Med formand Tom Gillesberg
1. del:
2. del:
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. januar, 2017 – I dag ankom den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping i Schweiz, til både et statsbesøg i denne nation, og for at holde hovedtalen i Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum den 17. jan. Der ligger en særlig ironi i Xis meget ventede tale for denne organisation: Davos er måske det emblematiske, internationale forum for den døende imperieorden, der hastigt er i færd med at blive erstattet af det Nye Paradigme, under Xis og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins lederskab.
En artikel i Xinhua i dag gav forskud på nogle af de centrale temaer, som Xi forventes at adressere, mht. indholdet af denne nye orden »Et fællesskab af en fælles bestemmelse, et fælles hjem for menneskeheden. Siden Xi for første gang fremlagde dette koncept i slutningen af 2012, har det formet Kinas tilgang til global styrelse«, skrev Xinhua. Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, konceptet med win-win-samarbejde og et »nyt sikkerhedskoncept« for at skabe universel sikkerhed, er alle en del af Xis politik. Xinhua citerede Tanq Qifang, en forsker ved Kinas Institut for Internationale Studier, der forklarer: »Konceptet med et fællesskab for en fælles bestemmelse transcenderer alle former for forskelligheder i menneskelige samfund og har de størst mulige fordele for alle som sit mål.«
Med alt at tabe er Det britiske Imperium intet mindre end apoplektiske over den amerikanske, nyvalgte præsident Donald Trumps udtalelser om, at han har til hensigt at normalisere relationerne med både Kina og Rusland, som han atter gjorde det klart i et interview med Wall Street Journal den 13. jan. Briterne afslører sig selv voldsomt, i deres forsøg på at invalidere Trump og torpedere enhver forsoning med Rusland i særdeleshed. Som Londonavisen Guardian indrømmede, så »frygter briterne, at en mere intens relation mellem USA og Rusland under Trump kan risikere at efterlade Storbritannien ude i kulden«.
I dag kommenterede Lyndon Larouche, at »som han [Trump] i øjeblikket går frem, vil der komme en stor international forandring. Det er ikke Trump alene. Det er de andre elementer i systemet, der kommer sammen for at bringe en kraft i spil, som vil dominere planeten. Ikke, fordi de bruger knytnæver, men fordi de bruger hjerner. Jeg har altid foretrukket hjerner frem for knytnæver«, bemærkede han.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche forklarede, at det, som briterne »forsøger imod Trump, er en ’farvet revolution’. Trump udsættes for tiden for en kampagne med løgne og »falske nyheder«, i lighed med det, briterne i årtier hemmeligt har orkestreret imod Lyndon LaRouche, som deres dødelige fjende. Der er ét enkelt slag, der kan leveres for at gøre en ende på denne farvede revolution, erklærede Zepp-LaRouche: Indiker, at det, man gjorde mod Lyndon LaRouche, var den største uretfærdighed, for hvilken USA har betalt en høj pris i årtier, og implementer omgående LaRouches Fire Love, begyndende med en tilbagevenden til FDR’s Glass-Steagall.
Hun fortsatte: Det er, fordi i hele verden, på højeste regeringsniveau, som vi har fået direkte og indirekte at vide, »Lyndon LaRouche anses for at være den eneste amerikaner, de kan stole på – simpelt hen fordi, han har bevist, at han er en verdensborger såvel som en amerikansk patriot. Han har altid befundet sig på dette niveau, som Xi Jinping nu taler om«, med et fællesskab af en fælles bestemmelse for hele menneskeheden, erklærede Zepp-LaRouche.
Foto: Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping med frue ankommer til Schweiz, til både statsbesøg og deltagelse i Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum.
Udsendelsens anden del er et klip fra en præsentation af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der var et gennembrud i Stockholm, Sverige, i går (11. jan.), for et publikum, der bl.a. bestod af et bredt udsnit af det internationale diplomatiske samfund.
Og det tredje indslag i aften forfølger vores igangværende understregning af en intensivering af forståelsen af Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske opdagelser; og det vil omfatte en gennemgang ved Rachel Brown af en artikel, som hr. LaRouche offentliggjorde for nogen tid siden, med titlen, »In Defense of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton« (http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_01-09/2017-02/pdf/32-42_4402.pdf) , som hun komplementerer med en gennemgang af noget af materialet fra hr. LaRouches opgradering og fordybelse af ideen om, ikke infrastruktur (i sig selv), men om økonomiske platforme. Disse tre dele vil udgøre vores udsendelse for i aften.
For at indlede vores første del, kan vi referere til et indslag på LaRouchePAC’s webside i dag. Titlen er, »The Foreign Power Corrupting US Politics Is Britain, Not Russia« (indholdet er dækket i Tom Gillesbergs indledning til Nyhedsorientering januar, læs: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17270)¸og det handler direkte om de efterretninger, som vi vil få klarhed over i aften. At de, som virkelig intervenerer i amerikansk politik, ikke er de russiske efterretningstjenester, men snarere direkte er britisk efterretningstjeneste. Det 35 sider lange – hvad man vel må kalde et falsk dossier – om Trumps angivelige forbindelser med Rusland, og som blev citeret af CNN tidligere på ugen i en nyhedshistorie; og som dernæst blev offentliggjort eller lækket af Buzzfeed. Det afsløres nu, at dette blev forfattet af en fremtrædende, angiveligt pensioneret MI-6-efterretningsmand ved navn Christopher Steele; han blev først hyret af operatører fra det Republikanske Parti, der var modstandere af Trump i primærvalgene, og som dernæst blev hyret af Hillary Clintons kampagne for at udføre politisk kontra-research om Donald Trump. Det skulle bruges, ikke som en efterretningsfil, men til at tilsværte Trump under valget. Så dette er slet ikke en efterretningsrapport, som den blev præsenteret for at være af visse amerikanske medier, der lækkede den; men den var snarere blot en politisk misinformationsfil, der, som vi ser, kommer direkte fra britiske efterretningsoperatører. Nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump brugte igen her til morgen twitter til at udfordre dette. Han sagde: »Det viser sig nu, at de falske anklager imod mig blev sammensat af mine politiske modstandere og en mislykket spion, der er bange for at blive sagsøgt. Totalt fabrikerede fakta fra foragtelige politiske operatører, både Demokrater og Republikanere. Falske nyheder. Rusland siger, at der intet findes; det er sandsynligvis udgivet af ’efterretningstjenester’, vel vidende, at der intet bevis findes, og aldrig vil findes.«
Det, der står klart, er, at efterretningssamfundet har erklæret krig mod USA’s nyvalgte præsident, der vil blive indsat om under en uge fra i dag. Dette er en situation uden fortilfælde; og briternes rolle er klar, som det ses af denne mand, Christopher Steele. Som jeg sagde, så, på trods af den narrativ, at det skulle være russerne, der kører en eller anden enorm indflydelses-kampagne for at forsøge at intervenere i og influere de amerikanske valg, så begynder det at se ud som om, at den virkelig misdæder her, var briterne.
Med denne indledning vil jeg nu gerne vise et klip fra interviewet med Ray McGovern. Som sagt har han 30 år som CIA-veterananalytiker bag sig; han var i sin tid ekspert i Rusland eller Sovjetunionen, da han var dér. Han var ansvarlig for at udarbejde nationale efterretningsestimater, og en daglig brief til præsidenten. Efter sin tid i CIA blev han medstifter af en organisation ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, der nu har omkring 50 medlemmer, pensionerede efterretningseksperter, der for nylig udstedte en erklæring, der satte seriøse spørgsmålstegn ved den narrativ, der blev offentliggjort om russisk indflydelse og russisk hacking. Hele interviewet vil være tilgængeligt fra søndag (15. jan.), på LaRouchePAC websiden og LaRouchePAC YouTube kanalen; og vi har udlagt andre uddrag af dette interview hen over de seneste par dage. Det uddrag, vi bringer her, er begyndelsen af interviewet, der blev udført af Jason Ross, med hr. Ray McGovern.
Jason Ross: Det er den 10. januar, 2017; jeg er Jason Ross fra LaRouchePAC. Vi er meget glade for i dag at have Ray McGovern med os i studiet, en veteran, der har været i CIA i årtier, og som i 2003 var medstifter af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Mange tak for at være med os i dag, Ray.
Ray McGovern: I er meget velkomne. Jeg er glad for at være her.
Ross: Lad os springe direkte til ét af de store spørgsmål, vi hører så meget om i medierne i øjeblikket – spørgsmålet om den angivelige russiske hacking af de amerikanske valg. Jeres gruppe, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, udstedte en pressemeddelelse den 12. december, der sagde, at alle beviser pegede på en læk snarere end et hack. Siden da er to rapporter kommet frem; en fra DHS (Department of Homeland Security) og en, der hovedsagligt er forfattet af ODNI, Director of National Intelligence, og som siger, at her er beviset. Vi ved, Rusland gjorde det. Det var tvivlsomt, hvor brugbar denne rapport var. Og for et par dage siden var du så medforfatter af en kronik i Baltimore Sun sammen med William Binney, hvor du gentog dit standpunkt; at alle beviser peger på, at dette er en læk snarere end et hack, og under alle omstændigheder er der ikke blevet fremlagt nogen beviser for, at det skulle være et hack. Hvorfor har du dette standpunkt?
McGovern: Først må jeg sige noget om Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Vi oprettede vores organisation, da vi så, at vore kolleger – de kolleger, vi havde arbejdet sammen med – havde ladet sig forlede til at skabe, til at fabrikere efterretninger med det overlagte formål at franarre vore valgte repræsentanter deres forfatningsmæssige, særlige rettigheder til at erklære eller på anden vis bemyndige krig. Det var før Irak; og det kan ikke blive værre.
Bush, Cheney og de andre sagde alle sammen, »Åh, det var en frygtelig fejltagelse.« Det var ikke nogen fejltagelse; det var slet og ret bedrag. Da vi så dette finde sted, dannede vi en lille gruppe – vi var fem til at begynde med – og vi begyndte at gå offentligt. Vi udgav tre memoranda før krigen, hvor vi advarede præsidenten. Vores første memorandum blev udgivet samme dag, som Colin Powell (udenrigsminister 2001 – 2005) holdt sin tale – den 5. februar, 2003 – og vi gav ham et C- for indhold. Og vi advarede præsidenten (George W. Bush), »Efterretningerne bliver manipuleret, og de bør virkelig udvide kredsen af Deres rådgivere«, sagde vi mod slutningen, »til at omfatte andre end dem, der tydeligvis er opsat på at få en krig, for hvilken vi ikke kan se, der skulle være nogen tvingende grund, og de utilsigtede konsekvenserne af hvilken sandsynligvis vil blive katastrofale.« Den kendsgerning, at vi havde ret, fryder os ikke; der var et par andre personer, der sagde det samme, men der var ingen, der kom igennem til de etablerede medier.
