
still somewhat understood; Lincoln captured them in his love of
Shakespeare, and the recognition of Shakespeare's strategic
importance. But today there's been a loss of the actual principle
nature of mankind acting in the universe. That's what we have to
ultimately address. The process of the Laws, or the policies, are
not simply things that you will adopt and expect to function. You
must recognize you're establishing these institutions of
Glass-Steagall and the National Bank with a commitment towards
infrastructure and scientific advancement; but they ultimately
have to be governed by a re-awakening of this higher creative
principle.
        I would say, very clearly, this American System is one of
the highest expressions of that renaissance tradition coming out
of Europe to found a new world, to develop a new culture and
society, and to now develop it. It's clearly on that basis — and
Matt, I think you might have more to say on this — that with the
revival of this tradition, both the Lincoln tradition of the
Republican Party, the Franklin Roosevelt and Kennedy tradition in
the Democratic Party, the United States is more that capable of
creating a relationship among Russia, China, and the United
States that not only eliminates the British Empire once and for
all, but does really establish a new human species on this
planet. I think that discussion that Trump has now introduced,
with LaRouche's Four Laws, really makes that more possible and
more feasible than I think any of us had imagined just a few
months ago.

        GALLAGHER: This is a bombshell for members of Congress of
both parties, if they're listening; because if you take
Glass-Steagall, for example, the restoration of which Lyndon
LaRouche has made a {sine qua non} of restoring the American
System of economy now. In earlier times, when the American System
was understood, both as an anti-British, anti-City of London
economic system, or means of organizing the government and the
economy, when it was understood in that way, the direct
connection between restoring Glass-Steagall, establishing a
national credit institution, a Hamiltonian National Bank,
investing in the most advanced infrastructures, such as national
high-speed rail systems, reviving the deep-space human
exploration; the connections among these things would be
relatively self-evident to an American System spokesman, not
necessarily even a great thinker of that system like Henry Carey,
but a spokesman like James G. Blaine in the government and in the
Congress. It would be immediately evident to them now that these
are all part of one policy; that when you talk about
Glass-Steagall, you're talking about returning the part of the
banking system on which the nation is driven in economic
progress, you're returning that part of the banking system to the
definition of banking of Alexander Hamilton, who didn't confront
Glass-Steagall, but he did confront all manner of what today we
would call wild investment banks, hedge funds posing as
government banks, posing as banks speculating in government debt,
and so forth. And Hamilton established the dominance of the model
of what today we call a commercial bank, who's purpose it is to
connect the savings of the nation, by lending, to the hands of
those, as he said, who can make the most productive use of it.
That was the function of a bank; that was the need for
proliferation of banks; and clearly that was the need to have a
national bank whose purpose was to provide the credit which these
individual local banks were incapable of providing; and also the
direction for investment of that credit so that a
transcontinental railroad would emerge where it had previously
seemed impossible on any continent to make such a world-spanning
transportation corridor.  Those things would be directly
connected in their mind; so those who were fighting for
Glass-Steagall in the Congress would simultaneously, naturally be
fighting for the creation of a national Hamiltonian bank to do
what Trump is groping towards — these trillions of dollars of
investment in new infrastructure.  And they would naturally be
fighting for the expansion and revival of the space program as a
deep space human exploration program; and these other things
would come together for them.  Whereas now you find many people
who simply regard Glass-Steagall as something to prevent another
2008 collapse; something which is merely a kind of a prophylactic
that keeps banks from committing crimes of speculation and from
bringing down the economy.  Well fine, it is that; but it is the
doorway to making the American economy work according to the
principle of the American System before.  As President Trump does
have absolutely right, it has been functioning on absolutely
opposite principles to the American System; especially for the
last 40 years, especially in the period  known as complete
globalization after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Especially
in the period in which real harmony of interests manufacturing
employment in the United States has gone away and left behind it
despair, drug addiction, constricting life expectancies, and
general impoverishment of what was the American System that
worked for us through the period of Roosevelt and Kennedy.
        So, that's where LaRouche has uniquely been able to express
this over the last nearly half a century; that you're really
talking about one impulse for human progress and an impulse that
is international.  It brings together nations, because
fundamentally over whole continents, over the Solar System even,
nations have the same expansion and progress objectives; and
therefore, if they work together on them, they have a harmony of
interests.  This is what now is coming from the Chinese Belt and
Road Initiative, which in turn ultimately came from Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche and their work.

        OGDEN:  I would like to say something on that directly.
This is President Trump at the Kentucky speech; he said "For too
long, our government has abandoned the American System."  I think
that's clearly stated.  We've been engaged in an educational
campaign, a fight in the United States to educate the American
people and to educate the American leadership on what the
American System is.  I pulled this out, we can go to the Four
Laws, which is obviously what we're talking about: Lyndon
LaRouche's Hamiltonian economic program for the present moment.
But I pulled this out; this is a pamphlet from 2012.  We named it
"Platform for a New Presidency; the Full Recovery Program for the
United States"; and I can tell you, because I was involved in
writing this, that we intentionally made this a nonpartisan
document, because this wasn't for the Republican Party or for the
Democratic Party.  This was for the United States; to establish a
completely new economic policy for the running of the United
States.  In this pamphlet, we had an entire case study of the
history of the application of the American System; which went
through Alexander Hamilton's creation of the national bank and
his "Report on Manufactures", which is a very important part of
this.  It went through John Quincy Adams; and then let me read
you one quote here, and tell me if this sounds familiar.  "It was
in the election of 1832, right in the middle of the fight over
the national bank, that Abraham Lincoln got his start in
politics.  Lincoln was 22 years old; and his platform was Henry
Clay's American System, a revival of the Hamiltonian program."
We quoted this perhaps apocryphal quote, but I think it's very
apropos from Abraham Lincoln's campaign speech in 1832: "I
presume you all know who I am.  I am humble Abraham Lincoln.  My
politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance.  I am
in favor of a national bank, the internal improvement system, and
a high protective tariff."
        Anyway, we went on to elaborate how this was applied over
the coming 50 years; McKinley, Franklin Roosevelt, even John F
Kennedy's program.  But this is something that has been the
substance of the LaRouche movement's campaign to educate the
American leadership, and to create a new cadre of American
leadership in the United States.  What you said, Paul, about how
just because it's called the American System does not mean it's
somehow exclusively American; this was called the American system
because it was explicitly in counter to the British system, as it
was originally conceived.  We fought the American Revolution
against the British Empire.  The British Empire applied a system
of colonialism and enforced poverty and slavery on the world.  We
fought a revolution against that; Alexander Hamilton created a
new system — this was the American System.  The mission was to
give this system to the world; so over the course of the 19th
Century, countries around the world began to emulate the American
System in order to use those economic principles to gain their
independence from imperialism.  Some of the well-known cases: the
case of Friedrich List, a German economist; the case of Irish
economist Arthur Griffith, who used Friedrich List's ideas in
their fight for independence.  Very important in this case is Sun
Yat Sen; the founding father of modern China emulated Abraham
Lincoln's model of government and of economics.  So now when
we're talking about creating a new win-win cooperation with
China; building the New Silk Road; turning this into a World
Land-Bridge economic platform.  This is the return to the fight
of the last 200 years to spread this American system; the
Hamiltonian system around the world, to free mankind from the
British Empire once and for all.  That's how it has to be
understood.  So, we're not talking about some kind of
nationalistic American-exclusive system; we're talking about
something which nations around the world can apply and share and
use as the basis for a new paradigm of win-win relations among
countries.

        GALLAGHER:  When Hamilton was developing the American System
and was known by Washington to be fighting for a government with
capabilities, a government with strength; not with eternally
broad responsibilities, but with strength to carry out the
responsibilities that it had.  At that time, he was attacked on
the idea that if you were for a strong government, you were for
the employers, you were for the wealthy.  Now, we have the
inverse in contemporary party warfare, where it's assumed that if
you're for a strong government, you're for the poor; and you
think the only thing government really does other than national
defense is to give things to the poor in order to equalize them
with the wealthy.  In other words, oppose the employers.  These
ideas indicate just how striking it is, for President Trump at
this point, to reintroduce this idea with everything involved in
it, including the harmony of interests. And when he speaks to
unions, who tend to support him, and did during the campaign, as
Mike indicated in Detroit to industrial workers; that harmony of
interest is definitely part of what he is conveying to them.  The
same thing is true in terms of trade; but without getting into
that in detail, that seems to be the aspect of the American
System on which President Trump has the most developed ideas, has
the greatest emphasis.  Trade, reciprocity, get American exports.
This is considered complete heresy and not even worth discussing
by London-educated economists and all of their imitators today;
but in fact, it is true that reciprocity — if you start with the
potential idea of tariffs and you negotiate reciprocal
elimination of the tariffs in the context of  countries jointly
investing in their mutual development — that you wind up not
with a system necessarily of high tariffs at all.  But rather,
with a system in which there is mutual investment in the most
important projects of economic progress and  infrastructure
development in both of those countries; as well as manufacturing
development in both of those countries.  It is not absurd; the
alternatives that are thrown out about how you can run as large a
trade deficit as you want, it doesn't matter because the bigger
your trade deficit, the more direct investment you will get into
your country; as if that was some sort of automatic built-in
stabilizer.  These arguments, in fact, have no basis; and the
purpose of a government with strength at this point, as Hamilton
outlined it, is to be able to make those kinds of critical
investments and win-win agreements among countries. And also
investments domestically, which bring the progress back; bring
the manufacturing capabilities back at a higher level.  Bring the
scientific and technological capabilities back into industry and
make it work.
        Even though we're not seeing President Trump equally develop
all aspects of the American System in the way he's presenting and
fighting for it, Lyndon LaRouche has; and has put it in the form
of these Four Laws that have to be taken not only by the United
States, so that there is a real opportunity there to shape this
policy.  That's what we've got to fight for.  We're doing it with
major international conferences — there's another one taking
place in Europe today; in a couple of weeks in New York City, a
very important one with a lot of international speakers on the
subject of making international the New Silk Road global
infrastructure investments that were initiated through China, and
making this into a platform of progress in which the United
States is going to join.  That's how we're pursuing this, but we
have an opening to shape, as you said in the pamphlet, the policy
of the Presidency; and that's the most important thing.  It's not
the policy of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party; but
the policy of the Presidency as Hamilton already identified that
as key to the American System when others wanted America to not
even have a President.  They wanted it to just have a legislature
like poor old Ireland and other republics.

        OGDEN:  I think you can see that people are beginning to get
inspired — even members of Congress.  There was the signing of
the NASA authorization budget at the White House on Monday, I
believe; and it's the first NASA authorization in seven years,
which is unbelievable.  Obviously, there's much more that needs
to be done; but people are inspired.  One of the members of
Congress said, just as Americans remember that President
Eisenhower was the father of the interstate highway system, with
your bill signing today and your vision and leadership, future
generations will remember that President Donald Trump was the
father of the interplanetary highway system.  So, I think that's
an appropriate comment for the 100th anniversary of space
visionary and pioneer Krafft Ehricke's birthday, which we're
celebrating today and we've been celebrating this whole week.
        But this is not a view toward the past.  Right now, it's a
time of action; it's a time of — as President Trump said in that
speech — this is the time when great deeds must be accomplished.
It's a vision; it's a question of where does mankind go next?
What are the frontiers of discovery?  What are the frontiers of
exploration?  Absolutely, not only the development of a modern
economic platform for the planet, a transportation and energy
platform like we're talking about with the expansion of the New
Silk Road into the World Land-Bridge; that must be done.  But the
expansion of mankind into becoming an interplanetary species and
the abiding principles which Alexander Hamilton developed with
the founding of this country, were not simply principles merely
for the 18th Century; they were not principles merely for the
19th Century.
        The nature of principles is that they exist and they are
eternal.  And principles of economics — as Lyndon LaRouche has
developed them in his modern application of this American System,
as you were saying, Michael — require that mankind continue to
progress and to push the envelopes of knowledge and to push the
envelopes of progress.  Where does that take us today?  It takes
us into space.  There's a very good reason why Mr. LaRouche's
Four Laws economic document begins and ends with the idea of
mankind as an interplanetary species beginning to explore and
colonize the Solar System and beyond.  This is the identity of
mankind; and economics begins and ends with what makes mankind
unique as a species.  So, Michael, maybe you want to say a little
bit more about that, but I do think as we look at what Lyndon
LaRouche's role has been on the record over the last 40 years as
the leading modern spokesman of the American System of economics.
I have a few books here — these are props:  {The Political
Economy of the American Revolution}, published by the LaRouche
movement; {The Civil War and the American System; America's
Battle with Britain 1860 to 1876}, Allen Salisbury, published by
the LaRouche movement; {Friedrich List: Outlines of the American
System of Political Economy}.  These are just a few selections of
the books that have been published over the last 30 years as part
of the LaRouche movement's educational campaign on the principle
of the American System.

        GALLAGHER:  Make that 50!  At the time that these were being
published in the 1970s, they were, in fact, since the turn of the
20th Century, the first significant publications on the American
System that had appeared anywhere.

        STEGER:  That comes to my final point, which is that Lyn's
put a lot of emphasis on the very clear revival of Alexander
Hamilton; that he really was the founder of this as a conception.
I think it's also very clear that if this is going to be
successful today, given the very complex world we're living in
Before I get to that point, let me just say we haven't touched on
it and I think it's important.  This is why there is a coup
attempted against Donald Trump; this is why there is an outright
attempt to overthrow him and prevent him from even taking the
Presidency.  And at this point, to try to impeach him or force
him out by assassination or other means; because there is this
threat of this revival.  But if we're going to make this New
Paradigm work, you can't ignore the discoverer.  The damage done
by continuing to ascribe Isaac Newton with the discovery of
gravitation has done great harm.  Even with Einstein's attempt to
end that insanity, there's still a great harm done to the
scientific thought of mankind to think that Isaac Newton's
statistical version of gravitation was the nature of its
discovery.  There has to be a revival of Lyndon LaRouche.  The
members of Congress, the policy centers in this country and the
world must look to Lyn's ideas over these 50 years to understand
the means by which we implement this higher conception of
economics known as the American System.  It really was Lyn's
discovery which made the basis for its revival in the first
place.  So, I think a full exoneration is more than due; but I
think a full implementation of Lyn's writings and ideas is
absolutely critical, and are really the outright objective of any
patriot of this country.  It is to acknowledge Lyn's role and his
discovery in setting the foundation of not only the building of
our country, but what we see internationally with this New
Paradigm.

        GALLAGHER:  You mentioned at the beginning, 34 years ago
this week, that President Ronald Reagan adopted an outline of
policy — namely the Strategic Defense Initiative — which had
been developed and circulated internationally by Lyndon LaRouche.
At that time, virtually no one knew what he was talking about; I
remember I got to make my one and only appearance on a national
television morning news show on the basis that I had some idea —
which came from LaRouche — of what Reagan was talking about.
But it was admitted in many places later on that that initiative
by Reagan led to the collapse of the Soviet Union; it led to the
development of fundamentally new technologies which are still
revolutionizing areas now.  Now you have a situation 35 years
later; another American President is taking up what over the past
half-century only LaRouche has developed.  President Trump has
all sorts of errors and faults and warts and so forth; yes he
does.  But don't imagine for a minute that the British
spear-headed attempt to get rid of him as President is not for
this exact reason, and has nothing to do with policies of health
care, or even for that matter, connections with discussions with
the Russian ambassador.  It has to do with the fact that this was
such a tremendous break, even with all of Trump's shortcomings in
many regards, this thrust of his which was already implicitly
visible when he was running for office and immediately as he was
being inaugurated; this was such a tremendous break with the
deleterious policies of finance and economics of the last half
century, the so-called "globalization" era, that there was an
immediate vitriolic response from the standpoint of British
finance and spreading from there to the European elites and so
forth, into what has now made the Democratic Party leadership of
the United States, into virtually a McCarthy-ite mob for reasons
that they don't even understand.  They're looking for Russians
everywhere; is there a  Russian listening to me in this room
today?  It has become like McCarthy; it is the height of irony
that it's the Democratic Party leadership which is doing this,
and they don't even understand — most of them; Obama being  one
exception — why it is that they are trying to railroad Trump in
this McCarthy-ite fashion.  It's because of the potential of
exactly this type of American System of economics changing the
whole world.

        OGDEN:  Sure; if you want to talk about Watergate, the
Watergate here is the Obama administration listening in and
spying on an incoming Presidential administration as part of its
enemies list to try to bring down a President.  We can get into a
lot more details on that, but everything that has come out during
the course of the hearings in Congress this week and what
Chairman Nunes had to say and so forth; this is a political fight
beyond what we've seen in our lifetimes.
        I want to say in conclusion, we have the responsibility to
continue to educate and to continue to lead.  Obviously, Lyndon
LaRouche's economic authority here is unparalleled; and it's the
required authority on the table right now, internationally as
well as nationally.  We have opportunities, but nothing is
determined; nothing is final, nothing is concrete.  So, we're
putting the link on the screen right now; this is the newest
pamphlet, which is now being published by LaRouche PAC, which is
titled "America's Role in the New Silk Road."  The next step for
the Trump administration will be to officially enter into this
Belt and Road Initiative, which China has invited the United
States to be a part of.  There is a summit coming up in China in
the beginning of May, which President Trump should personally
attend; and should make very clear that he is accepting the
Chinese invitation to become a part of this New Paradigm.  We had
the beginning of this with Secretary Tillerson's trip and his
affirmation of the win-win principle in his meetings with Xi
Jinping.  We are looking forward to the bilateral summit between
Xi Jinping and President Trump which is scheduled hopefully for
some time in April.  This is first and foremost; and then we have
a petition which we're continuing to circulate on that question.
This is available for you to sign at lpac.co/sign4laws.  This is
a petition on win-win cooperation and the implementation of
Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws here in the United States.
We ask you to sign that and to circulate it; and become an active
part of changing history.
        So, thank you very much Michael for joining us over video
today; and thank you to Paul for joining me here in the studio.
We have all the material that you need on the LaRouche PAC
website to educate yourself on what the American System is and
the application of the American System today on the international
scale.  So, we encourage you to explore all that material; visit
the LaRouche PAC website; and sign up and become a member of the
LaRouche Political Action Committee.  So, thanks for tuning in;
and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.   

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 23. marts, 2017 – Det er nøjagtig 34 år siden, at en tidligere, amerikanske præsident handlede ud fra sin egen dybe, personlige overbevisning og gjorde Lyndon LaRouches Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI) til USA’s politik.

LaRouche respondere den næste dag ved at sige:

»Kun højtplacerede regeringsfolk, eller en privat borger, der har så intimt et kendskab til detaljerne i den internationale politiske og strategiske situation, og som jeg har det privilegium at være, kan begynde blot at forestille sig, hvilken omvæltende virkning, præsidentens fjernsynstransmitterede tale i går aftes vil få i hele verden. De ord, præsidenten talte i går aftes, har sluppet ånden ud af flasken, og den kan ikke igen kontrolleres. Det meste af verden vil snart kende, og aldrig glemme, denne politiske bebudelse. Med disse ord har præsidenten ændret den moderne histories gang.

I dag er jeg mere stolt over at være amerikanere, end jeg har været, siden den første bemandede Månelanding. For første gang i 20 år har en amerikansk præsident udført en offentlig handling, der vidner om storslået lederskab, for at skabe grundlaget for at give fornyet håb for menneskehedens fremtid til en plaget og demoraliseret verden. Præsident Ronald Reagan blev i går rørt af sand storhed i en amerikansk præsident; dette er et storhedens øjeblik, der aldrig må glemmes.«

Hvis I har studeret det, som I må gøre, ved I, at SDI ikke var nogen fidus, og heller ikke en militær taktik. Det var snarere omdrejningspunktet for et vendepunkt i hele verden for en renæssance for en ny verden – ligesom LaRouches »Fire Nye Love« af juni, 2014, med USA’s samtidige tilslutning til Den Nye Silkevej, er i dag. LaRouche og Reagan havde samlet den fane op, som Franklin Roosevelt havde båret så langt, han kunne – den samme fane, som John Kennedy senere var begyndt at hejse i den meget korte tid, han fik.

Ronald Reagan havde allerede været udsat for et forkrøblende, forebyggende mordforsøg, før han kom med sin SDI-bebudelse, og han blev dernæst, senere, udsat for mange pres imod SDI – men han opgav det aldrig, så længe han levede. For eksempel gentog han den 6. august, 1986:

»I SDI og andetsteds har vi sat teknologi, der næsten overgår vores forstand, til at arbejde og således øge vores produktivitet og udvide grænserne for, hvad der er menneskeligt muligt … Fremtiden ligger i bogstavelig forstand i vore hænder, og det er SDI, der hjælper os med at genvinde kontrollen over vores skæbne.«

Som en del af den operation, der forsøgte at slå præsident Reagan ihjel, blev også Lyndon LaRouche på falske anklager fængslet, og hans sammenslutning brudt i stykker, men LaRouche – såvel som hans ideer – overlevede ikke desto mindre – eller bedre endnu, hans kreative evne til at skabe nye, gyldige ideer, overlevede. De kunne ikke, ville ikke lade sig dræbe. Fireogtredive år senere næsten på dagen, har en anden præsident taget LaRouches ideer op, selv om LaRouche, til forskel fra tilfældet med Ronald Reagan, aldrig har mødt selve manden.

Det, vi mener hermed, er det følgende. Præsident Donald Trump har offentligt forpligtet sig over for det Amerikanske System, ud fra sine egne, dybe overbevisninger. Det har han gjort med fuld, indre forpligtelse – som Lyndon LaRouche har set bevis for i sine undersøgelser af præsidentens offentlige udtalelser. Der kan ikke herske tvivl om, at præsidenten har anselig, dybtgående kendskab til det, han taler om. På den anden side mangler hans medarbejdere, især i deres bredere kredse, næsten med sikkerhed denne dybtgående viden.

Men, som medlem af LaRouchePAC Policy Committee Michael Steger bemærkede i en e-mail i går til medarbejdere og andre – den sidste, amerikanske præsident, der offentligt erklærede det Amerikanske System, var William McKinley, lige i begyndelsen af den 20. århundrede. Dette var før de to, ødelæggende verdenskrige og den efterfølgende kolde krig (og hvis afslutning skulle blive fremskyndet af sovjetrussernes sluttelige afvisning af LaRouches SDI). Det var før Einstein, før atomkraft og før den praktiske erobring af rummet, med begyndelse i 1957.

Det, som det Amerikanske System vil sige i dag, er ikke længere det samme, som McKinley mente – endskønt i princippet det samme. I dag vil det sige Lyndon LaRouche. Han er manden, der har båret Alexander Hamiltons udødelige ideer frem til slutningen af det 20., og nu, til det 21. århundrede – og ikke blot som en akademisk disciplin, men i direkte handling, inklusive succesfulde kamphandlinger, som Hamilton selv gentagne gange gjorde.

At tale om det Amerikanske System i 2017 er at tale om Lyndon LaRouches arbejde. Alle, der har forhåbninger om at omsætte denne præsidents forpligtende engagement til succesfuld handling, er nødt til at studere Lyndon LaRouches arbejde og selv mestre hans ideer. Og dét nu.       

Foto: LaRouche taler med Ronald Reagan under et kandidatmøde i New Hampshire under præsidentvalgkampen i 1980.    

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 22. marts, 2017 – I sine taler mandag ved et møde i Kentucky og tirsdag for møder for det Republikanske Parti, understregede præsident Donald Trump, at han har til hensigt at lede landet til en tilbagevenden til det »Amerikanske Økonomiske System«. Efter meget kvalificerede iagttageres skøn »mente præsidenten det virkelig« begge gange – han ønsker at vende tilbage til den faktiske, økonomiske politik, der blev ført af Alexander Hamilton og George Hamilton, Henry Clay og Abraham Lincoln: det »Amerikanske System«.

Er Trump den præsident, der kan føre USA tilbage til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System? Det er stadig ikke afgjort og afhænger også af landet – af os, af jer. Bør vi vende tilbage til det? Absolut.

Med enkelte undtagelser ved de fleste amerikanere, og andre landes borgere, ikke længere, hvad det Amerikanske Økonomiske System var. Det blev defineret af Abraham Lincolns økonom Henry C. Carey, for eksempel, som det »Amerikanske System«, i direkte modsætning til det »Britiske System« med frihandel.

De samme briter, der, i løbet af det seneste år, har stået bag McCarthy-kampagnen for at miskreditere Donald Trump og drive ham ud af Det Hvide Hus.

»Få ram på Trump«-McCarthyismen er britisk, fordi Trump – efter årtiers katastrofal »globalisering« og afindustrialisering – ønsker at vende tilbage til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System. Og han erkender fordelene ved fred, ved at standse Bush’ og Obamas endeløse krige, og ved at samarbejde med Rusland og Kina for at stoppe det.

Et »dossier« fra britisk efterretning om Donald Trump, produceret for Hillary Clinton, var således begyndelsen på at forvandle det Demokratiske Partis lederskab til en McCarthy-hob, på jagt efter »russere«, der lurer bag hver søjle i Det Hvide Hus.

Det Amerikanske Økonomiske Systems grundpiller var:

1) beskyttelse og støtte af amerikansk produktion således, at USA kunne blive den storslåede, producerende nation, det blev;

2) en konstant promovering og opbygning af den mest moderne, nationale infrastruktur, af de samme grunde – de transkontinentale jernbaner, det nationale hovedvejssystem, Apollo-Måneprojektet; og

3) et kreditsystem, baseret på national (statslig) bankpraksis, som den store finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, havde opfundet.

I dag vil dette sige at lukke Wall Streets kæmpekasinoer ved at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven; at etablere en nationalbank i traditionen efter Hamilton, til infrastruktur og varefremstilling; at investere billioner i ny infrastruktur af den højeste, teknologiske standard; at udvikle fusionskraft, vende tilbage til Månen og det dybe rum med menneskelig kolonisering og udvikling.

Dette er, hvad EIR’s stiftende redaktør, økonom i det Amerikanske Systems tradition, Lyndon LaRouche, for nylig har udviklet som »Fire Love« for at redde den amerikanske økonomi.

Det Amerikanske System betød også Monroe-doktrinen – at det unge USA ville gøre alt, der stod i dets magt, for at holde de britiske og franske finansimperier ude af de amerikanske kontinenter, så alle disse kontinenters nationer kunne udvikle deres økonomier og indgå gensidige handelsaftaler, til fælles fordel.

I dag vil det Amerikanske System sige at koble sig til Kinas Nye Silkevejsinitiativ, hvor 60 nationer er i færd med at indgå sådanne aftaler inden for et »win-win«-paradigme.

Schiller Instituttet og EIR er i færd med at opbygge en stor, international konference i næste måned i New York City for at bringe Trumps USA ind i dette nye paradigme, hvor det »Amerikanske System« kan blomstre.

Præsident Trumps forståelse af det Amerikanske System i dag er elementær, men alvorligt ment. Jo flere amerikanere, der ved, hvad det skulle betyde, og handler på det, desto bedre chancer er der for, at det Britiske Systems »globaliseringsæra« vil slutte under hans præsidentskab.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump modtager en NASA-flyverjakke tirsdag, den 21. marts, 2017, efter at have underskrevet ’NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017’ i det ovale værelse i Det Hvide Hus i Washington, D.C.  

I dag vil vi afspille et meget specielt, eksklusivt interview under webcastet; med en forfatter inden for finansielle spørgsmål, Nomi Prins, der har forfattet flere bøger, inkl. All the President’s Bankers, og som er en meget stærk fortaler for Glass-Steagall.

Matthew Ogden: Det er i dag den 17. marts, 2017. … Med mig i studiet har jeg i dag min kollega Jason Ross, og via video Rachel Brown, fra Boston, Massachussetts – medlem af LaRouchePAC Policy Committee. I dag vil vi afspille et meget specielt, eksklusivt interview under webcastet; med en forfatter inden for finansielle spørgsmål, Nomi Prins, der har forfattet flere bøger, inkl. All the President’s Bankers, og som er en meget stærk fortaler for Glass-Steagall.

Men før vi går over til dette, vil jeg henlede opmærksomheden på, at man på vores hjemmeside nu kan se vores helt nye, digitale version af LaRouchePAC’s brochure, med titlen »LaRouches Fire Love: De fysisk-økonomiske principper for USA’s økonomiske genrejsning; Amerikas fremtid på Den Nye Silkevej«.

Den er nu tilgængelig i digital form på LaRouchePAC’s webside, og vil snart være tilgængeligt som pdf; denne pdf vil blive massivt cirkuleret, hvilket er meget afgørende. *

Samtidig kører LaRouchePAC en national og international kampagne for opbakning til Apellen, (på LPAC: http://lpac.co/sign4laws, på dansk: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=18227)

(Matthew Ogden oplæser Apellen).

(Dernæst følger videoklip med Paul Gallaghers interview med Nomi Prins).

* En dansk version af denne pdf er under udarbejdelse.

Se: Introduktion. 

Se: Jason Ross præsenterer brochuren Fire Love, dansk udskrift af video, 10. marts: LaRouchePAC webcast, 10. mrs., start på 25 min  

Engelsk udskrift af hele dette webcast:

PAUL GALLAGHER : What do you think is the way that Republicans and Democrats can join on what you're proposing with Glass-Steagall, and with regard to the Dodd-Frank Act also? Glass-Steagall is now introduced in the House, it has nearly 40 sponsors; but from the Republican side, there is this attack on regulation. They're being told by their leaders that they have to look for legislation to remove regulation from the banks. How do you think that this can be bridged?

NOMI PRINS : Well, if we go back to what happened in the crisis relative to the bail-out moments, where both Republicans and Democrats were faced with a very crisis [sic] banking system, it was really more Republicans who didn't necessarily want to vote for bailing out on those banks. There certainly are a number of Republicans; there were people on both sides who didn't feel that the bail-out was the responsible thing to do. I agree with that; I think there were other ways, much more cheap ways that would have not incurred so much debt onto the U.S. books. And also this whole global proliferation of debt that I've been talking about; there would have been very simple ways to fix that entire thing. I wrote about them in "It Takes A Pillage" in 2009; but that didn't happen, and so what happened was that Republicans and Democrats and their constituents were basically on the hook for supporting these institutions. Not just in the bail-out, but then in all of the years of very low interest rates, where the savings of voters and their communities are unable to achieve the returns that they had in the past when rates were higher; and just a lot of different things happened in both Republican and Democratic institutions that were hampered by the remedies that were put in place to deal with the crisis, that had to do with the fact that our banks were "too big to fail", and the moral hazard that was associated with that, that has not gone away. It's almost as if, if we start to debate the term "regulation" or "deregulation", we're missing the structural element of what the banking system looked like; like co-mingling deposits and loans with riskier activities; and if it didn't look like that anymore, there would actually be less need for regulating smaller things around the edges.

You start to have to regulate small things around the edges of the banking system, when the banking system itself is structured in such a way that it can incur such great damage onto the overall economy. So from the standpoint — even historically — of why both Republicans and Democrats wanted the Glass-Steagall Act, and almost collectively voted on both sides for the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, that was because both parties believed there should be more confidence in the banking system. That it shouldn't be the government's concern that banks were going to implode, or trust companies were going to implode, and we were going to have another Great Depression. Nobody really wanted that; which was why it was such a bipartisan vote. It was a bipartisan vote to repeal Glass-Steagall in 1999, because we had had so many good years of basically not having financial crises, that I think Congress people on both sides of the aisle forgot why and said, "Well, the world is different right now. We can repeal Glass-Steagall; these banks should be allowed to be bigger and to operate more different types of services," because that's how the U.S. is competitive with the rest of the world if the rest of the world is doing it. That's what Europeans were doing; that's what European banks were doing. There were all these competition arguments that were coming from the Republican side and the Democratic side which forgot history; the history of why Glass-Steagall existed to begin with, and the fact that we had a lot of stability in the system for most of the decades that followed that. It was only when chinks started happening in that regulation around the edges that we started having more mini-crises, and ultimately the larger financial crisis in 2007-2008.

So, it shouldn't be a partisan issue; it should be something that both Republicans and Democrats want to avoid — another financial crisis. I would hope that both sides look at the history of what this country did when we had a major financial crash followed by a depression; how it was stabilized after that; where it broke down and why it broke down in the last crisis. We're actually at a very dangerous point right now if we don't restructure the financial system. If we do, if we bring back Glass-Steagall, we don't have to have as many arguments about regulation anymore, because financial services companies and banks will have picked a side. One side will be lending into the main economy — corporations and so forth; one side will be trading from a riskier perspective. That's how it was, and that only changes the structure which enables us to be healthier from a risk standpoint going forward.

OGDEN: We'll come back with the second clip from this interview; but before we do that, why don't we just discuss this a little bit? Rachel, you obviously ran a nationally-recognized campaign in 2010 against Barney Frank — the author of the Dodd-Frank — who is the one who made this entire false, fallacy argument about regulation and so forth. You made Glass-Steagall a household term not only in Massachusetts, but across the country at that time. Maybe you want to say a little bit about that campaign, or what's happening now around the Glass-Steagall fight; but the broader international significance of what this means.

RACHEL BROWN: Well, I'll just say that she's right that it's not partisan; Glass-Steagall has nothing to do with a party. The Republicans have been insane to say that they're not for this, when obviously, the majority of the American population is. Wall Street is a criminal entity; it's fascist. There's no separation between Wall Street, terrorism, drug money, and the British Empire. So I think the reason we haven't put through Glass-Steagall is because there has not been an adequate response to the question of the British threat to the U.S. republic. The British did say to a LaRouche PAC correspondent that putting through Glass-Steagall would be considered a declaration of war by the British. That is the condition that the world is in right now. We either shut down Wall Street, or we have a complete collapse of the United States; going back into the state of things that we saw over the last 16 years. The American people voted in November not to die; and that should be the trend of the United States now. Take this momentum that's happening globally around the world right now, bring this momentum into the United States; and yes, put through Glass-Steagall. If we don't, there is really no other option.

JASON ROSS: That's our first ticket, the first of the Four Laws of Mr. LaRouche, that's the first ticket to joining the Belt and Road Initiative; to joining the New Silk Road. There's just no way we as a nation can participate in the kind of infrastructure renaissance taking place around the world — and it could take place here — without Glass-Steagall. There's going to be no way to orient credit towards these long-term development projects if we have a system where money goes into the banking sector and it just stays there; it never comes back out again, which is what we've had with the bail-outs under Dodd-Frank. We need that separation to make banks actually finance real projects that aren't just in the world of finance.

OGDEN: And it's that kind of Hamiltonian credit — you already see the impulse towards that coming from China with the AIIB to build the New Silk Road with the BRICS bank, the new development bank. That's actually the subject of the second clip we're going to play from Nomi Prins; so we'll put that on the screen now.

GALLAGHER : To return to the article that you wrote, forecasting for 2017, you were discussing in there, if I remember it right, the international economic situation — not only in the United States — and you talked about the potentially combined importance of Japan and China for the world economy and for the United States. Obviously, they are countries which are both coming directly with proposals towards the Trump administration; they're also countries which usually strategically oppose each other.