Hvis vi spoler lidt frem, så ser vi, at de daværende NSA-folk ikke alene var rystede over, hvor mange penge, der blev smidt ind i programmer, som de vidste, aldrig ville virke; men de var også oprørte over et billigere program, som de selv havde udarbejdet – som blot kostede $330 mio. at indføre. Det andet program, som general Hayden støttede, kostede $3 mia. med et ’b’; så der var ingen sammenligning. Bortset fra, at det ene ikke fungerede; det gjorde dette her. Grunde til, at jeg nævner dette, er, at dette havde masser af beviser for, hvad der ville ske under 11. september; det lå i det. De gik tilbage og så efter; de lukkede dette hovedprogram ned, og da Tom Drake, som stadig var ansat der, gik ind og så efter, så fandt han masser af beviser, der ville have – hvis det var blevet omdelt – forhindret 11. september. Så man var dobbelt oprørt, og Bill Binney havde været teknisk direktør i NSA før han trådte af kort tid efter 11. september. Han tilsluttede sig så os, som så mange andre vidunderlige folk har gjort; og da dette kom på nettet online, dette her med den russiske hacking, så var det mest naturlige for mig at sige, »Hej, Bill. Vi har brug for et memo fra dig; vi har brug for, at du laver et udkast. For du designede de fleste af disse systemer, og du ved, hvad Ed Snowden har afsløret. Disse billeder? De ser virkelig interessante ud for os, men vi har brug for nogen, der kan gennemgå dem for os.« Så sagde han, »Helt i orden«. Så gav han os et udkast, og det, vi typisk gør, er, at vi cirkulerer det blandt de fem, seks eller syv personer, der har særlig interesse i det, eller særlig erfaring; og mellem os fandt vi ud af det rigtige. Vi var én af de første, der kom ud af starthullerne og sagde, »Jo, dette er en spand (lort)! Hvorfor? Af tekniske grunde.« Der var masser af andre grunde, men nogle folk – til deres ære, mener jeg – de er teknisk orienteret, og de vil vide, »Er dette muligt? Kunne russerne have gjort dette?« Svaret er, »Ja, men NSA ville have vidst besked med det.«
Det er chokerende, Jason, det er chokerende. Men NSA sporer alle e-mails på denne planet. Hvis disse går til udlandet, så har de samarbejdende tjenester og regeringer. Ikke blot seks, men de har 13 af dem. Hvis de går igennem USA, så får de dem; hvis de kommer udefra, får de dem alle. Og de kan spore dem; de har disse her små sporingsmekanismer forskellige steder i netværket. Så de ved, hvor hver eneste e-mail kommer fra, og hvor den ender.
Føj hertil den jernovervågning de har af den ecuadorianske ambassade i London, hvor Julian Assange er; og jeg er sikker på, at de overvåger hans kolleger også, uanset, hvor de er. Lad os nu sige, de russiske hack, og de fik det frem til Julian, og til en af hans medarbejdere. »OK, russere er virkelig dårlige mennesker«, siger folk; »Vis os meddelelserne.« »Åh, det kan vi ikke; vi har ikke meddelelserne. Men vi kigger på det.« De fik så præsidenten til, før han tog på ferie på Hawaii, at pålægge sanktioner, baseret på disse flygtige beviser, som de ikke kan vise os. Disse memoer – min første reaktion var at le ad dem, men det er meget sørgeligt at se, hvad efterretningssamfundet er blevet til; meget, meget sørgeligt. For dette er et vigtigt spørgsmål.
Hvad gjorde præsidenten så? Han slog ned på sanktioner; han smed 35 diplomater ud. Alt sammen ud fra hvis udsagn? John Brennans. Hvordan fik så New York Times al denne information? John Brennan. Det ved vi, fordi Wall Street Journal blev lidt sur over det, og de siger, »Ja, det er John Brennan, der taler med de andre fyre; han taler ikke med Wall Street Journal.« Hvad har vi så? Vi har en præsident, der tager en chance på lemfældigt grundlag og forårsager en endnu større fare, mere aggressiv kritik, flere spændinger i vore relationer med Rusland. På baggrund af hvad? Lad mig sige det sådan; jeg vil måske sige det sådan: Jeg sad og så på nogle YouTube-klip; og jeg faldt over et af Christiane Amanpour, der sendte fra London. Hun er i færd med at interviewe Lukyanov, en af de russiske guruer. Hun siger, »Hr. Lukyanov [imiterer Amanpours stemme] De siger, at der absolut ingen beviser er, ingen, siger De. Jamen, når der ikke findes beviser, hvorfor har USA’s præsident så smidt sanktioner på Rusland?«
Ross: Den er god.
McGovern: Jeg husker, at jeg fik stillet det samme spørgsmål omkring masseødelæggelsesvåben. [Imiterer igen Amanpours stemme] »Hr. McGovern, hvis De siger, at der ikke findes beviser for masseødelæggelsesvåben, hvorfor startede Bush og Cheney så en krig mod Irak?« Tja, svaret er det samme, det samme! Det er virkelig et dårligt flashback, for det, de må gøre, er at komme frem med beviserne. Det er min stærke opfattelse, at det vil de ikke gøre; ikke pga. kilder og metoder, men fordi, der ikke findes nogen.
(Engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet):
The Crucial Point Is that Our Common Interest As Mankind Is Man's Progress
LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast January 13, 2017
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's January 13, 2017. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our regular
Friday evening webcast from larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the
studio today by Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC Science Team;
and via video by two members of our LaRouche PAC Policy Committee
— Michael Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California; and
Rachel Brown, joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
We have a three-part show for you today. The three segments
will obviously be interrelated, but they will feature first a
clip from a feature interview that our friend and colleague Jason
Ross did with Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA professional analyst
for 30 years, and now the co-founder of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity. We have a second segment which
features a clip from a breakthrough presentation that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche made in Stockholm, Sweden just yesterday to an
audience comprised of a large cross section of the international
diplomatic community. And then a third segment tonight which
pursues our ongoing emphasis on deepening the understanding of
Lyndon LaRouche's economic discoveries; and that will include a
review by Rachel Brown of a paper that Mr. LaRouche published a
while ago, called "In Defense of Treasury Secretary Alexander
Hamilton", complemented by a review of some of the material from
the last few years of Mr. LaRouche's upgrading and deepening of
the idea of not infrastructure, but economic platforms. So, that
will be our three part show from this evening.
To begin our first part, I think that we can refer to an
item that's posted on the LaRouche PAC website today. The title
of that is, "The Foreign Power Corrupting US Politics Is Britain,
Not Russia"; and this goes directly to the intelligence that
we're getting clarity on today. That the ones who are in fact
interfering in US politics, are not the Russian intelligence
services, but rather, directly, British intelligence. The
35-page — I guess you could call it dodgy dossier — on Trump's
supposed connections with Russia that was cited by CNN earlier
this week in a news story; and then published or leaked by
Buzzfeed. This is now being exposed as being authored by a
prominent supposedly-retired MI-6 officer, a man named
Christopher Steele; who was hired first by Republican Party
operatives who were opposing Donald Trump in the primaries, and
then was rehired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to do political
opposition research on Donald Trump. To be used not as an
intelligence brief, but to politically smear Trump in the
election. So again, this is not an intelligence report at all,
as it was represented by certain US media outlets that leaked it;
but rather merely a political disinformation brief, coming
directly from, as we see, British intelligence operatives.
President-elect Donald Trump took to twitter again this morning
to call this out. He said, "It now turns out that the phony
allegations against me were put together by my political
opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued. Totally made-up
facts by sleaze-bag political operatives, both Democrats and
Republicans. Fake news. Russia says nothing exists; probably
released by 'intelligence', even knowing there is no proof and
never will be."
What is clear is that the intelligence community has
declared war on the President-elect of the United States, who is
due to be inaugurated in less than one week from the present
moment. This is an unprecedented situation; and the role of the
British in this is clear, as can be seen by the role of this
character Christopher Steele. As I said, despite the narrative
that the Russians were running some huge influence campaign to
try to interfere and influence the American election, it's
beginning to look like the real culprit here was the British.
With that said as a matter of introduction, I'd like to play
a clip of this interview that we did with Ray McGovern. As I
said, he's a 30-year veteran analyst with the CIA; he was a
Russia or Soviet Union specialist at the time he was there. He's
responsible for preparing national intelligence estimates and the
Presidential daily brief. Now, since his time at the CIA, he has
become the co-founder of an organization called the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which now has about 50
members, retired intelligence specialists who recently put out a
statement seriously calling into question the narrative being put
out about Russian influence and Russian hacking. The full
interview will be available beginning on Sunday on the LaRouche
PAC website and the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; and we have
released other excerpts of this interview over the past few days.
This excerpt you're about to see is the very beginning of the
interview, which was conducted by Jason Ross, with Mr. Ray
McGovern.
JASON ROSS: Hi! Thanks for joining us. It's January 10,
2017; I'm Jason Ross here at LaRouche PAC. We are very happy to
have in the studio today Ray McGovern, multi-decade veteran of
the CIA and the co-founder in 2003 of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity. Thanks very much for coming today,
Ray.
RAY McGOVERN: You're most welcome; I'm glad to be with you.
ROSS: So, let's jump right into one of the big issues that
we're hearing about so much in the media today — the issue of
purported Russian hacking of the US elections. Now your group,
the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity released a
press statement on December 12th, saying that all evidence
pointed towards a leak rather than a hack. Since then, two
reports have come out; one from the DHS and one primarily
authored by the ODNI, the Director of National Intelligence,
saying here's the proof. We know Russia did it. The report was
of questionable usefulness. Then just a few days ago, you
co-authored an op-ed in the {Baltimore Sun} with William Binney,
where you restated your position; that all evidence points toward
this being leak rather than a hack, and in any case, evidence of
a hack is not been presented. Why do you take that position?
McGOVERN: Well, I need to tell you something about Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity first. We established
ourselves when we saw that our colleagues — the colleagues with
whom we had worked — had let themselves be suborned into
creating, into fabricating intelligence for the express purpose
of deceiving our elected representatives out of their
Constitutional prerogatives to declare or otherwise authorize
war. That was before Iraq; and that's as bad as it gets.
Bush, Cheney, and the others all said, "Oh, it was a
terrible mistake." It was not a mistake; it was out and out
fraud. When we saw that happening, we formed a little group —
there were five of us in the beginning — and we started
publishing. We published three memoranda before the war, warning
the President. Our first one was on the day of Colin Powell's
speech — the 5th of February, 2003 — and we gave him a C- for
content. And we warned the President, "The intelligence is being
manipulated and you really should widen the circle of your
advisors," we said at the end, "beyond those who are clearly bent
on a war for which we see no compelling reason, and from which,
we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be
catastrophic." We take no delight in the fact that we happened
to be right on that; there were a couple of other people saying
that, but nobody got into the mainstream media.
So, if you fast forward now, you see that the NSA people who
were in place at the time, not only were appalled at how much
money was being thrown at programs that they knew would never
work; but were outraged when they found out that a cheaper
program that they devised themselves — which only cost $330
million to emplace. The other one that General Hayden went for,
cost $3 billion with a "b"; so no comparison. Except that one
didn't work; this one did. The reason I mention that, is this
had plenty of evidence what was going to happen in 9/11; it was
in there. They went back and they looked; they closed that main
program down, and when Tom Drake, who was still employed there,
went in and looked, he found plenty of evidence that would have
— had it been shared — prevented 9/11. So, double outrage
here, and Bill Binney had been the technical director at NSA
before he left shortly after 9/11. So, he joined us, like so
many other wonderful people have; and when this went viral, this
business about Russian hacking, it was the most natural thing for
me to do to say, "Hey, Bill. We need a memo from you; we need
you to do a draft. Because you know, you designed most of these
systems, and you know what Ed Snowden has revealed. Those
slides? They look really interesting to us, but we need somebody
to take us through them." So, he said, "Sure." So, he gave us a
draft, and what we typically do is, we circulate it around the
five or six or seven people who have special interests in that,
or special experience; and we got it right together. We were one
of the first ones off the block saying "Yeah, this is a crock!
Why? For technical reasons." There were plenty of other
reasons, but some people — and I think it's to their credit —
they're technically oriented, and they want to know, "Is this
possible? Could the Russians have done this?" Well, the answer
is "Yes, but NSA would know about it."
Now, it boggles the mind, Jason, it boggles the mind. But
NSA traces {all emails on this planet}. If they go abroad, they
have cooperating agencies and cooperating governments. Not only
six, they have about 13 of them. If they go through the United
States, they get them; if they come from outside, they get them
all. And they can trace them; they have these little trace
mechanisms at various points in the network. So, they know where
each and every email originates and where it ends up.
Now, add to that the ironclad coverage they have of the
Ecuadoran embassy in London, where Julian Assange is; and I'm
sure that they monitor his colleagues as well wherever they
happen to be. So, let's say the Russians hack, and they got it
to Julian, they got it to one of his associates. "Well, OK,
Russians are really bad people," people say; "Show us the
messages." "Oh, we can't; we don't have the messages. But we'll
look at it." Now, they got the President, before he went on
vacation to Hawaii, to impose sanctions based on this elusive
evidence that they can't show us. These memos — my first
reaction was to laugh at them, but this a very sad thing to see
what the intelligence community has become; very, very sad.
Because this is an important issue.
So, what did the President do? He slapped on sanctions;
threw out 35 diplomats. All on whose say-so? John Brennan's.
Now, how did the {New York Times} get all this information? John
Brennan. We know that because the {Wall Street Journal} was a
little ticked off about it, and they said, "Yeah, it's Brennan
that's talking to these other guys; he's not talking to the {Wall
Street Journal}." So, what do we have here? We have the
President going out on a limb, causing even more danger, more
flak, more tensions in our relationship with Russia. On the
basis of what? Well, let me just say this; maybe I'll put it
this way: I was looking at some YouTube clips; and I happened
upon one of Christiane Amanpour, broadcasting from London. She's
interviewing Lukyanov, one of the Russian gurus. She says, "Mr.
Lukyanov, [imitating Amanpour’s voice] you say there's {zero}
evidence, you say {zero}. Well, if there's zero evidence, why is
it that the President of the United States has slapped sanctions
on Russia?"
ROSS: That's good.
McGOVERN: I remember being asked that question about
weapons of mass destruction. [Again imitating Amanpour’s voice]
"Mr. McGovern, if you say there's no evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, why did Bush and Cheney start a war on Iraq?" Well,
same answer; same answer! It's a really bad flashback, because
what they need to do, is come up with the evidence. My strong
view is that they're not going to do that; not because of sources
and methods, but because there isn't any.
OGDEN: Well, as I said, that's part of a much longer
interview, and part of it has already been posted on YouTube
under the title "Sources and Methods Versus National Interests";
and you can expect the full interview to be posted and available
coming Sunday, the day after tomorrow.
But I would like to just use that to invite the other
members of the broadcast here today to just open up a bit of a
discussion on this subject.
MICHAEL STEGER: In all of this discussion, apparently some
people are not pulling back over so-called "Trump's ties to
Russia." What this whole situation now makes clear, is that the
entire attack on the Trump campaign and the President-elect's
policy towards Russia, has been the target explicitly of British
Intelligence the entire time. The report that was released, this
35-page dodgy dossier, starts in June once Trump consolidates the
nomination, essentially, for the Republican Party, and doesn't
stop until mid-December of this just past year. And so, it's
clear that British Intelligence were the ones pushing this the
entire time. It's clear that Christopher Steele was close friends
with now-head of MI-6, Alex Younger. The British media are
panicking. A former Secretary General of the NATO, a British
Lord, came out and said this is a total panic. We could be
sleepwalking into a complete catastrophe.
It's clear the British had an explicit intent to manipulate
the U.S. elections, to fabricate false intelligence on a major
candidate, to drum up a conspiracy — so-called "hacking" by the
Russians to disrupt U.S. foreign policy and U.S. interests —
against the welfare of the American people. To those who know
history, and know Mr. LaRouche's role in the last 40-50 years of
American politics, this role of British Intelligence, includes
people who represented British outlooks, like Henry Kissinger, a
public advocate of British foreign policy against the American
outlook; the British hand, not just in an attempt to destroy and
manipulate the Presidential election and alter U.S. foreign
policy changes, but the direct role of the British in support of
the terrorists in Syria, via Saudi Arabia, and other nations; the
direct role of the British, such as David Cameron, who just
high-tailed it out of Downing Street and the British Parliament,
because he was directly exposed in a fraudulent-led campaign
against Libya; the false intelligence of Tony Blair on the Iraq
war, which Ray McGovern was just referring to.
Besides that, you've got then the international drug trade,
which we documented beginning in the 1970s, with {Dope, Inc.},
and the international drug trade run by Her Majesty, Queen
Elizabeth. Who, by the way, could be on her death-bed; and that
wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
You've got an international drug trade, and international
war program, international terrorism, and, of course, the
Wall-Street/London nexus of international finance, which has run
this absolute cult of financial policy for decades, for
centuries, in essence. This is the same institution which was
responsible for the assassination of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham
Lincoln, William McKinley, the attempted assassination of FDR,
the backing of Hitler. By the way, I think the Russian Embassy
in London made it clear that it was the Brits, such as the
Cliveden set, who were responsible for backing Hitler. That
they're coming out now and targeting the potential policy changes
in the United States, one towards Russia, potentially towards
China — to end the threat of nuclear world war.
They're also attempting to disrupt what could be a very
important — as I think we'll see from Helga Zepp LaRouche's clip
— relationship between the U.S., China, and Russia, on an
economic policy; and, as we know it to be very important that
we'll get to later as well, a fundamental change in U.S.
financial policy. This British nexus is targeting the Trump
campaign and targeting this entire change in U.S. policy. This is
British imperial tactics. This is what they do; they are at the
source of it. If there's going to be a Congressional
investigation of any foreign nations' or foreign agents'
involvement to manipulate U.S. democracy, I think first and
foremost, it has to be the United Kingdom.
RACHEL BRINKLEY: The fact that on page 15 of these 35 pages,
it attacks LaRouche by name, saying that there were Trump
factions travelling to meet with Putin factions, as part of this
alliance in the summer of 2016. They cite LaRouche directly in
this report has having representatives that went to Russia as
part of this discussion; which did not happen. As this was
authored by the British, this is just the British Empire freaked
out about LaRouche's policies taking over, and the potential of a
United States/Russia/China alliance, especially the Russia/U.S.
cooperation.
I think it is notable that if you have the United States,
Russia, and China working together, there's no problem on the
planet that can't be solved. That's an unstoppable alliance. I
think the British are desperate, and that's what we're seeing.
OGDEN: That's exactly what Helga LaRouche presented at this
conference that happened in Stockholm, Sweden just yesterday.
This was an extraordinary conference, and I'm going to play a
clip of her opening speech to you right now. This was a
standing-room-only capacity audience that included 17 diplomats,
a cross-section of the entire planet, including seven
ambassadors. She delivers her analysis of what we've really seen
behind this showdown, as we've been discussing, of the British
and American intelligence establishment vs. the incoming
President-elect. She highlights, towards the end of these
excerpted remarks — and again, this is only an excerpt, in bits
and pieces — the whole speech contains a lot more substance in
terms of what you just said, Rachel.
The motivation behind ending this confrontational policy
towards Russia and towards China, is that if Russia, China, and
the United States were to join, in a grand alliance, around what
is now a concrete policy initiative coming out of China — the
One Belt, One Road, or New Silk Road project — to bring
development to the interior of not only Eurasia, but also Africa
and the North and South America landmass, and were to reorganize
our relations around what's now being called the "win-win"
paradigm among nations — then everything is possible. She
explores a lot of these questions in the {full} speech, which
will be available in video form in just a few hours.
In what you're about to hear, she touches on what must be
done, both strategically and economically, to shape the policy of
this incoming new Presidency. I apologize for the quality of the
audio. It was not the best audio recording, but again, in just a
few hours, we will have the full video that will be available.
This is just a taste:
HELGA ZEPP LAROUCHE (Audio excerpt): … Let me start with
the Trump election. Now, I have in my whole political life, which
is now becoming quite long, several decades — I have never in
my whole political life, seen such hysteria on the side of the
neo-cons, on the side of the mainstream politicians, on the side
of the liberal media, as concerning Trump…. But what was caused
Trump, is that he simply promised end the political paradigm
which was the basis of eight years of George W. Bush and eight
years of Barack Obama, which was a direct continuation of the
Bush-Cheney policy.
And it was a good thing, because it was very clear that if
Hillary Clinton would have won the election in the United States,
that all the policies she was pursuing, including an no-fly zone
over Syria, and an extremely bellicose policy towards Russia and
China, would have meant that we would have been on the direct
course to World War III.
The fact that Hillary did not win the election was
{extremely} important for the maintenance of world peace. And I
think that of all the promises that Trump made so far, the fact
that he said … that he will normalize the relationship between
the United States and Russia, is, in my view {the most important
step}. Because if the relationship between the United States and
Russia is decent, and is based on trust and cooperation, I think
there is a basis to solve all other problems in the world. And if
that relationship would be in an adversary condition, world peace
is in extreme danger.
So from my standpoint, there is reason to believe that this
will happen. The Russian reaction has been very moderate, but
optimistic that this may happen. If you look at the appointments,
you have several cabinet members and other people in other high
posts who are also for improving the relationship with Russia,
such as Tillerson who is supposed to become Secretary of State;
General Flynn, who is a conservative military man but also for
normalization with Russia, and many others, so I think this is a
good sign.
Now, if you look at the reaction of the neo-con/neo-liberal
faction on both sides of the Atlantic to this election of Trump,
you can only describe it as {completely} hysterical. The
{Washington Post} today has an article "How to Remove Trump from
Office," calling him a liar, just every derogative you can
possibly imagine, just on and on unbelievable….
And then naturally, you have the reports by the different
U.S. intelligence services, Clapper, Brennan, Comey from the FBI.
They all put out the fact that that it was Russian hacking of the
emails of the DNC and Podesta which would have stolen the
election, because they would have shifted the view of the
Americans to vote for Trump.
Now, I think this is ridiculous. Not only have many cyber
experts, in Europe but also in the United States, already said
that all the signs are that it was not a hacking but an insider
leak giving this information out, which is more and more likely,
and there's absolutely {zero} proof that it was Russian hacking.
Naturally, what is being covered up with this story is what was
the "hacking" about? It was "hacking" of emails that proved that
Hillary Clinton manipulated the election against Bernie Sanders!
That is not being talked about any more….
The real narrative is that it was the injustice of the
neoliberal system of globalization which has violated the
interests of the majority of the people, especially in the "rust
belt." Hillary Clinton in the election campaign was so arrogant
that she didn't even go to Ohio or some of the other states which
were formerly industrialized. You have to see that the United
States, contrary to what mostly is reported in the Western media
in Europe, is in a state of economic collapse….
[T]here is one indicator which shows if a society is doing
good or bad, and that is if the life-expectancy increases or
shrinks. In the United States it's shrinking for the first time
for both men and women. In the period of 16 years of Bush-Cheney
and Obama, which you can take as one package, the suicide rate
has quadrupled in all age brackets; the reasons being alcoholism,
drug addiction, hopelessness, depression because of unemployment.
There are about 94 million Americans who are of working age who
are not even counted in the statistics, because they have given
up all hope of ever finding a job again. If you have recently
travelled in the United States, the United States is really in a
terrible condition; the infrastructure is in a horrible
condition, and people are just not happy.
So the vote, therefore, the narrative, was that the reason
why Hillary was voted out because she was being perceived as the
direct continuation of these 16 years, and so the attempt to
change that narrative by saying it was "Russian hacking" is
pretty obvious….