So, how do you see that? What is the importance of this combined effect of China and Japan on the world economy which you are otherwise describing as very unstable?

PRINS : There are a couple things. First, in this whole evolution of central banks and the Fed and the CBN Bank of Japan sort of coordinating their policies over the last post-financial crisis years, it created a situation where the People's Bank of China got very concerned, and they were very critical of this policy of cheapening money and quantitative easing and the collaboration of the other sort of "developed" countries' central banks, and talked a lot about how there was hidden risk in that. As a result of their criticism, they also began to elevate their political position; because there were a lot of other countries — developing countries — that felt the same way, both in the Asian region and also in America, and so forth, who were also concerned that the Fed was sort of dominating currencies and monetary policy and the cost of money throughout. And they had to either figure out how to separate what they were doing in their own country, join up with what the Fed was doing, or deal with how the international globalized markets would punish them.

China got annoyed by this, and as a result, they started pushing the IMF to include them as a reserve currency, in something called an SDR — a basket of currencies which before that point had just been the dollar, the euro. It had been the franc and the deutschmark before 1999. It was basically just the dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen, and the British pound. Those were the currencies that effectively lined the reserves of central banks, and it was basically how liquidity was provided throughout the world amongst the larger countries. China wanted to push into that; so they used this sort of criticism and the instability that they discuss. Not just them, but the IMF and others discuss the instability of the Fed policy, and ultimately pushed their way in to the SDRs. So now there's five currencies. And they came in No. 3, so basically, in terms of the size of the weighting of this basket, it's the dollar, the euro, the Chinese ren, the Japanese yen, and the British pound. They're almost the same at the bottom, No. 4 and No. 5. That was also a political push. It was monetary, it was political. At the same time, they were developing more trade alliances in the region with Russia, establishing the BRICS Bank, which was a development bank between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, that would be purely run and used for emerging markets, which was kind-of the newest of its kind. It started to just champion a lot of external-to-the-U.S. types of things.

As Trump was running, all this was kind of still in play. As he basically came on to the scene and started talking about more sort of nationalistic, more isolated trade policy; calling China a currency manipulator, stealing jobs and so forth, which he was not the only one. The Democrats also called China a currency manipulator. It's in my new book: all the times that something would go wrong in the U.S., and China was blamed for it, even though they weren't necessarily related.

China basically continued to develop alliances throughout the region. When Brexit happened in Europe, it basically stepped up, as the U.S. is stepping up, to try and forge a separate relationship with the UK, or to sort of start to map one out. It's trying to form separate relationships now with Mexico, because there is a sort of negativity surrounding our relationship with Mexico in the era of the Trump administration. All of these things that started to shift because of central bank and monetary policy, have sort of accelerated because of potential nationalistic and racialist isolationist bilateral trade policy.

How Japan fits in all that, is that Japan has historical antagonism with China, but at the same time it's part of Asia. So, you have a choice to make. They have a very strong relationship with the U.S. We're large trading partners; we're allies on so many different elements, including on the military side. The Bank of Japan was a staunch ally of what the Fed was doing during this entire, I call it in my new book, "Artisanal Money Era," since the financial crisis, and kind-of moving along with what the Fed wanted. So, it was playing that side, and had to. At the same time it's got this huge country next door that's developing all these other relationships in its region, and it really has to decide where survival is going to lie.

And so there have been trade arrangements and agreements that Japan has made with BRICS countries as well as with China, that have developed out of this sense of concern or uncertainty, relative to what would happen with the U.S. relationship; as they've also been trying to maintain a strong U.S. relationship. And that just alters the shift of power into sort of trading money between sort of the West — the U.S. and the European bloc — and what is growing in the area of Asia and Eurasia and the BRICS nations. Japan, again, is sort of in this component.

GALLAGHER: China is also offering the United States the Belt and Road Initiative, these large, great infrastructure projects, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank — which Obama didn't want; wanted to try to stop, but has expanded nonetheless. Do these make the world economy more stable? Is this…

PRINS: Well, I think it's a logical next point. China has criticized the U.S. policy for creating instability in the world, as have many countries. That has allowed it to have a lot more regional trading blocs and to become a part of the international financial markets. That in tandem has allowed it to continue to develop its own infrastructure; it has really good infrastructure. I was in China last summer for a while, and I took their high-speed trains from Beijing to Shanghai, and they're awesome; as are the high-speed trains, for example, in Japan, where the distance from the airport to the center of Tokyo would take like two-and-a-half hours if you take a taxi or try to drive that. But it's a very short, quick, pleasant experience on a high-speed train that also tells you where your gate is, and has all sorts of boarding information; it talks to you in different languages. There's a lot of high-tech stuff going on there, from an infrastructure standpoint. Similar in China.

Wanting to export that to the U.S. is a way to sort of take economic advantage, which is smart of them, to what Trump is talking about, in terms of building infrastructure here. It just might be cheaper, and actually more at a higher quality from a technological perspective, to work with the Chinese on these initiatives in our country. You kill two birds with one stone. You have jobs that are created here, because the work's physically taking place here. But you have engineering and design and plans of technology that's happening in China. And so, from a Trump perspective, you're able to say you're not losing jobs, or you're not losing some jobs, or you're splitting jobs, or whatever, which is not necessarily a bad thing. And China's able to add another growth area onto this whole pattern that it's undergone in the last five, six years.

OGDEN: The full video of that interview will be available on the LaRouchePAC website over the course of this weekend, so you can look forward to that. Let's just open it up, and we can discuss it a little bit more.

Again, this is obviously the subject of the petition and what LaRouche PAC is leading in the United States. The context of this discussion is a revival of the depth of understanding of economic science Alexander Hamilton created; and that's distilled in the form of these four economic laws, which are elaborated in this new pamphlet, and available on the LaRouche PAC website.

BROWN: I think the point about the Four Laws, is that it is a unified, integrated system; you can't have one without the other. It's also the only way to affect what's happening to people in the United States, with the drug crisis, unemployment, etc. The Four Laws are the only way to unify the country. I did want to put out a particular response to the question of the British attack on the Presidency. What are the British afraid of? They are afraid that what's happening globally may happen in the United States — a resistance to the policies of the recent period of financial control, of economic manipulation, and economic warfare, which has hit the United States. Glass-Steagall will overturn that policy; so, yes, Glass-Steagall and the Four Laws have got to be done.

When you have, now, these freak-outs and accusations against the U.S. Presidency, many of which originate from the British, you have to question what is the motivation; and has there been a beneficial aspect of the recent relationship of listening to London, of listening to Wall Street? What has that done to the American people? I think Donald Trump might want to know a few of these things — about some fundamental questions that should be raised.

What the British said recently in response about the wiretapping, has been public. Said a spokesperson for GCHQ: "Recent allegations made by media commentator judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wire tapping' against the then President Elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored." This is what they say. However, you have a number of statements from U.S. intelligence representatives, one of whom — Scott Ritter — was outspoken in the fight around the Iraq war, and questioned the intelligence around the so-called "weapons of mass destruction." He just put out a recent article, saying that the evidence of the transcript of Gen. Michael Flynn — which ended in his resignation — that this transcript's existence itself poses serious questions as to how that transcript came about. That either it came about from a FISA order, which Obama said didn't happen, or it was ordered directly by the President, or it was by the FBI, which has to go through certain U.S. laws and would mean that Gen. Flynn's name could not be released publicly (that's the third option). Or, the last option, Ritter says, which wouldn't have to go through this U.S. particular law about not naming Gen. Flynn, would be to go through a foreign intelligence service, of which there is ample evidence. There is a very close collaboration of U.S. Intelligence and British Intelligence; they're said to function essentially as one unit. We also have the recent 35-page "dodgy" dossier, which is known to be written by MI6 agent, to attack Trump, not even President-elect at the time, which was paid for by Democratic Party representatives and Republican Party representatives.

So, when Trump says there might be a political motivation, and that there might be surveillance, there are many other people who think that same thing. What Scott Ritter says, is that these questions should be raised. He says that "What Senate and House members should be asking for [in their upcoming investigation] is an accounting of all interaction between the CIA and GCHQ that transpired between Dec. 29, 2016, and Jan. 26, 2017, with a particular focus on the activities of both [John] Brennan and [Robert] Hannigan during this time.” Hannigan, who was the head of GCHQ, happened to resign three days before the General Flynn transcript came out publicly, when Prime Minister Theresa May was actually in the United States, as well. Whether that could be coincidental, I don’t know; but they’re raising questions. Why did Hannigan resign at this time? In his article, Ritter continues: “Both men should be subpoenaed, as well as [Sally] Yates and any and all officials from the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, NSA, and GCHQ who were involved in any manner with the production and provision of the Flynn transcript to American intelligence, and its subsequent use by U.S. government officials." The transcript was also then leaked to the U.S. media, which was also illegal.

You also have Larry Wilkerson, the former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, who also said that it's very strange that Hannigan resigned at this time. He says, "I'm not one to defend Trump, but in this case he might be right. It's just that it wasn't the FBI. Comey's right, he wasn't wire-tapping anybody, it was John Brennan, at the CIA." Then you also have Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, who also said something to this effect; he talked about the collaboration between GCHQ and the NSA. So, I think those facts should be on the table, as well as the Tony Blair history and the history of assassinations of U.S. Presidents.

Then also to put forward, as mentioned before, Helga Zepp-LaRouche's statement from earlier this week that we should not just look at today and yesterday in the news media; but keep in mind this global process that has really been emerging over the last several years. Just over the last year, we had the Vladivostok forum last summer in Russia, which was a major development; the G20 meeting in China; the Chinese presentation at the UN on the One Belt, One Road last fall; the BRICS forum in Goa, India last October; and then in November, the U.S. elections. So, this is a monumental process in history, and it's absolutely LaRouche's Four Laws and the United States joining this international process of regaining an orientation towards truth and the development of the physical economy that this is the time to put this completely through.

ROSS: It's a whole shift in paradigm; and part of this thing with the British freak-out in many different ways regarding the Trump Presidency and the style of approach that many in the Democratic Party have taken, of a simple idea of "resist". Resist anything that Trump does, no matter what it is. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? It doesn't matter; Trump did it. Resist!

The idea of resist is a color revolution type of outlook. It's an outlook that doesn't go anywhere; that doesn't provide leadership, when leadership is what's needed right now. We need Glass-Steagall passed; we need to be able to finance the infrastructure needs of the United States to lay out a whole new platform of infrastructure. That's going to cost a lot of money. Donald Trump's $1 trillion is not nearly enough. Doing it through public-private partnerships is not going to work. So, where is the party of FDR, for example, saying we're going to finance this in a Hamiltonian credit orientation; we're going to make trillions of dollars available over the long-term to finance projects that will have a massive pay back in terms of totally changing the whole system a decade from now, five years from now, 20 years from now for the larger projects. That's leadership; and that's what's needed. It's an entirely different world.

Rachel, you brought up that the Four Laws aren't four laws that when passed will have a cumulative good effect; but that it's one outlook, it's one paradigm that has this four-part component. Like a piece of music that has four movements; but they're not four movement that got put together and happened to work nicely, it was one piece. Leadership on that is what's needed. Think about the irony of this: President Bush, Vice President Cheney started based on faulty, untrue intelligence — which certainly at least Cheney knew was untrue — which came via the British; launched a war in Iraq that has led — according to accounts of people there — to over 1 million dead Iraqis. They weren't impeached; Cheney should have been impeached. The idea that now it's bad to be friends with Putin? You know who you really would not want to be seen with? How about the Queen of England? How about Tony Blair? {That's} somebody you wouldn't want to be seen in public with. You want to talk about an unelected dictator making decisions with the military that have world implications? There's the Queen of England for you, for example.

The potential that we've got right now for a New Paradigm, not a few new laws; not four independent laws that have a cumulative or synergistic impact. But a New Paradigm that's wide open right now. When Xi Jinping in September 2013, first publicly launched the One Belt, One Road — now called the Belt and Road Initiative — in Kazakhstan at Nazarbayev University, that wasn't one action by President Xi; that was opening up a whole new paradigm that's been in preparation for years. Something that the LaRouches have been organizing for, especially intensively since the collapse of the Soviet Union; a potential for world organization for the betterment of people; to eliminate poverty and move to a new level of mankind. That's what we could be doing; and that's what leadership would look like right now, not resisting.

OGDEN: You compared the Four Economic Laws to a piece of music; four movements in a piece of music that necessitates the following one and necessitates the previous one. A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry recently compared the New Silk Road to a symphony. He said this kind of win-win paradigm among nations is comparable to a symphony orchestra, where you have different musical instruments, but not any one of them in isolation can produce the awesome beauty and power of a symphonic composition; but all of them together create something which is much bigger than each one by themselves. That's the kind of win-win paradigm which the United States should be joining; it's not us against them anymore. It's not winner take all; it's a completely New Paradigm as you're saying. It's based on new axioms of relationships between.

We saw Donald Trump in his state of the union address, he said America is willing to find new friends and to forge new partnerships where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict. Well, the kind of harmony of a symphony orchestra, the kind of harmony of the New Silk Road, requires British imperialistic-style geopolitics be a thing of the past. We need to make a clean break and say "What {are} our mutual interests?" Mutual interests can only be found in the future; it's only in the future of mankind as a whole, especially at this point in human evolution.

Now I know that yesterday on the LaRouche PAC activists' call last night, Bill Roberts was the featured guest speaker. I think he had a very good presentation of what Franklin Roosevelt accomplished in terms of the industrial and economic revival of the United States, which allowed us to win World War II. This obviously was referring back to Donald Trump's visit to Ypsilanti, Michigan, where he made reference to the Arsenal of Democracy. But there are economic principles which are required to be understood.

The other thing which is available to understand real harmony, and as you were saying, the unity of effect of either LaRouche's Four Laws or this New Paradigm of economic relations among countries, is a presentation that John Sigerson made in Manhattan during a meeting up there on Saturday. It's titled on the LaRouche PAC website "Motivführung 101: Introduction to the Haydn-Mozart Revolution". [https://larouchepac.com/20170314/motivf-hrung-101-introduction- haydn-mozart-revolution] This is the kind of thinking which is required if you are to understand all of the moving parts that are taking place right now in world history. So, all of those are recommended to our viewers in addition to this full interview that's going to be presented on the website this weekend — Nomi Prins; and also the full text of the digital pamphlet on America's Future Along the New Silk Road.

But Rachel, coming back to what you said, people must understand that the fight for Glass-Steagall is just that; it is a fight! There are avowed enemies to this New Paradigm of economic relations, who are willing to stop at nothing. Many of those are found on Wall Street and found in the City of London. Putting those facts on the table and making that reality clear, that there is a very nasty political war going on right now, not just behind the scenes but in full daylight. I think that's very significant for people to understand, and not be naïve about. Maybe you can say just a little bit more about that in terms of what the American people should see as their role in actively intervening into that.

BROWN: LaRouche reminded people after the election, that this should be a reminder to them of their power. We are witnessing a reawakening of the thinking of the nation. For a long time, people were afraid to think; they might not have been conscious of it, but there is an optimism out there. But it needs to be educated; and what is not understood is this international process. There is a desperate attempt to keep this out of the U.S. media and to keep people focussed on these non-issues, as you're mentioning. They're not real; they're fictions, they're distractions. So, I just think people need to be reminded of their power; and given that encouragement to study the solution, that's what people need. We have to inspire people; we have to create something that's infectious, and what's infectious is beauty, is optimism, is great ideas. People should just use the material that we're putting out — the music, the pamphlet — and go out there and inspire other people.

OGDEN: OK. Thank you very much. So, one last time, I'm going to put a link on the screen for this petition. This is "U.S. Needs Win-Win Development; Implement LaRouche's Four Laws and Join China's New Silk Road" — lpac.co/sign4laws. Please circulate that as widely as possible, and be on the look-out for the pdf version of the new LaRouche PAC pamphlet. So, thank you very much to Rachel and Jason for joining me here today; and thank you to all of you. Again, Happy St. Patrick's Day! And please stay tuned tolarouchepac.com.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 16. marts, 2017 – Næste fredag, den 24. marts, fejrer vi 100-års dagen for den store, tysk-amerikanske, visionære videnskabsmand, Krafft Ehrickes fødsel. Gid han endnu var i live, i dette enestående, men midlertidige øjeblik i historien, hvor vi, efter spildte årtier, omsider kan gå fremefter med virkeliggørelsen af hans planer for menneskehedens forædling. Da han ikke er her mere, påhviler det os, der er tilbage, at studere og indoptage hans tankegang i en grad, hvor han bliver en del af os, så han lever gennem os, og vi vinder de sejre, som han så klart forudså.

Selv om det globale rumprogram skylder Krafft Ehricke alt, så var han meget mere end en rumforsker. Som alle store videnskabsfolk; som Lyndon og Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med hvem han havde et tæt samarbejde, så åbnede han et nyt vindue til den virkelige, menneskelige ånd. Han forstod og forklarede, at det er selve den fundamentale, unikke kerne i mennesket, der får det til at erobre enhver af naturens fremskudte grænser – og som nu bringer det frem til at udforske Solsystemet, og dernæst gå hinsides dette. I Ehrickes »Astronautikkens tre fundamentale love« skrev han, at det er menneskets »skæbne som et element i livet, der er begavet med fornuftens evne og den i det iboende, moralske lovs visdom«. Og således er det. Men i andre skrifter gik Krafft endnu videre og sagde, på sin egen måde, at menneskets enestående talent for skabende fornuft udgør et unikt udtryk for selve universets inderste natur. Keplers store gennembrud kom fra en tilsvarende indsigt. Han og Krafft begreb, sammen med også Dante, »den kærlighed, der får Solen og de andre stjerner til at bevæge sig«.