I cannot tell you what this Trump administration is going to
be. I think I mentioned the one point, I'm pretty confident
about…. But there are other interesting elements, for example:
Trump had promised in the election campaign to invest $1 trillion
into the renewal of the infrastructure in the United States. That
is very good, as I said, because the United States urgently needs
repair. It will, however, only function if at the same time,
another promise by Trump, namely, what he promised in October in
North Carolina, that he would implement the 21st Century
Glass-Steagall Act, will also be carried out, because the
trans-Atlantic financial system remains on the verge of
bankruptcy. You could have a repetition of the 2008 financial
crash at any moment; and {only} if you have a Glass-Steagall law
in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, what Roosevelt did in
1933 by separation of the banks, by getting rid of the criminal
element of the banking system, and then replacing it by a credit
policy in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, can you remedy
this situation. Otherwise, you cannot finance $1 trillion in
infrastructure….
OGDEN: Now, Helga continues from there to give a very
inspiring overview of the development projects from the last
three years that have been sparked by the initiative from China
on the One Belt, One Road or the New Silk Road initiative. But
she also gives an incredible history of the founding of the
Schiller Institute and the role and she and Lyndon LaRouche have
played over the last 30-40 years in the fight for a new, just,
international economic and strategic order. A fight which is now
coming to a certain point of culmination at least
internationally; but the urgency of winning this fight here in
the United States is something that she continued to emphasize,
and it's exactly what she ended with there in that excerpt.
Right now, we must have the most urgent mobilization; there
are no excuses for delay from {any} elected representative for an
immediate restoration of Glass-Steagall. We have now launched
and are in the midst of a national mobilization; we've talked
about this on previous broadcasts. But as you can see on the
screen right now, we're circulating a petition which is
collecting signatures; it needs to more rapidly accrue
signatures. But it's accessible at lpac.co/trumpsotu; and again,
this is a petition which originated from some citizen-activists
in Ohio, who are associated with the "Our Revolution" movement,
people who had been associated with the Bernie Sanders campaign
during the primaries. But who have now taken it upon themselves
to rally behind the initiative that LaRouche PAC has led; that we
must have Glass-Steagall, and we must hold Trump to his word,
when he called for a 21st Century Glass-Steagall at that speech
in Charlotte, North Carolina. As I said, this has bipartisan
support, and there are no excuses for delay. The only way this
is going to happen, is if citizens across the United States
decide to participate in this LaRouche PAC campaign and sign your
name onto this petition: lpac.co/trumpsotu — State of the Union.
Now, we did have a day of action in Washington this week.
The Congress is now officially back in session; they've been
sworn in and business is underway. There was participation from
many states up and down the East Coast in person.
Representatives coming in from Virginia, from Maryland, from
Pennsylvania, from Connecticut, from New Jersey, from New York.
But there was also a lot of other participation from across the
country in terms of pressure being put on representatives to meet
with members of the LaRouche PAC. There was a unique
representative from the Manhattan Project, Mr. John Sigerson,
who's the director of the Schiller Institute Chorus in New York
City; who's been participating in some of the recent choral
activities there, including the memorial at the Bayonne, New
Jersey 9/11 Teardrop Memorial, where members of the Schiller
Institute Chorus were joined by the PDNY Honor Guard and the
Honor Guard from Bayonne, New Jersey to honor the tragic loss of
the Alexandrov Choral Ensemble from Russia. This is just one
example of the kind of power that the music program from the
Manhattan Project, from New York City, has been able to play to
shape the political dialogue in the United States and also across
countries. In this case, the potential for a far-improved
relationship between the United States and Russia. So again,
this was a day of action in Washington, DC, but the mobilization
has to continue. We are in a countdown; it's now a 7-day
countdown until the inauguration. Then shortly after that, we
will have the State of the Union; and again, this petition is to
insist that Trump put a premium on highlighting the necessity for
a return to the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act during that State
of the Union. This has to be one of the number one agenda items
of the first 100 days.
But, let's discuss a little bit more broadly what Helga
LaRouche brought up at the end of that discussion; that
Glass-Steagall is only the first step, and there's a much more
far-reaching and profound approach to a revolution in the
economic policy of the United States that's necessary and which
has been framed by Mr. LaRouche.
STEGER: Well Matt, I think it's important to start with how
Mr. LaRouche initially responded immediately after the Trump
election. His response was that this was global; and I think
that really does capture this. The political process that is
shaping the United States in contradiction to this British
intelligence operation to destroy the United States, is really a
global phenomenon; and I'll get to that in a second. But what
Mrs. LaRouche then touched on in her speech is something that
most Americans are experiencing, but because of that British
intelligence operation, because of this mass-lie campaign that
the American people have been living under; the official lie, in
essence, Orwellian policy that even the Russian Foreign Ministry
now refers to, that Americans have been living in since 9/11.
This has kept them from identifying what is now physically
identified; that the actual quality of life is collapsing at such
rates that life expectancy is now beginning to collapse.
We have officially, you might say, entered into a Dark Age;
a mini-Dark Age has begun in the United States. Now, this can be
reversed. But the level of drug addiction has more than tripled
under Obama's Presidency; the level of opiate addiction, the
abuse of drugs like marijuana has skyrocketed under an
Obama-supported legalization campaign. Which is of course,
backed by the same drug cartels which are providing the financial
backing to the banking institutions. This was Obama's program.
You've seen a massive level of homicides and crime and murder
rates escalating in severely impoverished areas, including
Obama's so-called "own neighborhood" of the South Side of
Chicago. This level of breakdown has never been seen in the
history of the United States; and it is only characteristic of
societies which are beginning to utterly break down. Long-term
survival is not even a question; what's at immediate risk for an
increasing majority of Americans is short-term survival. That's
what you see when you have decreasing life expectancy rates,
increasing numbers of people are dying faster and faster; largely
from things like alcohol addiction, drug addiction, diseases
related to despair, suicide and so on.
That's where Glass-Steagall comes in; and this is what
really has to be captured. And why it's not simply
Glass-Steagall, but the full Four Laws. I think Megan and Rachel
can say more, because we're currently working on a project to
make this clear. But the role of fusion and the space program
really captivate the fourth law in what direction our country has
to take to reawaken a sense of optimism, a sense of development
within the American culture. To break out, not just of disrepair
— breaking down of bridges, bad roads — we all know the bad
roads and highways, especially on the East Coast. But that's not
what we have to emerge from. Building better roads isn't
escaping from the clutches of a Dark Age; something greater has
to capture the real spirit of human identity and creativity.
Now, this is why it's so important to identify this global
phenomenon; because the steps of the Four Laws: Glass-Steagall
immediately; shut down this Wall Street banking cartel and
basically a drug operation. The second is the public credit of a
national banking system, which Paul Gallagher elaborated last
night; we could say more on. To consolidate, aggregate the US
debt that exists, as well as other financial resources towards
the most important projects of development for the country; the
most advanced levels of infrastructure, or the broader physical
platform of industry and production. And of course most
importantly, the fusion and space program.
This phenomenon globally is just somewhat breathtaking; and
Mrs. LaRouche touches on it directly. The Transaqua project in
Africa is something that we've been promoting for decades; this
is something which begins to take the sub-Saharan area of Africa
from the great lakes near the eastern part of Africa towards West
Africa and Nigeria, up into the southern border of the Sahara
Desert. It begins to look at how we use major infrastructure
projects of water transportation, the refilling of Lake Chad, and
the development of this central African area. There's also a
major rail line, which is not initiated — it's been inaugurated;
it's now running from Ethiopia to the coastline of Djibouti.
This rail line is one of the key continental rail passages that
the Schiller Institute and {EIR} have been fighting for, for
decades; to begin to integrate the full potential of Africa's
people and its resources and its industrial capacities into an
integrated economic breakthrough. A real shift in the
productivity and lifestyle and scientific potential of Africa.
Those things are now unfolding; these are coming from largely
Chinese investments, Chinese engineering companies are directly
onboard.
The same is true from another project, and I think it's
worth just highlighting, because we have gotten reports recently
that it's practically shovel-ready. This is Kra Canal. All this
contention over the South China Sea that everyone's heard about;
and the Americans remain, I'm sure, still somewhat confused.
What's the big deal about a couple of islands in the South China
Sea? As the President of the Philippines said, we're not going
to eliminate humanity over a couple of fishing spots in the South
China Sea. The real question is the Kra Canal; this is something
explicitly that the British Empire has prevented by diktat, to
shut down. Matt, you and others have been involved in video
production specifically on this project and the role of the
British to shut this down over centuries to eliminate this
project. The Chinese have said that they are ready to begin the
development of the Kra Canal. The Thai government, with a new
king, seems favorable; the military, the prime minister seem
favorable. The question of Japan's collaboration is something
that goes back to the 1980s; with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche directly
involved in this project. The people we worked with then, in
Thailand, are again promoting and advocating for its initial
construction today.
So, these projects are transformative. We've gone through
more on that; I'm not going to give the layout of these projects.
But there are major development orientations taking place that
are gripping mankind. There was an offer today, apparently, in
the {Hindu Times} in India from a Chinese journalist, which said
"Will Donald Trump Participate in the Silk Road Conference in
China?" I think that really is the potential which we've got
today.
So, the Glass-Steagall fight, this question of the United
States deciding that we're going to build our nation again, we're
going to shut down this Wall Street racket and take on this kind
of potential; that's really what has to be ignited. And there's
no reason Donald Trump should not take that up at the
inauguration and the State of the Union.
BRINKLEY: Right! And on this question of the murder policy
of Obama, there's an attempt now to cover it up and make him the
cute President and Joe Biden getting an award. No, this is
flat-out murder, and if this mass movement across the world is
properly educated, it won't be stopped.
So, there was discussion recently around infrastructure, as
Helga brought up, from Trump. It's still not to the level of
LaRouche's conception of infrastructure. For example, here's
what Speaker Paul Ryan said about infrastructure: "In the spring
budget, we believe we will be able to address the infrastructure
issue." The chairman of the Republican study committee, Mark
Walker, says "I don't know that we've settled on $1 trillion. If
it's $1 trillion in infrastructure, that is something we'd have
to say, 'There's a portion of this that we're not comfortable
with and come back to the table.'|" And then Sam Graves, the
head of the Transportation Subcommittee, says "We just simply
can't afford it," adding that "It can't all be done through
public-private partnerships as the President-elect is talking
about."
They're still looking at this as an issue. LaRouche
developed this concept. Helga LaRouche made the point that 2017
should be the year of the rejuvenation or flourishing of
LaRouche's ideas. He wrote a paper in 2010 called, "What Your
Accountant Never Understood; the Secret Economy". He goes
through a universal history of the greater concept of
infrastructure. He starts with the question of transoceanic
travel; navigation across the oceans. He says, "For example,
look back to the approximately hundred-centuries of the Earth's
last great glaciation. While some part of the human population
had remained mired in the habits of life of some fixed,
relatively narrow regions free of glaciation, great transoceanic
maritime cultures were also developed. The requirement of a
stellar mapping for navigation for the existence of maritime
cultures, gave us the stellar notion of the efficient existence
of a functional form of an ontologically-actual universe; as
echoed by such great residual artifacts as the Great Pyramid of
Giza, and by the physical science of spherics. Now, into this
so-called Platonic long cycle, into the Pythagorean predecessors
of Plato."
So, you have the concept of how to travel on an ocean. How
do you navigate? By the stars. How do you map the stars? On a
flat plane? No, you find you have to use a spherical map; so the
beginning of this spherical foundation of a physical science of
the Universe was discovered. This was applied to navigate the
oceans. He says from there it goes on to the idea of inland
travel, not just oceanic, but inland via internal waterways. He
says this you saw developed with Charlemagne first. He says,
"Charlemagne's reforms served as a precedent for the development
and role of the great internal system of rivers and canals, which
provided the crucial steps toward modern European economy, and
the application of the same reform within our United States.