En udarbejdelse af denne indsigt udgøres af Lyndon LaRouches Fjerde Lov, der på en vis måde indkapsler de tre andre af hans »Fire Nye Love« fra juni, 2014.

Efter at Obama, dømt, ligesom en Macbeth, af sine enorme forbrydelser, er faldet og stødt ud i vanære, har Det britiske Imperium mistet sin håndhæver, i det mindste for indeværende – præcis, som Lyndon LaRouche havde forudset. Efter den blodige tyrans omstyrtelse, er den nye præsident velmenende. Men intet kan erstatte Lyndon LaRouches intellektuelle lederskab; dette er lige så sandt i dag, som det har været siden 1970’erne.

Men det kræver, at I åbner øjnene: sejren er nu inden for rækkevidde. De Fire Love kan blive vedtaget. USA kan gå med i Den Nye Silkevej. USA kan gå sammen med Kina, Rusland, Indien og andre nationer om at erobre rummet, fra hvilket udsigtspunkt Krafft Ehricke vil smile ned os.

Foto: Den tysk-amerikanske rumforskningspioner Krafft Ehricke (venstre) drøfter en satellitmodel til menneskelig beboelse, den 22. juni, 1958, før den første, bemandede rumflyvning fandt sted.

(Dette skete, da den sovjetiske kosmonaut (daværende russiske betegnelse), Jurij Gagarin, i 1961blev det første menneske i rummet og den første til at gå i kredsløb om Jorden.)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 17. marts, 2017 – Det værste, der kan ske for et bankerot og dekadent imperium, hvis fortsatte magt afhænger af formbarheden hos befolkningen, som er beregnet at skulle være dets offer, er, at folk begynder at afsløre deres bluff. Dette er, til stor fortrydelse i City of London og på Wall Street, en afgørende proces, der er i gang over hele planeten.

Den kinesiske regering er, f.eks., i færd med at feje dem til side, der opfordrer til konfrontation mellem USA og Kina, og erklærer i stedet, at der er »lyse udsigter for et samarbejde mellem Kina og USA« samtidig med, at de minder verden om, at »Kina fortsat vil være en vigtig motor for verdens vækst«, som premierminister Li Keqiang udtalte den 15. marts. Et møde mellem præsidenterne Xi Jinping og Donald Trump forventes nu afholdt i begyndelsen af april.

Rusland går heller ikke med på Londons »skal vi to, du og ham, slås«-spil. Russiske topanalytikere afviser den seneste videoprovokation fra CNN imod Vladimir Putin ved at bemærke, at »Vesten forsøger nu at bruge den sidste chance, der stadig eksisterer, før Putin møder Trump, for at dæmonisere den russiske præsidents person«.

Og internt i USA finder der en voksende gæringsproces sted i befolkningen og blandt politiske personer, i den gruppe, der har fået nok af Wall Street og deres marionetter i Washington, og som i stedet ligger på linje med Lyndon LaRouches politiske krav om en tilbagevenden til FDR’s Glass/Steagall-lov og udviklingen af avancerede, videnskabelige missioner for menneskeheden, såsom fusionskraft og udforskning af rummet – sammen med de andre elementer i LaRouches Fire Love.

I dag responderede Lyndon LaRouche til Wall Streets insisteren på at sabotere Glass-Steagall, og på at lukke de få kernekraftværker, der stadig måtte være i drift i USA. »Dette er en total, idiotisk fejltagelse«, udtalte han. »Vi må absolut bekæmpe det her, og vinde; man kan ikke opretholde realøkonomien uden denne beskyttelse«, den beskyttelse, der tilvejebringes af kernekraft og andre, avancerede, videnskabelige kapaciteter.

LaRouche fremsatte krav til sine medarbejdere om at lancere et nationalt mobiliseringsfremstød for at fremme en respons til disse spørgsmål i befolkningen: Det er et spørgsmål om en handling, der må udføres. Han udtalte, at den store, tysk-amerikanske rumfartspioner Krafft Ehrickes liv og arbejde – Ehricke, der byggede Saturnraketten, der bragte USA til Månen – bør bruges i denne henseende, fordi det er et aktuelt spørgsmål, der peger på den form for forbedringer, som behøves. Ehricke var en dyrebar person, et menneske, der gik hele vejen for at præstere resultater. Ved at støtte mindet om, hvad han har gjort for nationen, og for verden, kan vi stille følgende spørgsmål til vore amerikanske medborgere:

Hvad kan du gøre for menneskeheden? Ikke kun for de umiddelbare, politiske hensigter, men, hvad kan du gøre for deres intellekt?

Foto: Saturn V-raketten blev brugt til at sende astronauter til Månen. (NASA)   

Når vi opererer økonomisk på den måde, der er karakteristisk for den menneskelige art som helhed over lang, historisk tid, over økonomisk tid, kan vi få enorm udvikling og omskabe vores forhold til naturen. For at gøre dette, er der nogle skridt, der kræves; nogle aspekter af lovgivning og nogle specifikke forslag til en politik. I denne brochure om Amerikas rolle i Silkevejen gennemgår vi de fire aspekter af LaRouches Fire Love. Det første skridt er en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall; dette er den afgørende lov, som I netop hørte blev rejst som et spørgsmål under pressekonferencen i Det Hvide Hus. Dette var Roosevelts politik, der opdelte bankerne i kommercielle banker og investeringsbanker; som gjorde det muligt at få udlån ud til realøkonomien på en sikker måde.

(Sidste halvdel af LaRouchePAC webcast, 10. mrs., start på 25 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7z9NfI_Ns0

(Se webcast første del, ‘Hvorfor briterne hader Trump’, her).

Jason Ross: Det, du netop har gennemgået, Mike, gør det virkelig meget klarere, hvorfor der er så meget opposition til det potentiale, vi har netop nu, som virkelig er enormt. Nogle mennesker siger, at det Demokratiske Parti nu er en ulmende ruinhob. Det er en ret god beskrivelse af det, synes jeg. At de, i stedet for at tænke på, hvilken politik, de bør forfølge, hvad deres mission burde være, så er det blevet til en masse beskyldninger mod Rusland for alt muligt. Dårligt vejr? Giv Rusland skylden. Dårligt valgresultat? Giv Rusland skylden. Hacking af valget? Præsidentvalget var én. Hvad med Senatet? Hvad med Huset? Hvad med delstatskongresserne? Hvad med guvernør-skaberne i hele landet? Dette var generelt set ikke noget godt valg for det Demokratiske Parti.

Tænk på de muligheder, der kunne være, mht. at samarbejde med Trump-præsidentskabet om initiativer, der nu er mulige. Lad og tage et eksempel. Dette er et klip fra pressekonferencen i går med Det Hvide Hus’ pressesekretær, Sean Spicer. Manden, der stiller spørgsmål, er Newsmax’ John Gizzy. Det handler om præcis den form for samarbejde, som burde finde sted. Lad os høre:

John Gizzy: Tilbage under mødet og Deres åbningstale om bankerne, i den sidste kampagne, førte kandidat Trump en hård kampagne for en genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven, som ville opsætte en barriere mellem kommercielle banker og store investeringsbanker. Den blev selvfølgelig ophævet i 1999, ophævelsen underskrevet af præsident Clinton. Senator Sanders førte også valgkampagne over dette, bemærkede, at det var i Republikanernes valgplatform i Cleveland, og sagde i december, at han med glæde ville arbejde sammen med Trump-administrationen om genindførelse af Glass-Steagall.

Er der planer om, at præsidenten skal mødes med senator Sanders? Og er en ophævelse [han ville have sagt »genindførelse«] af Glass-Steagall på hans dagsorden?

Sean Spicer: Der er ingen aktuel plan om at møde ham. Jeg er sikker på, at, som han har gjort med flere andre kongresmedlemmer på begge sider af midtergangen, et møde vil blive aftalt på et tidspunkt. Vi har ikke noget på bogen lige nu, men hør, han har vist – og jeg mener i dag, eller i går, var endnu et eksempel; i dag endnu et eksempel – hans beredvillighed til at række over midtergangen, hans beredvillighed til at se til begge kamre, og ikke blot i erhvervslivet, men også fagforeninger og andre industrier, hvor vi kan finde fælles jordbund. Jeg mener, at, hvis senator Sanders og andre ønsker at arbejde med Det Hvide Hus inden for områder, om måder til at forbedre finansindustrien, så vil vi gøre det.

Gizzy: Er I stadig forpligtet over for at genindføre Glass-Steagall?

Spicer: Ja.

Ross: Der var det! Det er atter blevet bekræftet ved en pressekonference i Det Hvide Hus, at Trump officielt har støttet Glass-Steagall. Dette er den mest afgørende lov, der kan få vort land på fode igen. Vi er meget glade her i LaRouchePAC; vi har netop udgivet en digital version af en brochure om LaRouches Fire Love og Amerikas Fremtid på Silkevejen. Det kan vi se på nu. Den vil også blive udgivet på tryk for at komme ud i landet i titusinder af eksemplarer. Det, vi her har sat sammen, er en introduktion, en gennemgang af, hvor vi står i verden lige nu, og en detaljeret gennemgang af politikken for LaRouches Fire Love.

De, der har fulgt vores webside, eller hvis man er en nytilkommen, kan dette være en introduktion. Hr. LaRouche udgav i juni 2014 et politisk program, »Fire Love til USA’s omgående redning«, som, tilføjede han, »ikke er en valgmulighed, men en uopsættelig nødvendighed«. Når vi ser på disse love, når vi ser på den idé, der udgør den overordnede ledetråd, så ser vi, at der er en idé om, hvad det vil sige at være menneske. Dét er nøglen til dette. Hr. LaRouche diskuterer dette mod slutningen, efter at have forklaret, hvad de Fire Love er for love. Han beskriver Vernadskijs anskuelse (faktisk LaRouches egen anskuelse) af, hvad det vil sige at være menneske – om mennesket og skabelsen. Han forklarer, at der er en idé, som man må forstå, når man tænker på økonomi set fra et menneskeligt standpunkt.

Som Mike fremhævede, så er resurser for menneskene ikke noget, vi finder i den vilde natur, ligesom en ko, der vandrer rundt og leder efter græs eller noget kløver at spise. Vi skaber resurser. Vi er den eneste art på Jorden, der skaber resurser. Faktisk, så er de fleste af de resurser, som vi benytter i dag, de fleste af de resurser, som vores liv foregår omkring, de fleste af de betingelser, som vi lever i, skabt, det er et menneskeskabt miljø; det er menneskeskabte resurser.

Tænk på alt det, der er en del af dit liv på daglig basis. Tænk på elektriciteten; tænk på de materialer, du kommer i kontakt med. Disse er for det meste slet ikke naturlige i den forstand, at de ikke er naturlige for en biologisk organisme som mennesket. Det vil sige, de er ikke resurser for lad os sige en flok chimpanser, eller sådan noget. Elektricitet, som vi frembringer ved hjælp af kul; ved at tage et klippestykke fra jorden og forvandle det til elektricitet, som vi kan overføre gennem tynde ledninger og bringe ind i hjem og foretagender og fabrikker for at skabe bevægelse, for at bringe lys, kommunikationer, varme, afkøling, alle disse ting. Dette er en resurse, vi har skabt. Resursen uran; et klippestykke i jorden, der nu er en kilde til utrolig energi for os. De materialer, som vi bruger – metaller, substanser, der aldrig har eksisteret nogetsteds på Jorden, undtagen når vi skaber dem; plastik skabt af olie. Man finder ikke plastik nogen steder i Jordens skorpe; man finder olie. Aluminium, metallet, findes ikke på planeten – undtagen måske på en meteorit; aluminium er en ren, menneskelig skabelse. Der findes intet, ikke så meget som et gram af det i Jordens skorpe. Så vi skaber resurser.

Når vi opererer økonomisk på den måde, der er karakteristisk for den menneskelige art som helhed over lang, historisk tid, over økonomisk tid, kan vi få enorm udvikling og omskabe vores forhold til naturen. For at gøre dette, er der nogle skridt, der kræves; nogle aspekter af lovgivning og nogle specifikke forslag til en politik. I denne brochure om Amerikas rolle i Silkevejen gennemgår vi de fire aspekter af LaRouches Fire Love. Det første skridt er en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall; dette er den afgørende lov, som I netop hørte blev rejst som et spørgsmål under pressekonferencen i Det Hvide Hus. Dette var Roosevelts politik, der opdelte bankerne i kommercielle banker og investeringsbanker; som gjorde det muligt at få udlån ud til realøkonomien på en sikker måde. Hvor banker kun var engageret i typiske lån og ejendomslån og den slags ting; ikke i spekulativ investering. Når banker gør det, kan regeringen forsikre dem. Med Glass-Steagall genindført vil vi gøre det muligt at få finansiering derud til langfristede projekter. Som de grafiske kort i dette afsnit indikerer, har vi haft en enorm mængde – billioner af dollars; jeg mener, det var $4,5 billion fra Federal Reserve (USA’s centralbank), og lige så meget eller mere fra den Europæiske Centralbank. Enorme mængder penge er blevet skabt og sat ind i banksystemet; og næsten ingen af dem kommer ud i realøkonomien.

Så hvis man skal forsøge at finansiere en økonomisk genrejsning, hvis man forsøger at skaffe kredit til langfristede projekter, som at genopbygge dæmningerne, der er forfaldne i hele landet; som at påbegynde byggeriet af et højhastighedsjernbanenet; dette er projekter, der koster billioner. Men, billioner af dollars er blevet smidt ind i banksystemet, og de er ikke gået til noget; de bliver bare dér. Med Glass-Steagall gør vi det muligt for banksystemet igen at agere på en langsigtet måde; og vi skiller os fra disse bankers bankerot. Lige nu er hele banksektoren ved at nedsmelte totalt; en smule mere i Europa, ser det ud til, end her, men det er en offentlig hemmelighed. Dette banksystem vil ikke eksistere ret meget længere i verden. Hvad skal erstatte det; og hvad vil grundlaget for den måde, dette nye banksystem opererer på, blive?

Dette bringer os til den anden lov; en ny nationalbankinstitution. Alexander Hamiltons principper, det, han gjorde som grundlaget for økonomi – og i den digitale brochure kan I finde links, hvor I selv kan læse Alexander Hamiltons hovedrapporter til Kongressen. De er tilgængelige. Det er ting, der er et virkeligt højdepunkt i økonomisk fremgangsmåde. Vi gennemgår, hvordan en ny nationalbank ville operere. Dette er virkelig afgørende. For at gøre det muligt at få langfristede investeringer til billioner af dollars, må vi have en ny fremgangsmåde. I har måske hørt i pressekonferencen, hvis I lyttede til det hele, at et tema gentagne gange tages op fra Det Hvide Hus lige nu, uheldigvis; det er ideen om partnerskaber mellem det offentlige og det private. At dette skulle være måden, hvorpå de billioner af dollars til infrastruktur, som præsident Trump har krævet, kan finansieres. Det vil ikke fungere; det vil ikke fungere. For det første, med mindre man får Glass-Steagall, så vil man ikke få en sådan finansiering; men et andet aspekt er, at offentlige/private partnerskaber kræver projekter, som man kan investere i, som direkte vil tilbagebetale investeringen. Et offentlig/privat partnerskab for at restaurere LaGuardia Lufthavnens terminaler; OK, det kunne måske tiltrække finansiering.

Men hvad med projekter, der ikke vil betale sig tilbage i flere årtier? Hvad med et nationalt højhastighedsjernbanenet? Hvad med byggeri af nye kraftværker? Hvad med investering i langfristet forskning og udvikling, såsom rumprogrammet? Det er her, hvor der ikke kommer en direkte tilbagebetaling, at der er en specifik, unik rolle, som skal spilles gennem et nationalbanksystem; hvor nationens forøgede produktivitet som helhed er tilbagebetalingen, så at sige. Ved at dirigere investeringer på måder, der gør hele nationaløkonomien mere produktiv, så er der faktisk ingen omkostninger ved at opbygge infrastrukturen. USA’s transkontinentale jernbane kostede noget mht. den fysiske indsats, det krævede at bygge den; men indkomsterne for denne investering, [var] den nye nationaløkonomi, som den skabte. Den nye nation, som den skabte, hvor man kunne rejse fra kyst til kyst på under en uge, i modsætning til de tre uger, som det ville have taget før. Man skulle tage til Panama over land, og dernæst fortsætte med skib op igen til USA’s vestkyst. At få en jernbaneforbindelse i stedet forandrede nationen rent samfundsmæssigt; den forandrede nationen økonomisk på en dybtgående måde. Udviklinger kunne nu finde sted; økonomi var mulig. Adgang til forsyninger og materialer og markeder og ideer og infrastruktur; dette udvidedes.

Så igennem et nationalt (statsligt) banksystem gør vi det muligt at tiltrække den form for kredit, der eksisterer rent potentielt, og dirigere den til projekter, der har langsigtet gavn og tilbagebetaling. Og vi bliver ikke bundet af at lede efter måder, hvorpå disse projekter kan omsættes til penge; hvilket er en afgørende fejl ved synspunktet om offentlig/privat partnerskab. Ofte, hvad disse ting gør, er, at de tjener penge på allerede eksisterende programmer ved at privatisere dem og så få brugerbetalingen eller indkomsten fra dem. Så vi må have en ny nationalbank. De $1 billion, som præsident Trump har nævnt, er alt for lidt.