Those inland waterways prepared the leap toward the revolutionary
US trans-continental railway systems. First, inside the United
States; and in turn, the trans-continental rail systems of
Eurasia." So, this was John Quincy Adams uniting the country
with waterways and with the rail systems. He was the first to
fully unite the United States as a single territory. This was
followed by Bismarck in Germany and Mendeleyev in Russia. That
was the next advancement.
Then he says, "Now, the prospect of the combined effect of
magnetic levitation mass transport systems and rail, which will
connect the principal continents of the world, would render most
ocean transport of freight technologically obsolete; because the
modern successor of ordinary internal rail transport will have
rendered much of ocean freight technologically, and therefore
economically, obsolete." We are starting to see the beginnings
of this with things like the North-South transport corridor from
India to Iran to Russia; which cuts off the maritime route by
making it 40% shorter. There are also new rail lines developing
between China and Europe. The first train of which, for example,
just went from Beijing to London, starting January 1, 2017; the
first time ever in history. There are 39 various routes now
between China and Europe; inland rail following the route of the
old Silk Road, but with modern rail. As LaRouche says, if you
have high-speed magnetic levitation rail, that would be even a
further advancement.
Next, he says, "Changes such as those, illustrate a general
principle which will be expressed in certain nearby Solar System
locations. Now, we're going to go to the next step, such as our
Moon and Mars, when they will have come to be considered later,
as within the bounds of our presently still-young, new century's
plausible instances of work and habitation. Typical problems to
be overcome for the purpose of human transport and dwelling in
nearby solar space, and later beyond, must look to such future
developments already foreseeable for later in the present
century. We should then recognize that the development of basic
economic infrastructure had always been a needed creation of what
is required as a habitable development of a synthetic, rather
than a presumably natural, environment for the enhancement or
even the possibility of human life and practice at some time in
the existence of our human species."
So, he's bring up, one, this long-term conception; he says
later, three generations — 75 years — should be our orientation
for space. We have the questions of habitation and transport as
fundamental challenges; and this is the idea of the next phase.
But in general, also this last question of synthetic versus
natural; that these various new modes of habitation and travel
were based off of new discoveries that created a whole new
platform of existence, of habitation, of travel, where mankind
could reach through these advances. And those were all creations
of the human mind in the likeness of the Creator. Infrastructure
is not just making a bridge or something to get from here to
there; it's the question of a new advancement, of a new principle
that is applied throughout your entire society. So, it's not an
add-on to your economic policy as Paul Ryan was saying. "We'll
get to that; we'll figure out how to fit it in the budget." It's
the beginning of your notion of economy.
MEGAN BEETS: Yeah Rachel, I think what you just put forward
here from Mr. LaRouche's overview and what you were just saying,
it's a way of thinking that most Americans have forgotten about.
People have lost touch with the kind of big thinking about long
sweeps of human history, and I think that that way of thinking —
the idea that we can consider 50-100-year cycles of human
progress in general — flies in the face of the biggest British
Empire lie which has dominated for some time. The idea that
human growth is bad; human progress is bad; population growth
destroys the Earth and it's bad. We have to hold back
technological progress; we have to go backwards. Instead of
towards nuclear power, we have to go backwards towards solar
power, wind power; and reduce our impact and our presence on the
Earth. That lie is exactly what's being threatened with both the
rise of the New Paradigm being led from Eurasia and the
potentiality of Mr. LaRouche's ideas; which are really the most
advanced version of the American System ideas of Hamilton,
Franklin Roosevelt, and Lincoln, of putting the creative power
and really the responsibility of the creative human mind to
change nature. To alter nature to better support human life;
alter the biosphere to higher levels of productivity, as we do by
improving agriculture, for example.
I just think that what you're bringing up here really is the
crucial point; that our common interest as mankind is man's
progress. That right now dictates that we can't accept anything
lower than a long-term dedication to the highest forms of
technological advance and growth; which is nuclear fusion power
and its companion, a space program. The colonization of the Moon
and eventual colonization of Mars. That would really be a
beautiful renaissance expression of the American people working
with the rest of the world towards the uplifting of humanity
toward our real, true potential.
OGDEN: Well, as I said, we are going to continue the
discussion of the substance — this was, I think, crucial Rachel;
because it's exactly what you're saying. This insight into the
real meaning of something which has become banalized —
infrastructure; that's the key to all of economic science. If
humanity is going to make the shift into the next phase of our
global existence as a species, it's only going to be possible if
we have a flourishing of this kind of philosophical understanding
of the science behind real, true economics. It's a critical
ingredient of the ability of humanity to move forward. So, I
think we're going to continue this; and there are a lot of
interrelated works that Mr. LaRouche authored over the last
several years which explore this concept of the real meaning of
infrastructure, the idea of the economic platform, and the role
that Hamiltonian credit should play in facilitating all of that.
So, that said, that's the crucial insight and understanding
that you need to fight with us right now for the necessary policy
revolution here in the United States. This all revolves around
the initiation of Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws. Michael
went through them, but it's Glass-Steagall, number one. We need
to return to Hamiltonian national banking, number two. We need
an initiation as Franklin Roosevelt did it, of Federal credit
using that Hamiltonian national banking system to raise the
productive powers of labor of the workforce as a whole. And this
all has to be driven by a dedication to the breakthroughs in
science; most especially right fusion and space exploration.
So, there are two things that you need to do before this
program ends tonight. Number one, you need to immediately sign
the petition that's being circulated by LaRouche PAC. Again, the
address is: lpac.co/trumpsotu — all one word — trumpsotu for
State of the Union. If you've already signed this, then it's a
great opportunity for you to spread it to your entire network and
help us reach the goal. We've set the goal of 10,000 signatures
on this petition. We are increasing the number of signatures,
but it has to increase at a much more rapid rate. It's a perfect
opportunity to help us increase the outreach of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee. Then, number two; immediately
subscribe, if you haven't already, to the LaRouche PAC daily
email list. For two reasons: 1. in the 7-day countdown between
now and the inauguration, you need to have the daily marching
orders and the daily updates. This is a very fast moving
situation, as you can see from the intelligence situation that we
presented at the beginning of this show. Then after that, in the
critical first days of the new Presidency, as things change very
rapidly, you need to have the insight that only LaRouche PAC can
uniquely provide you. And then, another reason is, as we develop
more crucial and unique, exclusive content like what you got a
taste of here today, especially this interview with Ray McGovern,
the veteran CIA intelligence analyst and the co-founder of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, you will receive a
notice in your email inbox and this is material that you can't
afford to miss. You really need to know as soon as we publish it
and as soon as we make it available. So again, you can look for
the full interview that Jason Ross did with Ray McGovern to be
posted on the LaRouche PAC website and our YouTube channel on
Sunday, the day after tomorrow. And you can also look forward to
the full speech that Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered at this very
important, breakthrough diplomatic seminar in Stockholm, Sweden.
So, thank you very much for tuning in tonight. I think this
was a successful broadcast, and I'd like to thank Megan, Rachel,
and Michael for joining me in the discussion. Please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com and good night.
I USA, i lighed med Danmark og andre lande, er der nogle helt afgørende ting, der må gennemføres, som Lyndon LaRouche har fremført som fire nødvendige love, der må implementeres omgående.
1) Der skal indføres en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, men under den overskrift er der mange andre ting, der må ske. Man må gå igennem bankernes og finansverdenens aktiviteter i lighed med det, man gjorde i USA, da Roosevelt blev indsat som præsident, så man får renset op og får adskilt tingene i legitime finansielle aktiviteter, der er vigtige for realøkonomien, og så spekulation, som skal helt ud af de normale banker. Man vil så få nogle mindre almindelige banker, som man kan hjælpe, hvis de får problemer, mens alle de andre spekulative aktiviteter ikke får lov til at belaste staten og skatteyderne, når de får problemer pga. fejlslagne spekulationer. Derefter skal der
2) skabes kredit til investeringer. Staten må gå ind og regulere det ovenfra og i den udstrækning, det er nødvendigt, med statslige kreditter sikre, at der bliver foretaget de nødvendige investeringer i samfundet og dets produktive aktiviteter. Det skal bl.a. udmønte sig i
3) store infrastrukturprojekter, der kan opgradere hele økonomien. Man kan bare skele til de enorme investeringer, Kina har foretaget siden 2008, hvor Kina har brugt over 1000 mia. dollars om året på infrastruktur og i dag har verdens største og bedste netværk af højhastighedstog. Programmet for Den Nye Silkevej er da også centreret om opbygning af grundlæggende infrastruktur, ikke blot i Kina, men i stadig større dele af verden. Når det gælder Danmark, har vi et forældet jernbanenet, der skal fornyes i form af et nationalt magnettognet eller højhastighedstognet i forbindelse med bygningen af en Kattegatbro. Vi skal så hurtigt som muligt have bygget den faste forbindelse over Femern Bælt og en Helsingør/Helsingborg-forbindelse. Der er masser af motorveje og andre projekter, der bare venter på at blive bygget. Der er så meget, der skal bygges, at vi kommer til at planlægge, hvordan vi kan få nok kvalificeret arbejdskraft og byggekapacitet for at kunne få alle de mange projekter realiseret. Alle disse projekter er nødvendige som en del af at løfte den danske økonomi op på et højere produktivitetsniveau, og samtidig skal vi have langt mere gang i forskning og udvikling.
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 12. januar, 2017 – Ingen mennesker i USA kan undgå at mærke den anstrengte atmosfære af forventning, der gennemtrænger disse første dage af året 2017. På den ene eller anden måde er Bush/Obama-tyranniets seneste seksten, blodige års vante sandheder ved at være forbi; vi står alle ansigt til ansigt med det ukendte. Omkring denne udvikling, og sættende betingelserne for den, er en fuldstændig ny, revolutionær situation på hele det internationale plan, som det store flertal af amerikanere ikke har den fjerneste idé om.
Samtidig er nogle af vore lavereplacerede lakajer for Det britiske Imperium, i takt med, at dagen for indsættelse af den nye præsident nærmer sig (20. januar), hvide i ansigtet af frygt. Vil de miste nogle af deres privilegier? Hvad vil der ske med dem? De synes at være ved at gå fra forstanden med deres skrigeri om stadig mere vilde fupnumre imod den nyvalgte præsident. I stedet for denne galskab skulle de hellere se til, at de »fortryder, angrer og gør godt igen«, som patrioten Andrew J. Bacevich skrev 9. jan. i en artikel.
I mellemtiden håber det, af de store nyhedsmedier ignorerede, og derfor ukendte af dem, der læser disse, store flertal af amerikanere, der har måttet bide i græsset i seksten år og længere, at de omsider kommer på en bedre kost.
Men vi står alle, uden undtagelse, og stirrer ind i ansigtet på det ukendte og uforudsete – det uventede. Og de, der først lander på deres fødder igen, parat til at handle, så det skaber resultat, vil starte ud med en stor fordel. Vi må være disse første. Det bliver ganske bestemt ikke de ynkelige lakajer i pressen, eller bureaukraterne uden samvittighed, og som i øjeblikket (men ikke ret meget længere) står i spidsen for »efterretningstjenesterne«.