For et par uger siden mødte jeg lederen af det Amerikanske Selskab for Civilingeniører. Det var dagen efter talen om nationens tistand (28. feb.), hvor Trump havde gentaget sit krav om $1 billion. Denne ingeniør sagde, »Det er ingenting! Det er ingenting, sammenlignet med, hvad vi har brug for«. Det Amerikanske Selskab for Civilingeniører har udgivet deres rapport, der siger, at vi har brug for $3,6 billion i investeringer blot frem til 2020. Og det er uden tanke for sådan noget som et helt nyt højhastighedsjernbanenet; det er kun til reparationer og til at få vores infrastruktur op i en anstændig form. Så med de enorme mængder, der er involveret, så er dette ikke noget, der vil få nogle mennesker til at udstede nogle lån til rentesatser, man vil have råd til. Det vil blive gennem national kredit på Hamiltons måde; og vi gennemgår [i brochuren], hvordan vi får dette til at ske.

Dette bringer os frem til den tredje lov, som vi diskuterer. At, når man investerer kredit, så må man have en måde, hvorpå man kan måle, om man forøger produktiviteten. Hvad er standarden for produktivitet i en nationaløkonomi? Er standarden for økonomisk værdi, at man tjener penge? Er det, at man sætter noget til salg, som folk er villige til at betale for? Det kan det ikke være! Folk betaler for alle mulige værdiløse ting; folk begår fejltagelser, når de bruger penge. Ideen om, at penge er et mål for værdi, er simpelt hen usand. Den måde, som LaRouche ser dette på, er i stedet med ideen om en økonomisk platform. At, når vi går til et højere niveau af energi, for eksempel, en højere kilde til energi, så har vi ikke alene mere af en energiresurse, men den lader os også gøre nye ting. På denne grafiske fremstilling [Fig. 1] ser man overgangen fra træ til kul, som fandt sted hen over en 50-årig periode fra 1850 til 1900. Kul er mere praktisk end træ, for man kan gøre en masse fine ting med træ, som man ikke kan gøre med kul; såsom at lave møbler eller bygge et hus. Man bygger ikke et hus med kul. Men kul lader én gøre nye ting. Olie og naturgas er mere energitætte; de lader én gøre nye ting – forbrændingsmotoren, elektricitet, flyvning. Man vil ikke have en flyvemaskine, der flyver på kul; og slet ikke på træ. Så kommer det potentiale, man kunne have for nutiden – fission, fusion; højere energiniveauer, der er tusinder, ja hundrede tusinder af gange mere kraftfulde end den kraft, der er tilgængelig i kemiske substanser.

Her ser man et eksempel fra før den transkontinentale jernbane [Fig. 2], hvor man ser, hvordan rejsetiden fra New York var forskellig fra 1830 til 1857. Hvordan vejbyggeri, men faktisk for det meste udvidelsen af jernbanen, gjorde det muligt at integrere denne del af nationen på en langt tættere måde. Tænk på denne storslåede, nye idé, du har fået; en ny måde at gøre tingene bedre på. Kan man tjene flere penge, hvis man kan udskibe ens varer længere og hurtigere og lettere? Selvfølgelig. Men tænk over det, det betyder, at en god idé, en bedre måde at gøre tingene på, kan spredes lettere. Folk kan lettere bevæge sig rundt. Vi er ved at blive en ny slags nation.

Når vi tænker på den form for platform, som vi skaber, så må vi først og fremmest tænke på, hvad vores energikilde er. Hvad er vores evne til at forandre naturen, så den passer til vore behov og vore forhåbninger for fremtiden? Og det er hævet over enhver tvivl, at de største fordele, den største chance for at opnå dette, ligger i fusionskraft. Mængden af potentiel energi i fusion er bogstavelig talt over en million gange over det, man får fra kemisk energi. Sidstnævnte vil ikke forbedres gennem større effektivitet, med bedre gasturbiner eller sådan noget; det er simpelt hen forskellen mellem de elektronbindinger, der holder et molekyle sammen, versus det, der foregår i en atomkerne, som holder den sammen. Energimængden i en atomkerne er simpelt hen over en million gange større end de elektriske bindinger, der holder et molekyle sammen.

Som Mike nævnte, så bliver deuterium i havvand til en resurse; bliver til et brændsel for fusion. Bliver til et vidt udbredt tilgængeligt fusionsbrændsel, i modsætning til den form for geopolitik, vi ser i dag, mht. adgang til energiresurser. At energi til at blive til en virkelig art, der rejser i rummet, kun vil fremkomme med fusionskraft. Hvis det tager flere måneder at komme til Mars, er det ikke rigtigt under ens kontrol. Hvis det er umuligt at afbøje en asteroide, der vil tilintetgøre alt liv på Jorden, fordi man ikke kan nå den i tide; tænk på den grundlæggende set uendelige værdi, det har at have udviklet fusion.

Det, vi dækker i denne brochure, er i sin kerne en idé om, hvad det vil sige at være menneske. Vi afslutter med en forståelse af, hvad denne menneskelige identitet er; hvad kreativitet er; og hvordan den bliver angrebet. De britiske angreb, som Mike netop har fortalt om, og som eksplicit ses inden for områderne af politik eller i Opiumkrigen, i felterne som militæret eller økonomi. Det eksisterer også i kulturens verden, i videnskabens verden, i de kulturelle forandringer, vi har set i løbet af de seneste 100 år eller så; med omdefineringen af videnskab, der begyndte omkring år 1900, hvor Bertrand Russell – i en æra, hvor Planck og Einstein var i færd med at revolutionere verden – forsøgte at dræbe videnskaben og forvandle den til matematik. Denne britiske intrige var utroligt succesrig; som det i dag bevidnes af den totale beundring for ideen om kunstig intelligens, for eksempel. Folk forstår ikke naturlig intelligens; hvad det vil sige at være et skabende menneske.

Dette aspekt er noget, som universet responderer på. Vore opdagelser er aldrig fuldt ud korrekte; vi ved aldrig alting fuldt ud. Men de opdagelser, vi kan komme frem til, har stadig en voksende magt over naturen; på trods af, at de aldrig helt er ligesom, aldrig helt indfanger essensen af, hvordan universet fungerer. Det faktum, at denne aftagende ufuldkommenhed korresponderer til en voksende magt, uden nogensinde helt at få alting rigtigt, mener jeg taler stærkt for det faktum, at det er en skabende proces i sig selv, som er en fællesnævner mellem vort intellekt og universet som helhed. Hvis vi kan få adgang til dette, er de økonomiske potentialer uendelige. Vi kan udvikle fusion som en energikilde; vi kan revolutionere vores forhold til råmaterialer. Vi kan gøre en ende på truslen om tørke ved at udvikle kontrol over vandcyklussen; på samme måde, som vi ikke blot håber på, at der vil vokse noget mad i vores køkken, som vi kan spise. Vi sår og planter mad, vi har landbrug, vi transporterer det. Vi kan udvikle et lignende forhold til vand, hvor vand er noget, vi transporterer, hvis det er nødvendigt; at vi kan ændre vejret, hvis vi kan styre det; at vi tager direkte fra havene, når det behøves. Vi kan virkelig transformere os selv som art; og vores nuværende potentiale er virkelig enormt. Med åbningen for samarbejde med Rusland, som vi ser fra Trump-administrationen, med møder mellem militære topfolk i USA og Rusland. Med den forestående konference om Bælt & Vej-initiativet i Beijing i maj, som vil være en virkelig chance for USA til at ophøre med at spille en fjendtlig rolle over for dette Nye Paradigme, som under Obama og Bush; og i stedet gå med i det og give en særlig form for lederskab, som faktisk kun kan komme fra USA. En unik form for potentiale, som vi kan tilbyde verden, som i rummet, som i fusion, og som i andre ting.

Har du noget at tilføje?

Billington: To korte bemærkninger. Med hensyn til national bankpraksis, slog det mig, da du talte om det, at vi har hørt fra folk i USA’s regering, der har været involveret i at forsøge at få kinesiske investeringer til USA, at de altid løber ind i det anti-kinesiske, anti-russiske, neokonservative hysteri i Kongressen, så snart, det drejer sig om et større projekt. De siger, »Åh, nej, vi kan ikke lade kineserne få dit og dat«. Men de sagde til os, at kineserne selv ville være absolut lykkelige for at tage deres enorme reserver i amerikansk statsgæld, der nu intet indtjener med de nulrentesatser, der anvendes; og, da de ikke så godt, projekt for projekt, kan sætte dem i noget i USA, da at sætte dem ind i en nationalbank – en infrastrukturbank – hvor de sandsynligvis ville få et højere afkast. Men, hvad der er vigtigere, så ville disse penge komme ud at arbejde; de ville komme ud at arbejde for at opbygge en nation. Ikke deres nation i dette tilfælde – vores; hvilket, som civilingeniørfolkene sagde, vi har desperat brug for. Så kapitalen, ud over at generere national kapital, så er der institutioner i verden, der ville være mere end villige til at sætte kapital ind i en sådan bank; som bliver forvandlet til faktisk rigdom. Pengene udgør ikke værdien; værdien ligger i infrastrukturen, i transformationen af naturen, der finder sted som følge af en kreditpolitik, der kommer fra en nationalbank.

Og ellers vil jeg blot gentage, at dette er et tidspunkt i historien, hvor vi, faktisk for første gang, har chancen for at tilintetgøre ideen om imperium. Helga Zepp-LaRouche siger ofte, at folk vil sige, »Det er en ønskedrøm; den menneskelige natur er trods alt ond. Der vil altid være onde mennesker«. Jo, selvfølgelig; men pointen er, at vi står på randen af, at menneskeheden som helhed kommer ud af barndommen – bliver voksen. I stedet for søskende, der skændes med hinanden og kaster spaghetti efter hinanden, så har man en verden, der anerkender den andens fordel – som det blev sagt ved den Westfalske Fred – og ideen om, at vi kan lære at mestre de store kulturer på Jorden; det være sig den konfucianske kultur, Gupta-kulturen eller Abbaside-kalifatet i Bagdad. At vi forstår, at Jordens store kulturer alle har perioder med storhed og perioder med mørke tider. Men ved at række ud for at finde disse store øjeblikke i alle kulturer, har vi potentialet til at skabe en verden, hvor ideen om den darwinistiske bedst egnedes overlevelse kan blive smidt på historiens skrotbunke; og vi begynder rent faktisk at have muligheden for, at alle mennesker kan opleve deres virkelige menneskelighed – deres skabende evner til at gøre noget, der vil få varig værdi for menneskehedens fremtid.

Der står vi. Vi har denne mulighed i vore hænder. Folk må lære at bryde gennem pessimisme, kynisme, frygt, og erkende det enorme potentiale, som vi har lige foran os, i vore hænder på dette tidspunkt i historien; og leve op til dette ansvar, og til denne enorme chance.

Ross: Storartet! Vi viser websiden endnu engang på skærmen, så I kan finde vores rapport om Amerikas rolle i den Nye Silkevej. Hvis I lytter, så er det lpac.co/us-joins-nsr for den Nye Silkevej. Nyd rapporten! Jeg håber, den er til hjælp i jeres organisering.

Ny digital brochure 'LaRouches Fire Love' nu på LaRouchePAC!

I november 2014 inviterede den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping officielt USA til at opgive konfrontations-geopolitik og gå med i det største initiativ for infrastruktur og økonomisk udvikling i menneskehedens historie, centreret omkring programmet for den Nye Silkevej. Dette »win-win«-samarbejde vil, sammen med LaRouches Fire Love, være den hurtigste måde, hvorpå USA kan genopbygge sin smuldrende infrastruktur, skabe produktiv beskæftigelse og sikre en blomstrende fremtid. Dengang afviste præsident Obama dette tilbud. Vil præsident Donald Trump nu tage imod det?

Året 2017 indleder en ny æra for menneskeheden. Det markerer skiftet, bort fra seksten år med George W. Bush’ og Barack Obamas vildledte og destruktive lederskab, den gamle orden, der har drevet de transatlantiske nationer ud i økonomisk ruin og en proces med uophørlig krigsførelse under Det britiske Imperiums gamle mentalitet med »regimeskifte«. Dette arkaiske system med nulsums-geopolitik bragte os i risikabel grad tæt på krig med Rusland og Kina og drev verden frem mod randen af Dommedag.

Men denne gamle orden er døende. Kernen i det døende system er resterne af Det britiske Imperiums »for store til at lade gå ned«-banker i City of London og på Wall Street, der er oppustet af værdiløs spillegæld, alt imens de transatlantiske nationers fysiske økonomier er blevet drænet for produktiv kredit, deres befolkninger drevet ud i ledighed og arbejdsløshed, alkohol og narkoafhængighed, vold og fortvivlelse. De seneste seksten års ulovlige krige har kostet hundrede tusinder af uskyldige liv, været årsag til en flygtningekrise i Sydvestasien og Europa og nedtrykt og demoraliseret de vestlige nationers befolkninger.

Der er nu et totalt oprør imod dette vanvid. Det britiske folk stemte for Brexit og brød det overnationale EU-diktaturs lænker; det italienske folk stemte imod en folkeafstemning, der tilsigtede at yderlige stramme disse EU-lænker; og det amerikanske folk stemte imod Wall Streets krigsmager-marionet, Barack Obama, og hans klon, Hillary Clinton. Hvilken retning, Donald Trump vil gå, er langt fra sikkert, men han blev valgt på et løfte om at genopbygge nationens forfaldne infrastruktur og industrielle kapacitet, og om at etablere et samarbejde med Rusland om bekæmpelse af terrorisme samtidig med at afslutte imperiepolitikkens »regimeskifte«.

Hvorvidt Trump-administrationen vil opfylde disse løfter eller ej, afhænger af jer, det amerikanske folk, og af mennesker i hele verden, der ønsker at gå sammen for at skabe et nyt paradigme, baseret på menneskehedens fælles mål – gensidig økonomisk udvikling, fælles videnskabeligt fremskridt og en renæssance, der bringer alle verdens store klassiske kulturer sammen.

Begyndelsen til dette nye paradigme eksisterer allerede. I september 2013 meddelte den nyligt valgte, kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping, under en tale på Nazarbayev Universitetet i Kasakhstan, at han nu ville lancere udviklingen af det »Nye, økonomiske Silkevejsbælte«, der havde til formål at bringe Kinas, igennem de seneste årtier åndeløse udviklingsproces, der ikke har fortilfælde, til resten af verden. Kina har løftet over 700 millioner af landets befolkning ud af fattigdom på blot 30 år, samtidig med, at de har transformeret nationen til at blive Jordens næststørste økonomi og har indtaget en førerposition inden for videnskabelig forskning og udforskning af rummet.

Kina har, med sit Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej, tilsammen kaldet Bælt & Vej-initiativet (一带一路), og sammen med en vifte af nye, internationale finansmekanismer, såsom BRIKS’ Nye Udviklingsbank (NDB) og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), på ganske få år bragt enorme infrastrukturudviklingsprojekter til de eurasiske, afrikanske og sydamerikanske nationer og har givet ny vitalitet og nyt håb til verdens tidligere europæiske kolonier, der var blevet efterladt fattige og uden håb af nedskæringspolitikken, gældsslaveriet og nægtelse af kredit, der var blevet dem påtvunget af deres tidligere koloniherrer og det herskende IMF/Verdensbank-regime. I ånden fra erklæringen fra De Alliancefri Landes Bevægelses nationer i 1976, har Kinas forpligtende engagement over for programmet med den Nye Silkevej for global udvikling endelig igangsat skabelsen af en »ny, international, økonomisk verdensorden«.

Dette initiativs skala og dybde har i sandhed intet fortilfælde. Direkte omfattende flere end 60 nationer, og med næsten 70 store infrastrukturprojekter uden for Kina (med utallige yderligere supplerende projekter), berører den Nye Silkevej fire og en halv milliard mennesker og er allerede tolv gange så stor som Marshallplanen (det massive program for at genopbygge Vesteuropa efter Anden Verdenskrig).

Vil USA omsider tage imod Kinas tilbud om at tilslutte sig?      

4. marts, 2017 – En artikel i New York Times fra 1. marts gør det klart, hvor forbløffende arrogant og direkte uforskammet, de neoliberale politikere og medier i Europa lige fra begyndelsen har forholdt sig over for en demokratisk valgt, amerikansk præsidents valgsejr! Allerede i det tidlige efterår begyndte Obama at sænke klassificeringsniveauet for diverse tvivlsomme efterretningsrapporter om Ruslands angivelige manipulation af den amerikanske valgproces, som delvist var baseret på britiske kilder, og som der frem til i dag absolut ikke findes nogen beviser for, for at maksimere den kreds af personer, der har adgang til disse rapporter. Ligeledes blev tilsvarende informationer givet til europæiske allierede – og tydeligvis til bestemte medier.

Det forklarer den uhørte arrogance, hvormed disse kredse som aftalt var så sikre på, at Trump ikke ville blive siddende i Det Hvide Hus i sin fulde embedsperiode, og at »undersøgende journalister nu ville få masser at lave«, som der endda stod at læse Der Tagesschau! »Vil Donald Trump blive myrdet, afsat gennem et kup eller blot afsat ved en rigsret?«, lød det i det britiske Spectator. I samme skure kørte en ARD-presseklubudsendelse, hvor udgiveren af Die Zeit, Josef Joffe, grublede over »Mord i Det Hvide Hus«, og med det franske radioshow Karl Zero, hvor der fuldstændigt smagløst blev diskuteret diverse dødsmåder, der snart kunne skille Trump fra livet.