Og derfor er der ingen, der ved, hvad de skal gøre. Hvordan kan vi undgå et overhængende kollaps af finanssystemet? Hvordan kan vi få en reel, økonomisk genrejsning? Hvordan passer vi ind i det globale system? Hvor er menneskeheden på vej hen? Kun de af os, der har kæmpet for at gøre Lyndon LaRouches opdagelser til vore egne, kender blot de første skridt til besvarelse af disse presserende spørgsmål.
Det er af disse grunde, at alle lige pludselig lytter til os. De kræver at forstå LaRouches Fire Love – for hvem ellers har svaret? Uden afgørende input fra Lyndon LaRouche, vil vi ikke blive i stand til at komme ud af dette rod. Og læren af gårsdagens LaRouchePAC-mission til Capitol Hill går endnu videre end til en ny modtagelighed for genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, og især for LaRouches Fire Love, efter Hamiltons principper. Den går videre end det, til at omfatte det enorme indtryk, som dér blev skabt, af Schiller Instituttets musikdirektør John Sigerson, med sin briefing om højtideligheden den 7. jan. ved Tåremindesmærket i Bayonne, New Jersey, hvor Schiller Instituttets New York Borgerkor deltog. Dette repræsenterede sjælen i Manhattan-projektet, et af Lyndon LaRouches seneste store bidrag til at redde USA, og menneskeslægten.
Og I har endnu ikke set det halve af det!
»At værdsætte og stimulere det menneskelige intellekts aktivitet ved at mangedoble områderne for foretagsomhed, gennem hvilke en nations rigdom kan fremmes.«
– Alexander Hamilton (11. jan., 1757 – 12. juli, 1804).
»Sammenhængen mellem intellektets opdagelser og forøgelsen af arbejdskraftens produktive evne, er kernen i Det amerikanske, økonomiske System. Det, jeg har præsteret, er at vise, at det er muligt at forudsige rent matematisk raterne af den forøgede, fysisk-økonomiske vækst, som vil blive resultatet af en faktisk anvendelse af en specifik form for intellektuel produktion af ny teknologi. På denne baggrund har jeg været i stand til at levere et nyt, stærkere, videnskabeligt bevis for de grunde til, at Hamiltons Amerikanske System fremmer depressionsfri, økonomisk vækst, og grunden til, at Adam Smiths doktrin altid vil føre en nation ud i nye katastrofer.«
– Lyndon LaRouche, »In Defense of Alexander Hamilton«, 1987.
Læs hele Lyndon LaRouches artikel her:
http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_01-09/2017-02/pdf/32-42_4402.pdf
Schiller Instituttet opstarter ny studiekreds ud fra Lyndon LaRouches Lærebog i Økonomi (ovenstående titel). Vær med fra starten.
Ring inden mødet, hvis du vil være med over Skype: 53 57 00 51.
Lyndon LaRouche:
»So, You Wish to Learn all about Economics?«, kan downloades her:
https://larouchepac.com/sites/default/files/So_You_Wish.pdf
|
|
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 10. januar, 2016 – I denne uge udsætter LaRouchePAC og deres samarbejdspartnere Kongressen for laserhede – sammen med international slagkraft fra New York City – for at fremtvinge et skift i USA’s politik til fordel for et nyt paradigme for udvikling for menneskeheden, og for at fremtvinge en afslutning af forfølgelsen af krig og tyranni. Om 10 dage vil USA få en ny præsident, men dette er ikke tider, hvor man blot ’venter og ser’, hvad der sker efter indsættelsen. Det er bydende nødvendigt at skabe et nyt, politisk miljø, til omgående ikrafttræden.
Den lovgivende magt i USA – Kongressens medlemmer – tvinges til at ’se kendsgerningerne i øjnene’: at der findes en vej ud af Bush- og Obamaårenes dødbringende morads, og at de – kongresmedlemmerne – må handle omgående. Personlige møder – både arrangeret på forhånd og impromptu – med LPAC-delegationer fra fem østkyststater er dagens orden på Capitol her midt i ugen, hvor LaRouches »Fire Love«, der begynder med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall og relaterede dokumenter for politik, omdeles.
Disse aktiviteter finder sted samtidigt på nationalt plan og på lokalt niveau, der indvirker på Washington. Medlem af LaRouchePAC Komite for Politisk Strategi, Kesha Rogers, leder en delegation i Austin, Texas, hvis delstatskongres åbnede i dag. I går aftes, på de Nationale Landmænds konvent i staten Indiana, åbnede fremlæggelsen af LaRouches nødvendige hastepolitik præsentationerne. I staten Virginia blev der i dag fremstillet en ny resolution (House Joint Res. 642) i General Assembly (delstatskongressen), der erklærer, »at USA’s Nationale Kongres opfordres til at vedtage lovgivning, der genindfører den adskillelse af kommerciel bankvirksomhed og investeringsvirksomhed, som var i kraft under Glass/Steagall-loven …«.
Lyndon LaRouche understregede efter en briefing om begivenhederne, at man skulle fortsætte med at lægge pres på de lovgivende forsamlinger. »Få jobbet i hus. I har kendsgerningerne. Fremstil fakta for at støtte argumentet.«
Den stærkt fokuserede intervention med LaRouches politik står i dramatisk kontrast til den hvirvel af løgne og fordærvelse, der ellers præsenteres, især i medierne, og hvis formål er at køre aktiverede borgere ud på et sidespor og demoralisere dem. »Anklag Rusland for hacking«-kampagnen kører stadig på fulde omdrejninger fra Det hvide Hus og demente klakører i Kongressen. I dag var der en høring i Senatskomiteen for Efterretningsanliggender om rapporten fra 6. jan. fra Obamas efterretningschefer, der aflagde forklaring for komiteen. Direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste James Clapper gentog her, at ingen kilder vil blive offentliggjort, kun konklusionen af disse kilder, som er, at ’Rusland gjorde det’ og at ’Putin beordrede det’.
Dernæst finder der en protestaktion sted, som er en total blindgyde. Søndag, den 15. jan, vil for eksempel organisationen associeret til Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton promovere offentlige møder i 30 byer i hele landet under banneret, »Vores første krav, red sundhedssektoren«. Sanders optrådte på et borgermøde, der blev landsdækkende transmitteret live på CNN i går aftes, hvor han kom med det kortfattede budskab om at bekæmpe »milliardærer« og »de store selskabers grådighed«. Begivenheden fandt sted på et college i Washington, D.C., i totalt kontrollerede omgivelser, der ikke tillod hverken adgang eller diskussion. Ikke ét eneste ord kom over Sanders’ læber om hverken Wall Streets bankerot eller nødvendigheden af Glass-Steagall.
For Obamas vedkommende, så er det meningen, at han i dag, 10. jan., skal holde sin Store Løgn-afskedstale fra Chicago. På Det Hvide Hus’ webside i sidste uge udtalte han, at han vil »fejre«, hvordan USA er blevet »forandret til det bedre i løbet af disse seneste otte år …« I mellemtiden fortsætter hans administration med sine farlige provokationer. I går sortlistede Obamas Finansministerium yderligere fem russiske personer (under Magnitsky-loven).
Over alt dette hæver sig den kraft, der ligger i sandhed og skønhed, som det ses i det udtryk for dybt venskab mellem Rusland og USA, der demonstreres i ceremonierne og korfremførelserne ved ceremonien den 7. jan., hvor der blev nedlagt en krans ved Tåredråbemindesmærket i Bayonne, New Jersey. Se: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS79QMGQ_Do&feature=youtube
Den 11. januar vil Schiller Instituttets musikdirektør John Sigerson lede en delegation på Capitol Hill for at mødes med kongresmedlemmer og styrke deres forståelse af musikkens kraft, og den kraft, der ligger i at handle på baggrund af lovmæssige principper.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Vi befinder os i en nedtællingsperiode; vi er i de sidste to uger, før overgangen til det nye præsidentskab. Om præcis to uger fra i dag er det indsættelsesdag, den 20. januar, og vi vil have en ny præsident i dette land. Som I ved, hvis I var med i går på Fireside Chat på LaRouchePAC’s hjemmeside, og hvis I har fået vore daglige og ugentlige e-mailopdateringer, så er vi engageret i en stor mobilisering. Det er vores ansvar, og jeres ansvar, at skabe dagsordenen for dette tiltrædende præsidentskab. Det må være vores holdning, at 2017 er året for den Nye Silkevej, året for det Nye Paradigme internationalt, året for en genoplivelse af Alexanders Hamiltons ideer, og for Lyndon LaRouches ideer. I USA betyder det, at Glass-Steagall omgående må vedtages; må sættes på dagsordenen; må underskrives og sættes i kraft som lov af den nye præsident. Dette vil ikke ske af sig selv; der er intet internt momentum, der vil gøre det muligt for dette at ske, mens vi læner os tilbage og kigger på. Som det hele tiden har været tilfældet, så vil dette kun ske på baggrund af en ekstraordinær mobilisering fra aktivisters side, i hele USA. Et meget vigtigt initiativ er blevet taget af en gruppe aktivister fra det nordlige Ohio; og LaRouchePAC vil udgive et åbent brev eller en pamflet, som skal forstærke og opmuntre mobiliseringen omkring dette initiativ.
Jeg vil indlede vores udsendelse med at læse LaRouchePAC’s introduktion i denne pamflet, og derefter oplæse lidt af teksten i dette åbne brev. Det lyder som følger:
»Dette brev blev oprindeligt omdelt af en gruppe ved navn, ’Vores revolution i det nordvestlige Ohio, med et forpligtende engagement til at forene hele nationen. De har udstedt en opfordring til alle grupper – for eksempel, Tea Party, Republikanere, Demokrater, fagforeninger og erhvervslivet – til at komme sammen omkring det nødvendige, første skridt, som er vedtagelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven. Da deres indsats er i overensstemmelse med LaRouchePAC’s mål, cirkulerer vi det, som en del af en national mobilisering for en omgående vedtagelse af Glass/Steagall-loven i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og underskrevet og sat i kraft af præsident Trump.
På dette grundlag anmoder vi alle borgere om at samles omkring dette økonomiske program, som den eneste, reelle måde, hvorpå både den alvorlige, økonomiske og finansielle krise, efter årtiers ødelæggende politik, kan adresseres, såvel som også muligheden for storslået udvikling – som vi nu ser det i hele Asien og videre, med Kinas initiativ for den Nye Silkevej.«
Dernæst anmoder brevet:
»Underskriv denne appel; omdel den til jeres venner, familie og netværk. Hvert underskrevet eksemplar vil blive personligt overbragt til jeres kongresmedlem og senatorer. Som præsident Franklin Roosevelt erklærede i sin første indsættelsestale: ’Denne nation kræver handling, og handling nu.’«
Teksten til dette åbne brev er som det følgende. Jeg læser det i sin helhed, fordi vi støtter dette initiativ. Det bærer titlen, »Åbent brev til Donald Trump og til alle medlemmerne af Kongressen«; dato januar 2017.
»Underskriverne af dette brev føler stærkt, at det er nødvendigt at beskytte vores økonomi fra endnu et unødvendigt markedssammenbrud og en recession som den, vi oplevede i december, 2007. Med Deres indtræden i embedet er omstændighederne for et kollaps alt for lig dem, der eksisterede i 2007: stigende værdi af værdipapirer, sammen med en manglende adskillelse af bankvirksomhed, der er beskyttet af FDIC, og så højrisiko-investeringsaktivitet.
Vi bifalder [præsident Trumps] kampagneudtalelse i Charlotte, North Carolina, 26. okt., 2016, hvor han støttede et krav om ’En Glass/Steagall-version for det 21. århundrede’, og om en genindførelse af en moderne Glass/Steagall-lov. Vi har tillid til, at De forstår, at en stabilisering af erhvervsklimaet og en sikring af de værdier, der er adskilt fra Wall Streets spekulation, er af afgørende betydning for velstand under Deres administration.