Londonavisen Daily Mail citerede, uden at nævne navn, en kilde – angiveligt en ven af familien – iflg. hvilken Obama personligt, fra sit nye herresæde i Washington-bydelen Kalorama, vil anføre en kampagne, hvis mål er at fjerne Trump fra Det Hvide Hus enten ved en rigsretssag eller tilbagetræden. Og i stedet for at konfrontere det faktum, at det var Obamas og Hillary Clintons katastrofale politik med hensyn til de »ynkværdige« (dvs. de amerikanske borgere i de tidligere industrialisere områder, nu kaldet ’rustbæltet’, der ikke så nogen fremtid for sig selv med den hidtidige politik fra de etablerede eliter, -red.), som forskaffede dem valgnederlaget, så efterplaprer det Demokratiske Parti som et mantra ’narrativen’ om de russiske hackerangreb.  Oversiddere fra Obamas efterretningstjenester strør næsten dagligt nye aflytningsprotokoller til medierne, der skal danne belæg for eksistensen af upassende relationer mellem medlemmer af Trump-administrationen og Rusland. Det seneste eksempel: Samtaler, som justitsminister Jeff Sessions, i sin daværende funktion som medlem af det amerikanske Senats Udenrigsudvalg, har haft med den russiske ambassadør Sergej Kisljak, og som hører til Sessions opgaver, bliver nu af Demokraterne benyttet som yderligere ammunition til at kræve hans afgang.

Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergej Lavrov kommenterede anklagerne fra »unavngivne kilder« om, at Kisljak skulle være en spion og en hverver af spioner, med, at alt dette mindede ham om McCarthy-perioden, alt imens Trump selv talte om en total heksejagt imod ham og hans administration.

Det er i sandhed en ny McCarthy-heksejagt, som det neoliberale establishment på begge sider Atlanten iscenesætter, fordi Trump har skrinlagt hele den unipolære politiks aksiomer, som Amerika har forfulgt siden starten af George W. Bush’ embedsperiode, hvilket også tydeligt kom frem under Trumps tale om nationens tilstand. Trumps argument med, at man med de seks billioner, som krigene i Mellemøsten havde kostet, kunne have opbygget USA’s økonomi to eller tre gange, stiller den totale modsætning på spidsen.

Men, alt imens det neoliberale establishment i Europa på forbløffende vis lader den demokratiske maske falde og åbenlyst allerede spekulerer på tiden efter Trump, så burde de hellere feje for egen dør. Tegnene på et nyt, og langt mere dramatisk finanskrak end det, der fandt sted i 2008; en fornyet krise i Grækenland; bankkrisen i Italien; uforudsigelige valgresultater i flere lande i år; en eller flere stater, der vil følge i Brexits spor – kombinationen af alle disse udviklinger kunne meget hurtigt stille spørgsmålstegn ved euroens, og selv EU’s, eksistensgrundlag. Men disse regeringer er tydeligvis lige så meget ude af stand til, eller uvillige til, at opgive en politik, der har frembragt disse kriser, som de amerikanske Demokrater vægrer sig ved at erkende årsagerne til deres valgnederlag.

Fem år efter ECB-chef Mario Draghis berømte sætning om, at han vil gøre, »hvad der skal til« for at redde euroen, er eurokrisen tilbage på fuldt blus, men med den forskel, at Centralbankerne nu har affyret alt deres krudt med ’kvantitativ lempelse’ og negative rentesatser. Trojkaens nedskæringspolitik over for Grækenland har ødelagt landets økonomi og kostet befolkningen usigelige lidelser. Den tyske finansminister Wolfgang Schäubles stædighed mht. at bevilge Grækenland en gældsreduktion, og naturligvis den voksende fortvivlelse hos folk i Italien, Spanien og Portugal over EU-politikken, truer med at blive udløseren af det globale finanssystems kollaps. Den kinesiske avis Global Times, som er talerør for regeringen, advarer netop om dette, og om virkningen på Kina.

Selvfølgelig er krisen i Grækenland blot én af mange miner, der kunne få det transatlantiske finanssystem til at detonere. I betragtning af de 3,7 billioner, som ECB har smidt ud til det skrantende europæiske banksystem, og i betragtning af en statsgæld i USA på 20 billioner, vil alt ikke alene for Trump afhænge af, at han opfylder sit valgløfte og gør en ende på kasinoøkonomien ved at genindføre Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven.

Bankopdelingen – nøjagtig efter de samme regler, som Franklin D. Roosevelt gennemførte i 1933 – er blot det første, uopsættelige skridt, der må følges op af de næste tre love, som Lyndon LaRouche har defineret som en samlet pakke til overvindelse af denne krise. Den nuværende, monetaristiske politik må erstattes af en tilbagevenden til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton, med oprettelsen af en nationalbank og et statsligt kreditsystem, og med en massiv forøgelse af økonomiens produktivitet, der kan opnås med et forceret program for udvikling af kernefusionskraft og virkeliggørelsen af et internationalt samarbejde omkring rumfart som drivkraft. I USA er resolutioner, der modsvarer dette, allerede blevet vedtaget af elleve delstatskongresser.

Selv om man ikke tilslutter sig professor i økonomi Mark Blyths synspunkt om, at EU, med de forventede valgresultater i flere lande, vil falde fra hinanden, endnu før Storbritannien har aktiveret artikel 50 for Brexit, bør det stå klart, at et »vi fortsætter på samme vis« med hensyn til EU og euroen, ikke kan fungere. Ikke overraskende bringer Jean-Claude Juncker med sin hvidbog til overvindelse af krisen i Europa intet nyt frem; hans fem scenarier er blot variationer af den samme, neoliberale, geopolitiske idé.

Alternativet hertil er soleklart: De europæiske nationer må tage imod det kinesiske tilbud om at samarbejde om den Nye Silkevej, det såkaldte Bælt & Vej-initiativ. Dette projekt har allerede i løbet af de forgangne tre år fuldstændig forandret dynamikken i verden; allerede 70 nationer arbejder sammen med Kina, og det drejer sig om det største infrastruktur- og udviklingsprogram i menneskehedens historie. I stedet for planer om at indgå ekstremt tvivlsomme aftaler med kystlande omkring Middelhavet, burde fru Merkel hellere gribe Kinas tilbud om, sammen med andre stater, at opbygge Mellemøsten og det øvrige Sydvestasien, såvel som også det afrikanske kontinent, og dermed løse flygtningekrisen på en permanent og menneskelig måde.

Som det ser ud, så er den neoliberale politiks betonhoveder ikke til sinds at gøre dette. Den tyske finansminister Schäuble holder stædigt på sit pund kød, og for ham kan der ikke være tale om en gældsreducering for Grækenland. Kina opbygger ikke alene havnen i Piræus som transitpunkt for den Nye Silkevej, men investerer også i byggeriet af jernbaneforbindelsen fra Athen over Beograd til Budapest. Og hvad gør EU-kommissionen? De forsøger at blokere netop dette byggeri!

Det er på allerhøjeste tid, at flere og flere mennesker går sammen med BüSo og Schiller Instituttet om Tysklands og de andre europæiske staters virkelige interesser, som ligger i at samarbejde med Kina, Rusland, Indien, Japan og andre stater om de storslåede perspektiver, der nu er på dagsordenen med den Nye Silkevej. Det er absolut ikke i vores interesse at deltage i heksejagten på Trump og Putin, og vi bør være himmelhenrykte over, at den nye, amerikanske præsident annullerer interventionskrigene.

Det er først og fremmest et krav at se på årsagerne til, at en stor del af verden befinder sig i så kaotisk en tilstand: Årsagen er den unipolære politik, der er blevet ført af Bush, Thatcher, Blair, Obama og Cameron, og til hvilken politik også NATO’s og EU’s imperieudvidelse til Ruslands grænser hører, såvel som også politikken med ’farvede revolutioner’ og krige i Østeuropa og i Mellemøsten og det øvrige Sydvestasien og Nordafrika. Til denne politik hører ligeledes den neoliberale økonomiske politik, der sætter bankernes og spekulanternes interesser i første række, for at det skal gå etablissementet endnu bedre – dette etablissement, for hvem de ’ynkværdige’ ikke engang er værdige at ynkes over. Og, som man nu kan se, er disse neoliberale totalt illiberale, for ikke at sige diktatoriske, når demokratiske flertal går op imod dem.

Heldigvis er det endnu ikke for sent at springe med på det Nye Silkevejstog!   

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. marts, 2017 – Alt imens hysteriet med den »farvede revolutions« angreb på Donald Trump fortsætter i hele Europa og i USA, så er sandheden bag denne »nye McCarthyisme« også ved at komme frem.

Udtalelser om et muligt mord på Trump er fremkommet i flere europæiske pressemedier og i blogosfæren. Obamas justitsminister Loretta Lynch, der nægtede at fængsle bankiererne for deres forbrydelser med hvidvask af narkopenge og med at ødelægge den amerikanske økonomi, har nu offentligt opfordret til voldelige demonstrationer og bemærker, at, i tidligere tider, »blødte folk og ja, nogle af dem døde. Dette er hårdt. Alt, hvad der er godt, er hårdt. Vi har gjort dette før. Vi kan gøre det igen.« At sammenligne det Obama/Soros-anførte kupforsøg med borgerrettighedsbevægelsen er både en løgn og en afskyelighed. Den eneste, legitime sammenligning er med det voldelige kup i Ukraine i 2014, anført af nynazister, som EIR har dokumenteret, blev kørt af netop de selvsamme agenter (Se EIR's rapport, »Obama-Soros ’farvede revolutioner’; Nazi-kup i Ukraine, 2014; USA, 2017?«)

Det er ikke det indbildte angreb på »vore vestlige værdier«, der er drivkraften bag dette kupforsøg, men snarere det desperate Britiske Imperium og dets aktiver i USA, der er rædselsslagne over, at imperieopdelingen af verden, der er afgørende for at opretholde deres bankerotte, vestlige finanssystem gennem krige og nedskæringspolitik, trues af Trumps bestræbelser på at bringe USA ind i et samarbejde med Rusland og Kina. Et sådant samarbejde, der vil forene verden gennem et nyt paradigme, baseret på fred og udvikling, vil ikke have plads til de spekulative finansinstitutioner, hvis fremgang beror på hasardspil, narkopenge og krige. Trump gør forberedelser til at mødes med både Putin og Xi Jinping i de kommende måneder. Samarbejde omkring bekæmpelse af terrorisme og USA’s tilslutning til den Nye Silkevejsproces ville betyde enden på Imperiet – måske for altid.

Men Trump har endnu ikke opfyldt sit kampagneløfte om at genindføre Glass-Steagall for at afslutte det tyranni, der begås af Wall Streets »for store til at lade gå ned«-banker, der har suget kreditten ud af hele det transatlantiske finanssystem for at nære deres derivatboble. Denne boble er nu en halv gang større end den, der eksploderede i 2008 som følge af den sindssyge genforsikring af subprime-ejendomslån og andre værdiløse, spekulative værdipapirer. Hvis præsidenten skal lykkes med at genopbygge den amerikanske økonomi og gøre en ende på den værste narkokrise i nationens historie, må han omgående genindføre de finansielle principper, i Hamiltons tradition, som har været drivkraften bag alle amerikanske perioder med fremskridt.

Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-angreb på Wall Street er modellen – den eneste model – der kan forhindre den langt værre, finansielle nedsmeltning, der nu truer det europæiske og amerikanske banksystem. Kun ved hjælp af dette indledende, første skridt vil en genindførelse af solide og fornuftige principper for bankpraksis – som dirigerer statslig kredit til industri, landbrug, infrastruktur og en genindførelse af videnskabeligt fremskridt – atter være i stand til at gøre Amerika stort igen. Det er den effekt, som LaRouches Fire Love har. 

Muligheden for en sådan revolutionær transformation af nationen og verden har aldrig været større end den er i dag. Kampagnen, der har til hensigt at bringe Trumps præsidentskab til fald, har ikke held til at overbevise det amerikanske folk. Efter at Trump anklagede Obama, og Obamas »oversiddere« i efterretningssamfundet, for at køre løgnekampagnen, der anklager Trump for ulovlige bånd til Rusland, måtte New York Times indrømme præcis dette. I en artikel fra 2. marts forklarede NYT Obama-administrationens anbringelse af hemmelige (og falske), udokumenterede efterretninger i officielle dokumenter, hvor de sænkede hemmelighedsgraden med det formål at maksimere disses cirkulering og forberedte efterforskninger for kriminelle handlinger, baseret på disse løgne.

Nu har Trump anklaget Obama for at aflytte hans kontorer i Trump Tower under kampagnen og tilføjet, at »dette er Nixon/Watergate« og »dette er McCarthyisme«. Han har krævet, at Kongressen udfører en tilbundsgående efterforskning. Obamas chef for den nationale efterretningstjeneste, James Clapper – bedst kendt for sin løgn over for Kongressen i 2013, hvor han benægtede, at efterretningssamfundet overvågede millioner af amerikanere (afsløret som løgn af Snowden-afsløringerne) – optrådte i dag på NBC’s »Mød Pressen« for at benægte, at der fandt en sådan aflytning af Trump Tower sted (selv om han denne gang var lidt mere forsigtig og sagde, »så vidt jeg ved«). Vi får se.

Aktivistteams fra LaRouchePAC deltog i pro-Trump møder i hele landet søndag, hvor de både oplevede en høj grad af anerkendelse af LaRouches år med at afsløre Obamas forbrydelser og også en åbenhed over for bestræbelserne på at få Demokrater og Republikanere til at kræve, at Trump går frem med sit løfte om at genindføre Glass-Steagall. Men aktivisterne bemærkede, at befolkningen, ligesom Kongressen, er selvisk optaget af partiske angreb uden meget hensyn til, eller blot begreb om, afgørende politiske spørgsmål. Indgriben med LaRouches Fire Love har aldrig været mere presserende. Med det transatlantiske banksystem, der er rede til at sprænges, og de hektiske bestræbelser på at fremprovokere en borgerkrig eller et kup i USA, har vi ikke tid til mangel på klarhed.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag sagde til medarbejdere: »Dette er vores livs største kamp. Folk bør ikke opføre sig dumt.«

Foto: New Yorks Børs.      

Dette er en aktiv, igangværende kamp; og efter en række diskussioner med hr. og fr. LaRouche i løbet af de seneste par dage, har vi nu gen-optrappet og gen-understreget en ny kampagne for dette initiativ. Dette vil omfatte en ny appel; den forrige havde fokus på denne tale til Kongressen. Denne nye appel er lidt mere åben og skal være et nyt samlingspunkt for en national, og international, kampagne for at få USA til at vedtage dette program.

Benjamin Deniston: Vi skriver i dag den 3. marts, 2017, og dette er vores ugentlige fredags-webcast på larouchepac.com. Med mig her i studiet har jeg Paul Gallagher, økonomiredaktør for Executive Intelligence Review; og via video, Bill Roberts, medlem af LaRouchePAC Policy Committee.

I dag annoncerer vi lanceringen af nogle nye initiativer, der er direkte affødt af den meget succesrige kampagne, vi har ført i januar og februar for vores appel for Glass-Steagall. Over 3.000 underskrifter, inklusive både online appeller og skrevne underskrifter, er blevet overgivet til præsident Trump og mange kongresmedlemmer. Andre organisationer, der støtter et lignende initiativ, har også indsamlet tusinder af underskrifter. Antallet af underskrevne appeller lyder måske ikke af så meget, sammenlignet med andre appeller, men dette reflekterede en meget effektiv og vigtig kampagne. Blot i år har 14 delstatskongresser introduceret resolutioner, der enten kræver, at USA’s Kongres støtter Glass-Steagall alene, eller også Glass-Steagall og en eller anden variant af Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love. Vi så spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall komme i front og centrum under senatshøringen for godkendelse af den person, der blev finansminister, Mnuchin; hvor han blev konfronteret direkte med spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall. Vi har set en række mediedækninger, der har indikeret, at Wall Street har holdt vejret for at se, om dette bliver spørgsmålet eller ej. Så enhver med forstand indser, at dette er blevet til en central kamp. Wall Street er rædselsslagen over dette spørgsmål; de ved, at der stadig er seriøs støtte til det. Alt imens Trump ikke støttede det i sin tale om unionens tilstand (28. feb.), så er tiden ikke til, at vi klapper hinanden på ryggen over den effekt, vi har haft, eller læner os tilbage og opgiver; tiden er for en optrapning.

Dette er en aktiv, igangværende kamp; og efter en række diskussioner med hr. og fr. LaRouche i løbet af de seneste par dage, har vi nu gen-optrappet og gen-understreget en ny kampagne for dette initiativ. Dette vil omfatte en ny appel; den forrige havde fokus på denne tale til Kongressen. Denne nye appel er lidt mere åben og skal være et nyt samlingspunkt for en national og international kampagne for at få USA til at vedtage dette program. Jeg vil gerne oplæse denne appel. Den vil snarest blive udlagt på hjemmesiden; og alle, der underskrev den aktuelle appel (som var stilet til Donald Trump, -red.), vil omgående modtage den. Så hvis man endnu ikke har underskrevet appellen, så sørg for at gøre det nu. Så vil man være med i vores kampagne og vil modtage opdaterede rapporter – dagligt, ugentligt eller når som helst, der er nye udviklinger i dette spørgsmål, vil man modtage opdateringer. Man vil vide, hvad der foregår, og man vil blive en del af vores orientering for handling.