For at slå tonen for drøftelser i Kongressen i 2017 an, anmoder vi om, at [præsident Trump] gentager [sin] støtte til Glass/Steagall-loven i sin Tale til Unionen.
De kan være forvisset om, at, med denne handling, vil De finde fælles fodslag med både Republikanere og Demokrater; siden begge partiers politiske programerklæringer indeholder støtte til en banklovgivning, der adskiller forsikrede konti fra Wall Street spekulation, i de respektive partiers politiske programmer.
Vi takker Dem for Deres respons til krav fra borgere, folk fra erhvervslivet, bankierer og kongresmedlemmer, på vores vej frem. [Med en opfordring til, at Glass/Steagall-loven vedtages i både USA’s Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og at loven underskrives og sættes i kraft af den tiltrædende præsident, Donald Trump, underskriver de følgende personer:]«
Så igen, dette er en appel, der cirkuleres af en gruppe aktivister; mange af dem var oprindeligt tilknyttet Bernie Sanders kampagne i det nordlige Ohio. Men det er en tværpolitisk gruppe ved navn »Vores revolution« med hjemsted i det nordlige Ohio, og som nævnt i pamflettens indledende afsnit, så er LaRouchePAC enige i dette initiativ; og dette er ét aspekt af vores nationale mobilisering for at tvinge Glass-Steagall på dagsordenen i de 14 dage, der er til indsættelsen af den nye præsident. Dette må selvfølgelig ske i sammenhæng med den fulde vedtagelse af programmet for LaRouches Fire Love; dette adresseredes af en resolution, der blev vedtaget af staten Illinois’ delstatskongres i juni sidste år, 2016, med titlen, »Appel til Kongressen om at vedtage Loven om Amerikas Økonomiske Genrejsning«, og som nævner de fire elementer i LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love – Glass-Steagall; statslig bankvirksomhed efter Hamiltons princip; statslige kreditter til forøgelse af den produktive arbejdsstyrke i USA; og en tilbagevenden til et forceret rumprogram, med videnskab som drivkraft, og et forceret program for opnåelse af fusionsteknologi, og så fremdeles.
Så jeg siger det ligeud, at vi har 14 dage; vi befinder os i en nedtælling. Obama-administrationen er for afgående, og den nye administration tiltræder. Som vi ser på mange fronter, så befinder USA sig virkelig i et opgør netop nu om, hvad det nye præsidentskab vil blive; intet er afgjort. Vi ved dog, at der er hysteri mange steder, som de ses af de deciderede angreb på den tiltrædende præsident fra førende medlemmer af efterretningssamfundet; virkelig et uhørt niveau af angreb, giftigheder fra James Clapper og andre i deres beretninger for kongressen. Jeg tror ikke, vi har set dette tidligere i historien; og det står klart, at hysteriet opstår omkring den kendsgerning, at der er udsigt til et dramatisk skift i vores udenrigspolitik. [Dette skift] defineres mest af den kendsgerning, at den tiltrædende præsident har erklæret, at vi ikke vil indtage en holdning med krigskonfrontation med Rusland; hvilket har været de sidste otte års politik med Obama, hvis ikke mere. Så der er et stort potentiale mht. USA’s forhold til et paradigmeskift, til en dynamik, der er under forandring, på verdensscenen; men meget er fortsat uafgjort. Det er vores ansvar at tvinge Glass-Steagall/Hamilton-programmet på dagsordenen i løbet af de næste 14 dage.
For at kunne gennemføre dette, har vi brug for et langt dybere niveau af forståelse hos den amerikanske befolkning som helhed, og især hos de ledende borgeraktivister i dette land, en forståelse af, hvor Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske politik kommer fra, og hvad den større dybsindighed bag denne politik er. Vi erklærer hermed, at år 2017 vil blive et år, hvor disse ideers større dybsindighed bliver udviklet og forstået; meget lig den måde, hvorpå vi i løbet af de seneste måneder har haft en aktivering omkring en forståelse af Alexander Hamiltons ideer, med en tilbagevenden til hans politik, hans originale rapporter [til Kongressen] om statsbankvirksomhed, om producenter og så videre. Det er denne form for fordybelse og undersøgelse af den fysiske økonomis grundlæggende principper, der vil gøre dette initiativ succesfuldt og gøre det muligt for os at hæve niveauet mht. vores involvering i skabelsen af dette Nye Paradigme på verdensscenen.
Det vil Ben [Deniston] uddybe lidt nærmere; men dette er i realiteten en appel om handling og om mobilisering for at komme godt i gang med dette i det nye år.
(Her følger udskrift af hele webcastet på engelsk):
MAKE 2017 THE YEAR OF LAROUCHE'S IDEAS! CHANGE YOUR CONCEPT OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE!
LaRouche PAC International Webcast, January 6, 2017
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's January 6, 2017. Happy
New Year! This is our first Friday evening webcast of the new year from larouchepac.com.
My name is Matthew Ogden, and joining
me in the studio is Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team; and two members of our Policy Committee joining us over
video. Kesha is joining us from Houston, Texas; and Rachel is
joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
We are in a countdown period; this is the final two weeks of
the Presidential transition. Exactly two weeks from today is
Inauguration Day, January 20th, and we will have a new President
in this country. As you know, on the LaRouche PAC website, if
you were on the activist call last night, the Fireside Chat, if
you've been receiving our daily and weekly email updates; we are
engaged in a major mobilization. It is our responsibility, and
it is your responsibility, to shape the agenda of this incoming
Presidency. We have to have the attitude that 2017 is the year
of the New Silk Road, the year of the New Paradigm
internationally, the year of the revival of Alexander Hamilton,
and the year of the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche. What that means
immediately in the United States is that Glass-Steagall must
immediately be adopted; must be put on the agenda; must be signed
into law by the new President. This is not going to happen on
its own; there is no internal momentum which is going to allow
this to happen while we sit back and watch. Just as has been the
case all along, this is only going to happen from an
extraordinary mobilization by activists from all across the
United States. A very important initiative has been taken by a
group of activists in northern Ohio; and LaRouche PAC is issuing
an open letter or leaflet which is meant to amplify and encourage
the mobilization around this initiative.
I'm going to begin our broadcast by just reading the
LaRouche PAC introduction, and then some of the text of this open
letter. This reads as follows:
"This letter was originally distributed by a group entitled
'Our Revolution' in northwest Ohio, with a commitment to unify
the whole nation. They have issued a call to all groups — for
example, the Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats, labor, and
business — to rally around the necessary first step of passing
Glass-Steagall legislation. As their effort is consistent with
the aims of LaRouche PAC, we are circulating this as part of a
national mobilization for the immediate passage of Glass-Steagall
legislation by the House and the Senate; to be signed into law by
President Trump.
"On this page, we are asking every citizen to rally around
this economic program as the only effective way to address both
the dire economic and financial crisis after decades of
destructive policies, as well as the potential for great
development — as we now see throughout Asia and beyond, with
China's New Silk Road initiative."
So it asks, "Sign this petition; share it with your friends,
family, and networks. Each signed copy will be hand-delivered to
your Congressman and Senators. As President Franklin Roosevelt
stated in his first inaugural address, 'This nation asks for
action, and action now.'"
Now the text of this open letter is as follows. I'm going
to read it in full, because we're encouraging this initiative.
It is entitled "Open Letter to Donald Trump and to All Members of
Congress"; dateline January 2017.
"We the undersigned strongly feel the need for protecting
our economy from another unnecessary market crash and recession
like the one experienced in December of 2007. As you take
office, the conditions for a collapse are too similar to those of
2007: rising asset values together with a lack of separation
between FDIC insured banking and risk-investment brokering.
"We applaud [President Trump’s] campaign statement in
Charlotte, North Carolina, October 26, 2016, endorsing a call for
'A 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall,' and reintroducing a
modern day Glass-Steagall Act. We trust that you understand that
stabilizing the business climate and securing the assets as
separate from Wall Street speculation is a key to prosperity
during your administration.
"To set the tone of discourse in Congress 2017, we ask that
[President Trump] restate [his] support for a Glass-Steagall Act
during [the] State of the Union address.
"Be assured in doing so, you will find common ground with
both the Republicans and the Democrats; since both party
platforms have the support of banking legislation that separates
insured accounts from Wall Street speculation in their respective
platforms.
"Thank you for responding to the call from citizens,
businesspersons, bankers and legislators as we move forward. [In
urging that Glass-Steagall legislation be passed in both the
House and the Senate of the U.S. Congress, and signed into law by
incoming President Donald Trump, we are the undersigned:]"
So again, this is a petition which is being circulated by a
group of activists; many of whom were originally associated with
the Bernie Sanders campaign in northern Ohio. But it's a
non-partisan group called "Our Revolution" based in northern
Ohio, and as we said in the introductory paragraph, LaRouche PAC
finds common cause with this initiative; and this is one aspect
of our national mobilization to force Glass-Steagall onto the
agenda in the 14 days between now and the inauguration of the new
Presidency. Of course, this also has to go along with the full
enactment of the LaRouche Four Laws program; this was addressed
by a resolution which was adopted by the Illinois state
legislature in June of last year, 2016, which was called "Call
Upon Congress to Enact the American Recovery Act" and this cites
the four elements of LaRouche's Four Economic Laws — Glass
Steagall; national banking in a Hamiltonian form; Federal credit
to increase the productive labor force in the United States; and
a return to a crash science driver program for space, fusion
technology, and so forth.
So again, I'll just say right off the bat, we have 14 days;
we are in a countdown. The Obama administration will be exiting
and the new administration will be coming in. As we can see on
many fronts, the United States is really in a showdown right now
for what the new Presidency will be; nothing is defined. We {do}
know that there is hysteria in many quarters, as can be seen by
the outright attacks on the incoming President by the leading
members of the intelligence community; really an unprecedented
level of attack, vitriol from James Clapper and others in
Congressional testimony. I think this has not been seen before
in history; and it's clear that the hysteria is coming around the
fact that there is a dramatic change in our foreign policy on the
horizon. Defined mostly by the fact that the incoming President
has declared that we will not be in a war-confrontation posture
with Russia; which has been the policy of the last eight years of
the Obama administration if not before. So, there's a lot of
potential in terms of the relationship of the United States to a
changing paradigm, to a changing dynamic on the world stage; but
a lot remains undefined. It's our responsibility to force the
Glass-Steagall Hamiltonian program onto the agenda in the next 14
days.
Now in order to do that, we are going to require a much
deeper level of comprehension among the American population as a
whole, and especially among the leading citizen-activists of this
country, of where Lyndon LaRouche's economic policies come from
and what the deeper profundity is behind this policy. We are
declaring that 2017 is going to be a year in which the deeper
profundity of these ideas is developed and understood; much in
the way that we had an activation around understanding the ideas
of Alexander Hamilton in the last few months with a return to his
policies, his original reports on national banking, on
manufactures, and so forth. It's this kind of delving deep and
researching the essential principles of physical economics which
is going to make this initiative successful and allow us to raise
the bar in terms of our involvement in creating this New Paradigm
on the world stage.
So, I think Ben might have a little more to say on that
subject; but we're really approaching this as sort of a call to
action and a mobilization to get the new year off to this kind of
start.