Vi beder ikke om, at folk bare efterlader et navn og et nummer, og det er så det; vi beder folk om at gå med i kampen. Som man kan se her på skærmen, kan man tilmelde sig; man kan få informationerne via sms på sin telefon, ved simpelt hen at skrive bogstaverne »GSACT« til nummeret 52886. Alene denne handling vil indlede den proces, hvor man kan læse og underskrive appellen og gå med i kampagnen. Hvis man har underskrevet (den tidligere appel, -red.), vil man omgående modtage udgivelsen af vores nye appel, som jeg nu vil oplæse en kopi af, og som meget snart vil blive udgivet. Det nye udkast lyder:

»Præsident Trump og den 115. Kongres: USA har brug for win-win-udvikling; vedtag LaRouches Fire Love og gå med i Kinas Nye Silkevej.

»Underskriverne af dette erkender, at det transatlantiske finanssystem er på randen af en ny nedsmeltning, der er værre end den fra 2007-08. Livsbetingelserne for det store flertal af amerikanere er støt og roligt brudt sammen i løbet af de seneste to årtier. USA’s økonomiske politik har fokuseret på at beskytte Wall Streets spekulative boble i stedet for at beskytte det almene vel og det amerikanske folks fremtidige velfærd. Vi erkender, at der nu må træffes nødforanstaltninger for at komme en ny finanskrise i forkøbet, og for atter at sætte amerikanere i arbejde for at genopbygge vores nation og vores fremtid.

For at opnå dette, anmoder vi præsident Donald Trump og den 115. Kongres om at vedtage og implementere programmet for LaRouches Fire Love for Økonomisk Genrejsning, som en hasteforanstaltning; og at tilslutte sig Kinas program for en Ny Silkevej for globalt samarbejde og storstilede infrastrukturprojekter og økonomisk udvikling.

De Fire Love definerer et sammenhængende program for økonomisk genrejsning, der har sine rødder i det Amerikanske System for økonomi:

1. Genindfør Franklin Roosevelts oprindelige Glass/Steagall-lov; som adskiller kommercielle udlånsaktiviteter fra Wall Street spekulation.
2. Vend tilbage til et nationalt banksystem i Hamiltons tradition.
3. Direkte statslig kredit til projekter og initiativer, der skaber stigende niveauer af produktivitet og indkomster.
4. Lancér et forceret program for udvikling af fusionskraft og en hurtig udvidelse af vores rumprogram.

USA’s økonomiske genrejsning vil blive meget optrappet, hvis USA tilslutter sig den globale udvikling af infrastruktur og den økonomiske renæssance, der strømmer fra Kinas Nye Silkevejsprogram.«

Dette vil altså blive offentliggjort snarest; dette vil være det nye samlingspunkt omkring en appel, men er i virkeligheden en national mobiliseringskampagne om dette spørgsmål. Vi vil gå mere i detaljer med dette, men jeg vil også annoncere, at vi er i gang med at opdatere LaRouchePACs brochure/rapport om præcis dette spørgsmål – LaRouches Fire Love og USA’s tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej. Så i løbet af de næste par dage kan I se frem til udgivelsen af denne nye rapport; den er faktisk et supplement og en støtte til indholdet af denne appel. Og som sagt, hvis man allerede er indtegnet som en del af vores kampagne for appellen, vil man også modtage en annoncering, så snart dette ligger klart.

Vi vil diskutere lidt mere i dybden det nye indhold af denne rapport; men før vi kommer til det, mener jeg, at vi må diskutere modreaktionerne og kampen imod denne politik. Som det er blevet nævnt i noget af dækningen af kampen om Glass-Steagall i de seneste måneder, så indser Wall Street, London og det internationale finansapparat, der faktisk har kørt USA og Obama-administrationen, at Trump er tilbøjelig til at gå i denne retning; og de er rædselsslagne over, at USA skal vælte de seneste 16 års politiske skakbræt og rent faktisk arbejde sammen med Rusland, Kina og andre nationer på basis af gensidig udvikling og gensidigt samarbejde. Dette ville betyde enden på Det britiske Imperium; noget, vi alle ser frem til at fejre. Men de opgiver ikke; der køres en massiv operation imod USA’s præsidentskab, imod Donald Trumps administration; og dette må være et spørgsmål, som vi må yde modstand overfor, hvis vi skal have noget af dette gennemført.

(Fortsat engelsk udskrift):

        PAUL GALLAGHER:  Well, we're right now in the middle of a
fight in which it's become very well exposed that the past
President of the United States, Barack Obama, is trying to
overthrow the President who has just gotten elected.  This is the
situation.  He is not alone in this, quite obviously.  We've put
out a dossier recently on the collaboration between George Soros,
his money, his foundations, his forces around Europe in
particular, and the Ukraine revolution — which they pulled off
— and the attempt to do the same thing to Trump here in the
United States.  This is now becoming more exposed.  On the one
hand, the {New York Times} has just run an article today making
clear that the Obama administration took extraordinary actions in
its last days in order to disseminate what had been classified
information and make sure that it was widely spread throughout
the government; that its classification was lowered, and that the
National Security Agency's limitations on distributing its
intercepts against communications of all kinds, that the barriers
against its distributing this throughout other parts of the
government, other parts of the intelligence community were pulled
down so that — as some people called it — the "breadcrumbs"
which supposed represented Trump campaign team collaboration with
Russia would be everywhere.
        The {Daily Mail} in London today runs a story with an
unnamed source who they say is an Obama family friend, which says
that they have been told that Obama personally intends to lead
the drive until it's successful to get Trump removed from office,
either by impeachment or by resignation.  And that this is
something to which he was persuaded by a number of people,
including Valerie Jarrett; who stayed in Washington and set up
with Obama in that Kalorama mansion in Washington DC for that
purpose.  Obviously, the one other country in the United States
and Europe where this kind of furor to attempt to undo the
election has been in Britain; a furor both to try and undo the
Brexit vote and to try to undo the Trump election, although in
the rest of Europe as well, a lot of the elites are hysterical
against the Trump Presidency and are even calling for his
assassination.  This has gone even to the chief editor of {Die
Zeit}, one of the leading "liberal" newspapers in Europe, who —
on national television in Germany — suggested that Trump might
be assassinated.  What he said has been quite typical of exactly
that liberal elite.
        Now, what we're dealing with here is that voters around the
world, the public in nations around Europe, including Eastern
Europe and the United States, to a certain extent in southern
Asia, have been voting to reject the entire era of globalization
and deindustrialization of the last 30 years.  They've been doing
that for good reason, because it has lowered their living
standards, lowered their productivity, and has emasculated
government which otherwise would have been investing in their
manufacturing sectors and investing in their infrastructure; it's
prevented them from doing that.  It's produced a truly dismal era
of economy in which there was a crash unlike any since 1929-1931.
Why?  Because this era of industrialization produced tremendous
levels of debt, tremendous build-ups of debt relative to economic
product; and the securitization of that debt in order to try to
wave hands and say that that total debt build-up was not a
problem, securitizing it all.  When it reached the point of
securitizing unpayable debt in the US real estate household
mortgage sector, it blew up the entire global banking system as I
said, in a way not seen since 1929-31.

        DENISTON:  It's something we've never actually recovered
from.

        GALLAGHER:  Since that time, we have not recovered; we have
been characterized by rates of economic growth to 1% to 1.5%
throughout the Obama administration in the United States; 0% to
0.5% and in some cases negative growth for the entire period
throughout Europe.  The only way in which this globalization
elite in the United States, Britain, and Europe has kept itself
together, has been by trying to assert military dominance and the
right to overthrow governments anywhere in the world, and by
declaring virtual war against Russia in order to maintain a
situation of extreme hostility both to Russia and to China.  Why?
Because in China, in Asia more generally but in China in
particular, the alternative to this terrible stagnation which
voters have been rejecting in all these countries; that
alternative has been clearly emerging in the rates of investment,
overcoming of poverty, real progress, technological and
scientific leadership coming from China, and other Asian nations
to a significant extent as well. So that if we see now, all of a
sudden, the Democratic Party in the United States has become,
apparently, a McCarthyite policy, where…

        DENISTON: The Red Scare's back.

        GALLAGHER: … Yeah, where Schumer sits up there and says,
"Let me ask you, sir, have you ever, in any time in your past
life, known a Russian? Have you ever been in a room where a
Russian was present?" Where the Minority Leader of the Senate and
Leader of the Democrats in the Congress has turned into Joe
McCarthy, this is the reason. It's not his background as a
McCarthyite. It's this absolute refusal to accept the rejection
of this 30-year period of globalization, de-industrialization,
impoverishment of populations in the United States and Europe,
and throughout Eastern Europe.
        Just so that people understand what's going on here. In
every Eastern European government which has recently rejected,
or, the voters have elected it, to reject the bankers' socialism
of the European Union — in every one of those countries, the
same kinds of efforts with demonstrations, protests, funded by
George Soros, the same kind of effort to overthrow those
governments which have just been elected, is going on in
Macedonia, in Romania. Obviously it happened in Ukraine. In

Bulgaria, in all of these countries. In the attempts to fix the
French election, to knock out anybody in the French election who
isn't in this bankers' socialism league, by prosecuting them in
the middle of the election campaign — everywhere this is
happening at the same time.
        That's what we're seeing in the United States, but I think,
as the President said in the tweet, which I don't remember if you
mentioned at the outset, but what he said today about this latest
crazy Sessions business. Sessions, a senior member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, talked to the Russian Ambassador.
That's his job! And that's the Russian Ambassador's job, is to go
talk to him! And it was his job, as senior member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, to talk to him! These are
absurdities, and, as President Trump said in responding to this
today, "The Democrats are overplaying their hand." They are so
desperate to find a way to reverse this entire movement
throughout the United States and Europe and Eastern Europe and
places like the Philippines; and, again, put Russia under the
pressure of confrontation again, develop a complete hostility and
encirclement of China. They're so desperate to get this back that
they've now, as he said, overplayed their hand, descended into
absurdity.
        What clearly was represented in the most recent speech that
he made, is that, as you said, he is open to this kind of thing.
It's ironic: the President, Trump, even before he was even
inaugurated, met with the Prime Minister of Japan. This is not
exactly an unusual thing — that an incoming President's team
would be meeting with foreign leaders. He met in New York with
the President of Japan in early January for the first time.
        In these countries, there is the obvious offer of what you
pointed to, there, that the United States can join a New Silk
Road which for three years has been the announced foreign policy
of China — the "win-win" policy of China. This economic belt
across Eurasia with rail lines of all kinds being built; and the
maritime belt going through the Indian Ocean, the Suez Canal, up
from Southern Europe into Central Europe, again, with ports, with
railroads, with power development. This all is effectively an
offer to the United States and it's an offer in the area where
President Trump and his team are clearly weakest. That is, how to
do what they're aiming for, which is to really get economic
growth and progress going in the United States for the first time
in decades. They are very weak on how to do that. This New Silk
Road policy, coming from Asia, in particular from the powers of
Asia, offers them a simple way to break through and do that. And
that's why we're seeing this hysterical apparent McCarthyism on
the part of the Democrats who made themselves into effectively a
party of war with Russia, and containment and potential war with
China. Not exactly what their voters wanted them to be at this
point either.
        I think we're in a situation now where it's become against
their wishes. It's become an extremely open political situation
for us to move with this idea of the United States joining the
New Silk Road, and using the actions that we call the Four Laws
of LaRouche, using those actions in order to do it.

        DENISTON: Bill might have more on this, but I think this
discussion is critical, because part of this whole "color
revolution" process in the U.S. is just this insane party-line
bickering. It really is surface level. If you're out there
talking to the American people, and you're out there talking to
people that voted for Trump or voted for Sanders or didn't vote
at all, there's a {clear}commonality in line for this program,
that permeates America as a whole.
        The idea of trying to get people caught up in this red vs.
blue, party-line debate on these issues, is really paper-thin on
the surface when you get to the actual substance. I know Bill's
been doing some work in the Midwest, the area where he's
centered, where you see a lot of this patriotic American
tradition coming back to ferment, in line for this kind of
program. Part of what we really have in this report that's going
to be coming out, is a further elaboration of what the United
States can do in this program. We can have all the kind of high
speed rail we need, we can have the water we need, we can the
power we need, we can have quality jobs for the American people.
Anybody who wants a quality job can get it. We have the program,
and it really is critical to organize on this level to get
support for this, to get this thing through.
        So, Bill, I don't know if you want to comment on the content
of the report, or some of the work you have been doing out there.

        ROBERTS: I would tend to agree with Trump that the Democrats
are really overplaying their hand on this question of demonizing
Russia, because the Democratic Party, a lot of Democrats don't
really like this idea that we're going to revive the Cold War
right now. I think this demonization of Trump on this Russia
question has tended to create, in Republican's minds, much more
of an openness to collaboration with Russia. Some of the
Republicans — they would tend to be the Heritage Foundation
types, the {Wall Street Journal} reading types — are probably
tending much and much more so to see that this is just a crazy
McCarthyite revival going on right now.
        A lot of Americans are simply going to reject {everything}.
This is what we saw in the election. People are going to tend to
reject everything that's been associated with the last 16 years
of the Obama and Bush administrations. We're seeing this develop
more clearly in terms of what Trump talked about in his address
to Congress. It was a very clear repudiation of this post-9/11
Bush "clash of civilizations" policy; that we {don't} represent
the world. We're not going to go abroad "searching for monsters
to destroy."
        I would say, one of the more interesting aspects of Trump's
address to the Congress, was this reference to Lincoln; not just
the reference to the protectionist policy — which, in its own
way, is part of the Hamilton credit system — but actually the
reference to the 1876 Centennial Celebration. He said we have the
250-Year Anniversary of the country coming up, and as they did
when the 100-Year Anniversary of the United States was being
planned, we should be thinking about the future; we should be
thinking about what kind of breakthroughs that {we} can create
that will represent real accomplishments, and work to get above
party divisions on small things. In this sense, he very much set
a kind of Lincolnesque and FDR tone in this discussion.
        But it's interesting that he referred to the 1876 Centennial
Exhibition in Philadelphia, because this was a real inflection
point of the spread of the American System to countries that the
British Empire had to later work very hard to turn against one
another. Japan, Germany, Russia — under the influence of Henry
Carey. China. The first half of the 20th Century was typified by
wars that the British, in manipulating these great nations that
had been influenced by the policies of the Lincoln American
System. And then, of course, in the second half of the 20th
Century, you had the Cold War. You had the British moving in
after the death of Roosevelt, to divide the war on the basis of
East vs. West.
        I think this reference to going beyond parties, looking at
the principle of this country, identifying a certain kind of
Promethean quality, is good; and you're going to have Americans
tend to become optimistic about returning to a space program.
You're going to have Americans obviously agree with the necessity
of building infrastructure; Glass-Steagall.
        But, there's definitely a limit there at the same time.
These potentials are obviously frightening to the Establishment
and represent something that they are clearly in a last-ditch
effort to try to destroy through this Obama/Soros/McCarthyist
revival. However, in terms of how you actually unleash a
Promethean economic environment, both culturally and in terms of
real increases of productivity, that is the principle that ties
Glass-Steagall to the issuance of credit and the way in which the
breakthroughs, the products of the human mind as a result of
those policies, bring about the upward transformations in
productivity. That's really uniquely something that no one
besides the LaRouche movement has worked through and developed a
very clear policy program for.
        I would just say that there are a number of rallies coming
up this weekend — pro-Trump rallies across the country. Keep an
eye out for notifications that we will be getting out to people
who have signed the Glass-Steagall petition. We will be
organizing a whole series of activities across the country in
support of activities to bring the Four Laws to this American
constituency, to this highly-energized American constituency that
is looking for solutions. I would urge people to find these
rallies and get on the megaphone, get on the microphone at these
events. Call up your city council, call up your state
representatives. This is a sort of unique situation in which
there is a kind of proper repudiation of the failed policies of
Obama and Bush — the geopolitics and so forth — but without a
real conception of how to replace a monetarist thinking in
economics with the kind of Promethean concept which Mr. LaRouche
has spent his life developing, this will certainly not come into
fruition. You will not see, it will not be possible for the
United States to find its place in terms of the unique role that
we have to play now in joining the New Silk Road in the future of
mankind. So, I would just urge people to be extremely active in
the next couple of days in finding ways to inject this unique
conception of LaRouche's Four Laws into the discussion process;
and I guarantee people will be in the state of mind of wanting to
work through and master these ideas, because it's really a
life-and-death question.

        GALLAGHER:  Bill, I know that you did some organizing
directly with meetings that were taking place in the course of
this contest for who would be the new chairman of the Democratic
Party.  Some of them took place out there in your area.  That's
another matter in which it has become exposed just in recent days
that the person who initially seemed to be supported by most of
the party — Rep. Ellison of Minnesota — had put up against him
by the direct solicitation of Obama and Biden, Obama's former
labor secretary; and Obama, Biden, and others then did a lot of
telephone calling in order to make sure that this former labor
secretary, Perez, would beat Ellison and take over the chair of
the Democratic National Committee.  This was another instance of
what's been going on.  But I know that you saw that this was
something which was definitely non-partisan and definitely wide
open when petitioning at those meetings to decide the leadership
of the Democratic Party.  We found at the same time that at all
sorts of meetings, from the collaboration we had with people who
had supported Bernie Sanders in Ohio, all the way to the CPAC
convention — the conservative side of the Republican Party —
that people were signing these petitions specifically to get the
Glass-Steagall introduced again.  I think the total that we had
gathered, together with that parallel effort by people in Ohio,
it was certainly in the range of no more than 6-7000 signatures
overall; and yet, they were used by the key Congressmen and
-women who introduced Glass-Steagall back on February 1st, just
about a month ago.  Marcy Kaptur, Tim Ryan, Tulsi Gabbard, and
Walter Jones; they had those petitions when they had their press
conference introducing HR709, which is the current House
Glass-Steagall bill.  It has now gotten 30-some co-sponsors.
        Also, while that petition campaign was going on — again it
may seem modest — but while it was going on, we were also
contacting state legislators and state senators, particularly in
the so-called Rust Belt, the formerly industrial part of the
country.  The result of that, just in the month of January, is
that I think Ben, it's actually 15 if you count states in which
both houses introduced this; that resolutions in support of what
we're calling an American Recovery Program, which was essentially
the outline of the Four Laws.  Glass-Steagall; Hamiltonian
national bank; credit for high-technology infrastructure; and
space and fusion development.  Those resolutions went into nine
states — and I'll just mention, in three states, they went into
both houses during January; that was Rhode Island, Minnesota, and
Washington state.  In six other states, they went into either the
House or the Senate.  I'm sorry, Illinois is the fourth state in
which they were in both houses; it has already been passed in the
Illinois House, and introduced into the Illinois Senate.  Then
there were other states in which it went into just one house: the
Alabama House, the Iowa Senate, the South Carolina House, the
Mississippi House, the New Mexico Senate.  In addition to that,
there were three other states where resolutions simply naming
Glass-Steagall and calling on Congress to pass the Glass-Steagall
Act were introduced: Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland — where
there was a hearing this afternoon actually for which I prepared
testimony on that resolution, HJ4 in Maryland, calling on its
Congressional delegation to pass Glass-Steagall.
        So, this development which has occurred during January and
February while we've been on this petition and organizing drive
on a bipartisan basis, is also wide open or open-ended; because
anyone who has been a part of that, even just to sign the
petition, even online, anyone who has been a part of that from
any of those states or any other states which have come close —
particularly Ohio, New York state — these states are still in
session.  Anyone can make it their project with their state
legislator, to make sure that he or she co-sponsors this
resolution and contacts whatever Congressmen he usually deals
with.  And these state legislators do, so that we can really make
these legislatures in these Rust Belt states in particular, make
them boil with this campaign for the Four Laws, for the actions
that have to taken to be able to join the New Silk Road
development.  If we're doing that at that level, at the same
time, it's going to have a big impact on the Congress.  So, I
just wanted to point that out.

        DENISTON:  I think that's exactly the kind of initiative
that's going to continue and grow with this new petition, this
new campaign escalation.  And I think people should have no other
priorities at this point; we have this issue which is the
economic life or death of the United States, and we have — as
Paul, you mentioned — more material coming out on this whole
colored revolution policy.  I was glad you went through some of
the details; this is, I think, at least for generations, an
unprecedented level of attack on a US Presidential administration
from within.  It reminded me of some of the treasonous actions
that were done right before Lincoln came in, to try and set up
the South and their split for the Civil War before he came in as
President; just this outright treasonous sabotage of an incoming
administration; but the way we're going to cut through it is this
kind of mobilization.  Again, I would point people to also the
upcoming release of our new report, which will have a more
in-depth presentation of the principle of this recovery program.
And going also back to what Bill was saying, this is really the
way we're going to capture the spirit, the soul of the American
people again, by this returned commitment to the future
development, the future growth of our nation.  And getting people
rallied around the fact and out of this pessimism and cynicism
that just settled in over so long with Bush and Obama
emphatically; but going back even further, we've had this
terrible zero-growth economic policy that's affected people much
more deeply than they realized.  So getting a real, true
realization that we can again return to this level of growth;
just the basic idea that every generation is going to be a
revolutionary advance in the living standards, in the
opportunities, in the growth of the science, the capabilities of
mankind.  If people really get a sense that that's possible, that
that's what's represented by China's leadership in this New Silk
Road program, this returned orientation to space; I think that
will give people the level of fight they need to get this thing
through.  The kind of things Paul was just presenting in terms of
the top-down, Federal level, local level, also municipalities,
labor organizations; all of these groups should be organized and
we should just throw this party crap out the window.  It's an
issue of what is your commitment to the principles and the
policies the nation needs at this point.  If we can continue to
rally people around that, then we'll have a basis to actually get
this thing through and give Trump the support he needs to go with
these initiatitives that he's talked about.
        So Bill, I don't know if you have anything you want to add
from some of your work there.

        ROBERTS:  I would just point out that state representatives
and these local and state elected officials, these are the people
that the Congress goes to.  Because the Congress is inside the
Beltway; they're the most affected by the insanity of these last
two Presidents.  But the local elected officials, the state
representatives, these are the guys living through the drug
epidemic, the violence, the mass unemployment, the 94 million
Americans who are outside the workforce that Trump referred to in
his speech this past week.  Those are the constituents; those are
the people that these local representatives live with.  So, I
think these are the types of people to get to.  Radio stations;
this is the way we can effectively now very quickly make
LaRouche's Four Laws as much of a household word as
Glass-Steagall is.

        GALLAGHER:  Well, we also have other fronts that are going
to be dealt with specifically in the pamphlet.  One is the issue
of — which again, Trump brought up in the address to Congress —
of large-scale infrastructure development.  If you look at the
ground level of it, it appears that there's no direction there;
there was a meeting of the various members of the Cabinet
yesterday — and other staff.  But it was run by a Goldman-Sachs
guy, Gary Cohen.  But there was effectively an administration
meeting on infrastructure legislation; starting to move to
introduce legislation for this idea of a trillion-dollar
infrastructure bank.  At the same time, you have on the
Democratic side, already legislation which has been submitted.
But there is a complete barricade there in terms of knowing how
to finance it, knowing what the really transformative
infrastructure developments like a national — not East and West
Coast — but a national, 25-30,000-mile network of high-speed
rail and maglev rail.   This is nothing futuristic; this is
simply China.  This is exactly what they're building.  They're
building local subway lines now, local metro lines with maglev
technology in China, and putting them into operation.  So, if
you're going from the Bronx to lower Manhattan, on your 25 or 30
stops, you'd be going in between those stops in a completely
smooth and frictionless drive at up to 60mph in between each
stop.  Having already done this on the level of intercity, and
having already gone far to linking every city in the country —
and China has a very large number of significant cities —
linking every single one of them with true high-speed rail; now
they're down to the level of the subways and maglev metro
systems.  But this is the kind of thing that produces tremendous
increases not only in productive employment, but productivity.
        This idea has to be put into the discussions of
infrastructure in the United States, and so do Japanese and
Chinese methods and investments have to be put into this idea of
rebuilding the infrastructure of the United States.  They don't
have that idea now.  What's getting underway seems hopelessly
limited by the lack of any real idea of how to do it.  On the
other hand, you have the President talking about the 2026 250th
anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence as
a horizon point to which people should look; and think about how
the economy, the infrastructure, as he said, are "footsteps on
distant worlds is not too much to hope" in that 9-year period of
time.  Giving people a horizon to look at what actually {could}
be transformed during the period of the next decade.  That's the
kind of thing that puts Americans into the right state of mind in
thinking about being more open politically, being more open in
terms of what they think is possible.  In that sense, he
definitely did contribute to defining the right solutions which
he and his team clearly don't have at this point, in order to
make this kind of trillion or multi-trillion dollar
infrastructure bank investment work.  The same is true with
space; where there is clearly discussion in the administration —
and in NASA as a result — of trying more quickly to put
astronauts in orbit around the Moon, preparatory to beginning the
re-colonization and industrialization and development of the
Moon.  Something which had been completely wiped aside during the
Obama administration, which clearly wrote this off and said, we
don't need this.  We don't need fancy energy sources like fusion
energy, he said to one backyard group of Democrats in Virginia.

        DENISTON: He said you just need to insulate your windows.

        GALLAGHER:  Yeah, better insulated windows is our future by
the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence.
        So, this is a different view, but one in which we have to
drive to a certain extent from the bottom up, as we've been
doing; as well as discussions with people in Congress and in the
administration in order to crystallize the right idea.  Also, so
that they see that Glass-Steagall, if it isn't passed now, the
next major bank failure — and there are plenty of them waiting
to happen in Europe in particular at any moment — the next major
bank failure is going to take the system down again like Lehman
did and AIG did, ten years ago.  If it isn't implemented right
now, the banks are going to continue not to lend to small- and
medium-sized enterprises which tend to have the new technologies
coming on line; and only to lend to the big bond issuers and the
largest corporations.
        One thing that I pointed out in the testimony today in
Maryland, is that JP Morgan/Chase and Citigroup each only lends
out loans and leases equal to about 65% to 66% of their deposits.
Whereas in the banking system as a whole, it's 80%.  That means
that if you take all the community banks and regional banks
around the country — 6000 of them — their lending is equivalent
to 90-plus% of their deposits.  And yet, this little group of six
or ten banks who control two-thirds of all the deposits, their
lending is very low; and that's going to continue to be the case.
If a real infrastructure development bank gets going, then this
lack of lending to the contractors for all those projects by the
private banks is going to be a real problem.  So, you're going to
have that problem if you don't implement Glass-Steagall now, and
separate out the commercial banks.  And in addition, of course,
we've had now these big banks have — according a report a couple
of days ago — now accrued $321 billion worth of fines since the
crash, for illegal, immoral, and otherwise non-banking despicable
activity; which is the way they've used these deposits.

        DENISTON:  And that's without an actual Pecora Commission or
any serious investigation.

        GALLAGHER:  Without ever a prosecution of a senior banker;
$321 billion worth of fines for violating banking practice and
violating the law.

        DENISTON:  They give them the fines, but they let them keep
doing it; so it makes you wonder if it's a fine or just a cut the
government's taking on the scam or something. That's good; I
think that really ties to the necessity of the Four Laws as a
whole.  To have a functioning banking system doesn't mean
anything without what you were raising about the issue of
productivity and investment.  It really is a question of what are
you doing to facilitate the investment of creating a higher level
of net productivity for the economy as a whole?  A higher level
of scientific, technological state for mankind as a whole?  Which
is something that mankind can uniquely do; that's our character,
to create those kinds of revolutionary advances.  That's the
secret of economics, as Mr. LaRouche has kind of uniquely
developed and discovered in a higher way than I think anyone
before him.
        Anyway, just take that as another teaser for the content of
this upcoming report; because that will be material presented in
there.
        Just to conclude, I would just re-emphasize that anybody who
has not signed on to the petition yet — even the old petition —
please do so; because you'll then be ready to be updated as soon
as the new petition is released, as soon as this report is
released, and any other relevant breaking developments on our
campaign which I think we've discussed rather thoroughly as a
good launch point.  We are in the footing for a rapid escalation;
and that's what's needed right now.  So, I think this served as a
good launch point for some more material we'll have in the coming
days and weeks.
        We thank you for joining us today, and we'll be back on
larouchepac.com with more.

        GALLAGHER:  Can I just remind people, before you sign off,
everybody watching this, that this online petition is still to be
signed.  What we're going to do, we will try then to involve
everybody who's signing it, in what we're going to do immediately
in the next week to ten days.  There are going to be — as Bill
mentioned — pro-Trump rallies tomorrow in quite a number of
places; we're going to be at all the ones we can reach.  In fact,
we're speaking at one of them up in the New York City area.  Then
our own rallies and lobbying both in Washington and in New York
on Thursday, and in other parts of the country next Thursday.
We're going to have rallies before that in New York, and what we
call a Day of Action, when we'll be going after all kinds of
elected officials at the local, state, and national levels next
Thursday.  Everybody who's been involved in this petition
campaign up to now — even if it's only been just to sign — the
targets are there; that's what we indicated.  We can move, and
{must} move, elected officials up to and including those in the
Trump administration in order to break this logjam.  I just
wanted to throw that in.

        DENISTON:  Thank you.  We have a clear path of action ahead
of us.  I encourage everyone to get directly on board with that.
If you want to take more action, email us on the website, get
directly in contact, and volunteer yourself for further action.
We have an action center on the LaRouche PAC website.  If you go
to the front page, you'll see it at the very top there on the top
menu banner.  So get active; get in contact with us there and
let's make this happen.  Let's not sit on our laurels and wait
here.
        Thank you for joining us here today.  Stay tuned for more from larouchepac.com.
 

»Til præsident Trump og medlemmerne af Kongressen:

Underskriverne af denne Appel erkender, at det transatlantiske finanssystem er på randen af en ny nedsmeltning, der er værre end den fra 2007-08. Livsbetingelserne for det store flertal af amerikanere er støt og roligt brudt sammen i løbet af de seneste to årtier. USA’s økonomiske politik har fokuseret på at beskytte Wall Streets spekulative boble i stedet for at beskytte det almene vel og det amerikanske folks fremtidige eftertid. Vi erkender, at der nu må træffes nødforanstaltninger for at komme en ny finanskrise i forkøbet, og for atter at sætte amerikanere i arbejde for at genopbygge vores nation og vores fremtid.

For at opnå dette, anmoder vi præsident Donald Trump og den 115. Kongres om at vedtage og implementere programmet for LaRouches Fire Love for Økonomisk Genrejsning, som en hasteforanstaltning; og at tilslutte sig Kinas program for en Ny Silkevej for globalt samarbejde og storstilede infrastrukturprojekter og økonomisk udvikling.

De Fire Love definerer et sammenhængende program for økonomisk genrejsning, der har sine rødder i det Amerikanske System for økonomi:

1. Genindfør Franklin Roosevelts oprindelige Glass/Steagall-lov, som adskiller kommercielle udlånsaktiviteter fra Wall Street spekulation.
2. Vend tilbage til et nationalt banksystem i Hamiltons tradition.
3. Direkte statslig kredit til projekter og initiativer, der skaber stigende niveauer af produktivitet og indkomster.
4. Lancér et forceret program for udvikling af fusionskraft og en hurtig udvidelse af vores rumprogram.

USA’s økonomiske genrejsning vil blive meget fremskyndet, hvis USA tilslutter sig den globale udvikling af infrastruktur og den økonomiske renæssance, der strømmer fra Kinas Nye Silkevejsprogram.«

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 2. marts, 2017 – Nej, »himlen er ikke ved at falde ned« med de nye anklager, i McCarthy-stil, imod justitsminister Sessions – hvis nogen da ellers troede på, at himlen ville falde ned. Dette er snarere en desperat taktik, der kommer fra Obama personligt, efter den entusiasme, som præsident Trumps tale til Kongressen i tirsdags skabte.

Det er ganske udelukket, at det amerikanske folk vil vælge at følge kursen mod krig med Rusland nu, hvor så mange er blevet inspireret af håbet om en langt bedre fremtid forude.

Alligevel er Obama i færd med at omstille og udrense det Demokratiske Parti for at gøre det til sit personlige instrument for forsøget på at vælte den amerikanske regering. »Dette er præcis sådan, han ville bære sig ad«, sagde Lyndon LaRouche. I optakten til den Demokratiske Nationalkomites valg til formand den 25. feb. opmuntrede Obamagruppen den tidligere arbejdsminister i Obama-administrationen Tom Perez til at stille op mod favoritten, Glass/Steagall-tilhængeren, kongresmedlem Keith Ellison fra Minnesota. Dernæst ringede Obama personligt til medlemmerne af nationalkomiteen om, at de skulle stemme på Perez, og det samme gjorde hans bonkammerat Valerie Jarret, sammen med Joe Biden og andre af Obamas medarbejdere. Perez vandt en smal sejr. Der er nu tegn, der peger på, at Obama vil forsøge at udrense det Demokratiske partilederskab i Texas og Californien for elementer, der ikke vil samarbejde og droppe alt til fordel for hans anti-Trump-korstog.

Obama håber, at brug af tvang i det Demokratiske parti vil forhindre tværpolitisk samarbejde omkring LaRouches Fire Love, som vi så det med Marcy Kapturs pressekonference den 1. feb. for en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Men her tager Obama fejl, som han gør med så meget. Faktisk vil vi, jo mere, han bruger sin indflydelse for at tvinge det Demokratiske Parti ind på hans plan, så meget desto snarere få mere handling af den art, vi nu har brug for, at se fra Demokrater og Republikanere.

Men selv om dette er vigtigt, så er det kun en mindre detalje i det større billede. Globale udviklinger, der kommer fra Kina og Putins Rusland, har været langt mere afgørende for skabelse af de nye omstændigheder. Hinsides og over alt dette, og som omslutter og former det alt sammen, er selve menneskets natur, som udtrykkes af hele ideen i LaRouches Fire Love, og som bliver eksplicit i hans erklæring i den Fjerde Lov.

Mange af vore senior LaRouche-medarbejdere rapporterer, at de er blevet stærkt påvirket af at læse rækken af Lyndon LaRouches ældre artikler, der, på foranledning af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, på det seneste er blevet udgivet i EIR. Det faktum, at de læser disse artikler, og den omstændighed, at de læser dem NU, får dem til, som aldrig før – eller i hvert fald ikke i den seneste tid – at føle, at de må hæve deres tankegang til Lyndon LaRouches niveau.

Medlemmer bør nu benytte chancen til at se, eller høre, en dybtgående, timelang diskussion med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche med Policy Committee i dag. Ingen improviseret opsummering her ville kunne yde deres argumenter retfærdighed, men vi vil indoptage dem helt i løbet af de forestående timer.

Efter denne diskussion lancerede Policy Committee en »aktionsuge« for LaRouches Fire Love, som begynder i dag, torsdag, med aktivist-telefonmødet torsdag aften, og som vil vare til næste torsdags aktivistmøde.

Der er planlagt arrangementer for weekenden. Næste udgave af vores avis, »The Hamiltonian«, vil udkomme tirsdag. Der vil være arrangementer på Capitol Hill. Der vil være et møde i New York City næste tirsdag. Alle vore kontakter og aktivister vil blive dirigeret mod omgående handling omkring de Fire Love og den nye digitale brochure, der er på trapperne, om disse Love. Yderligere detaljer vil blive kommunikeret på selve telefonmødet tirsdag.