BENJAMIN DENISTON: The key point is that Mr. LaRouche has
defined the scientific standard for a recovery of the United
States; that's true, but more fundamentally, for the future of
mankind. His work in defining a more rigorous science — he
definitely drew upon the work of Hamilton and followers of
Hamilton — but he made a completely revolutionary discovery in
terms of what is the actual hard, physical science underlying
human progress, underlying economics. One area that we're doing
some work on, this is kind of a critical convergence point in the
fight around understanding these issues, is what people call
infrastructure. It's become a kind of hot, popular word;
everyone just says it. Republicans say it, Democrats say it;
it's become kind of a buzz word as some people have said. It's
as American as apple pie at this point; everyone talks about how
great infrastructure is. I think Schwarzenegger even struggled
to pronounce it once or twice in California. But do people know
what it actually means? That's a fight that Mr. LaRouche has
waged in the recent years, that people don't understand what the
real significance of full-scale, integrated infrastructure
systems is. You're not going to define what's needed in terms of
the next level of infrastructure if you're not operating from the
standpoint of an insight into the role this actually plays in
revolutionary economic progress. You can have a lot of
discussions about how we need to rebuild this, this is decaying,
our water systems — the American Society of Civil Engineers I
think it is, puts out this report card, and you can just run
through it on the infrastructure systems and it's just
horrendous. The water leakage, the transportation systems being
run down, the power systems, the locks and dams that are ready to
bust. But the issue is not just repairing all of those things;
the issue is infrastructure mediates a process by which mankind
is able to initiate completely unique and revolutionary
self-transformations in mankind's very nature of his relationship
to the natural world, so-called. Mr. LaRouche pioneered key
metrics of this with his work on potential relative population
density, for example; and actually examining how we can quantify
and understand the fundamental nature of human economic progress.
One starting point might be if you just take the standpoint of
ecology; ecology is a general idea of studying a species'
relation to an environment. If you apply that to species, you're
able to define certain characteristics of what that species is;
not just by its color, or size, or mass, but by how it relates to
the natural world — to the biosphere around it. That as much
defines that species as its other characteristics.
So, it's a general study for life that has validity. But
what happens when you apply that to mankind? You don't get any
fixed metric; mankind is not defined by any particular ecological
relationship to the environment. What you see that distinguishes
mankind is something fascinating; that mankind actually changes
those metrics. Mankind's very nature is the fact that he can
fundamentally change his relationship with the natural world
through his own actions and the actions of society. You can
measure this in terms of what Mr. LaRouche defined as the metric
of potential relative population density. If you take any animal
species, you can have some idea of a carrying capacity, a maximum
potential population that could be sustained for that species in
an environment in the biosphere as a whole, for example. You can
apply similar studies for mankind, and you can define — maybe in
broad strokes — certain boundary conditions for the number of
people the planet can sustain. But those change; and that's the
most fascinating thing. Mankind changes those characteristics.
Today, we have 7-8 billion people on the planet; hopefully
increasing now that we have some order in the world moving in a
better direction. You go back to society 1000 years ago, you
could not have supported that level of population in the
conditions of human society back at that time. Today, you can;
and if we win, tomorrow we'll be able to support a whole lot
more.
What drives that? This concept is critical right now,
because especially in the West in the United States, people have
really gone full on board with this zero-growth idea. The very
fundamental concept of completely revolutionizing our society as
a whole to support an order-of-magnitude higher population,
completely revolutionary technological development — that should
be natural; that's not in most people's minds today.
But that's infrastructure! That's what infrastructure is.
Infrastructure is an expression of defining how mankind creates a
system by which he relates to the natural world. I think some of
Mr. LaRouche's work on this is really worth digging into a lot
more. He took his understanding of potential relative population
density to some degree to a new level with this concept of the
physical-economic platform, as a proper understanding of what
"infrastructure" really is. He laid out this amazing insight into
the arc of human development as expressed in a motion between
successive physical-economic platforms. He said go back as far as
we have records of civilized humanity, to what is sometimes
called "pre-history," and certain insights into very ancient
intercontinental ocean maritime civilization that was very
sophisticated. It could travel the world much earlier than most
modern academics admit.
The very nature of that society was defined by mankind's
relation to the ocean systems and to the coastal regions. That
kind of defined a certain boundary condition for the potential
relative population density, the state of the society globally at
that time. And then you had a complete revolution with the
beginning development of inland water systems. That became a
means by which — and the technologies associated with being able
to do that, and the energy-flux densities associated with being
able to do that — that defined a means by which an entire region
of the planet, of the natural world, which was just not
accessible to human development, became accessible to human
development. People could go to these places; you could walk
inland, but you couldn't support a city there. You couldn't
support society there, you couldn't support a growing population
there; it wasn't part of the domain of the influence of mankind.
With the development of these inland waterway systems — and Mr.
LaRouche points to the work of Charlemagne in particular as
really pioneering this — this was a revolution in mankind's
ecology (if you want to call it that), in his ability to interact
with the natural world in a completely new way.
But it didn't end there! Then you had the development of
rail systems. Now you're not just limited to certain rivers and
man-made canal systems and waterways. Now you can bring, with
rail — and again, the associated leaps in physical-chemistry,
materials sciences, energy-flux density obviously with moving
into new fuel sources: steam engines and these sorts of things —
now you open up the inland territories in a completely new way,
in a way that was never …
OGDEN: Rail corridors are almost like artificial rivers —
places where you didn't have the means of navigation, but now all
of a sudden you have this rail corridor which allows you to open
up areas that are not even accessible through water.
DENISTON: Yeah, absolutely! Once again, you have a complete
transformation in what territories, what areas are accessible to
real human development. Mr. LaRouche said the next step is really
high-speed rail systems; magnetic levitation, other advanced
high-speed rail; also inter-continental connections. You're
integrating the whole world in a very high-speed transportation
system; which is being pursued now by what China's leading, with
the New Silk Road program. We could spend hours going through all
the spin-offs of that that are really taking us closer and closer
to this full World Land-Bridge proposal. But that is really the
pursuit — the development of this next platform that Mr.
LaRouche had defined. The next one, really beyond that, is space,
and we should be looking to that.
But the thing is, people have to understand infrastructure
is not something you measure just by the payback you get from it
itself. It's not a cost you have to pay for by the direct
immediate service. It pays you! It pays society. It's what
supports the ability, for again, these kind of revolutionary
changes. These issues are usually banalized by discussions, just
by using the term "infrastructure." Take transportation systems.
When mankind goes through revolutionary changes in his
transportation systems, people reduce it to "just getting
somewhere quicker." You're literally changing the physical
space-time relationship of mankind; individuals, but also
productive processes. A day means something completely different
in the context of an integrated high-speed rail system, maglev
system, than it did in the prior platform. What does "one day"
mean? It means now you can have access to a much greater
territory, various types of productions, various specialized
regions that were not accessible in that same timeframe, or maybe
for the same processes. Now they become accessible to you.
You're talking about revolutionary leaps in the very
fundamental character of mankind's interaction with the natural
world. That has to be the standard. We're not going to have a
recovery by rebuilding what we had before. We need to fix things
that need to be fixed; but it needs to be done in the process of
creating this next higher stage that's going to support, again, a
completely new level of existence. We have a critical role in
elevating the discussion to that level. Because you take
transportation, you take water management — another key issue —
it's pretty obvious and simple. Mankind takes desert regions and
then they become flourishing, green bastions of life. The
greenies out there don't like water projects, they don't like
green; they don't want to actually have increased plant growth.
It's insane. If you look at the kind of water management systems
we can be developing, you take entire territories that are just
devoid, pretty much, of life; and we could make them into very
productive, accessible regions. You combine that with a real
driver for fusion power, nuclear power, a full nuclear economy;
and you're defining a future of mankind which can have the same
relation to how we view society presently, as we might look back
to the 1850s or something.
That's how we should be thinking! That also defines the
space program on a completely new level. Space doesn't always
have to be this super-expensive niche area that only a few things
can be done in, but it's left to this exciting side-part of
society. It's going to become an integrated part of human
activity more and more, if we pursue these natural qualities of
human progress.
OGDEN: What you said in the beginning about these platforms
of infrastructure being measured, not by the money that it
returns, or the tax revenue, or something, but by, literally, the
metric of how have you changed your carrying capacity, how have
you changed your potential relative population density for a
given area.
You can think about that in the negative. If you didn't have
that sort of transportation infrastructure to bring the food to
the cities, if you didn't have the sanitation infrastructure, if
you didn't have the water management, if you didn't have the
electricity infrastructure; think about how quickly your
population your population level would collapse. Think about how
quickly you would lose the current carrying capacity of a given
land area; and how you would move backwards in what you were able
to support in terms of population density.
That is the metric for any given platform, and how you
quantify one platform to the next. It needs to be seen as that
sort of metric of potential relative population density. The
other thing to think about is the fact that over the last 40-50
years, we've had access to technologies which really should have
revolutionized our economy, but for one reason or another, have
not. We have yet to reach full saturation, in terms of nuclear
power. We have yet to reach full saturation, in terms of
high-speed rail — rail for that matter — but high-speed rail.
We have yet to fully exploit even what our capabilities were, in
terms of space exploration. Coming up in two years, in July 2019,
we're going to be observing the 50th anniversary of man landing
on the Moon, and we haven't even been back to the Moon for 45
years; let alone have we gone where we should have gone, as was
envisaged at the time that Kennedy created the mission to put a
man on the Moon. We have yet to exploit and yet to follow
through, even on the level of technology that we had {then}, let
alone using that as the diving board to leap off and to get to
the next platform of what we should have achieved.
KESHA ROGERS: What you're talking about, what we're speaking
about, is not just inter-continental development; we're talking
about inter-galactic development. I think it's important to go
back to, again, making 2017 the year of Lyndon LaRouche's ideas,
which have completely shaped and transformed the planet, to this
very point. I think it's important that we really draw out the
conception that what Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws and the
foundation of his work behind those Four Laws, really do, is to
take away the power of the oligarchy and of this British imperial
system which has been involved in the destruction of nations and
of bringing down the potential for real scientific progress of
mankind to flourish. LaRouche's Four Laws takes away the power of
the oligarchy to push through their policy of population
reduction.
The idea that Mr. LaRouche has founded his science of
physical-economy on, is, in essence, to take the idea from
Genesis 1:28. That is, the prerogative of mankind to multiply and
subdue and replenish the Earth. This is what the oligarchy has a
problem with; this is what the British imperial system doesn't
want to see happen. I think that what Mr. LaRouche has continued
to define — even before the question of infrastructure came out
— he really coined and developed this conception of a true
science of physical-economy, which is the basis of what was
established and what was really at the center of the human
creative mind of Alexander Hamilton's works — the definitions
that were defined in Hamilton's understanding of a national
banking policy and a credit policy.
But even with that, it's not as understood as what Mr.
LaRouche has been able to take up, as you just said, Ben, in the
beginning. How is it that society has been able to get to a point
where we have over 7 billion people on the planet? Without the
breakthroughs in technological and scientific leaps of making new
discoveries and bringing new principles into the domain of the
organization of society, we would not have ever gone from a
coal-burning society. We would not have ever developed the
capability where right now, despite the fact that the British
oligarchy and their puppets like Obama want to hold mankind back
from the development and the complete breakthroughs which are
necessary in fusion technologies, in advancing mankind into
taking up a new leap in fusion development; we are now on the
verge of doing that, because of what has been set forth in the
potential for international cooperation and relations.
So, I think we're saying we are now in an urgent
mobilization to put on the table the immediate economic solutions
that the newly-elected President Donald Trump must take up.
First of all, there has to be a crash educational on getting the
American people and getting the leadership of this nation —
Congressional leaders and others — to understand that economics
is not what you were taught in your 101 classes in college, of
macro- and micro-economics and following the charts of the Wall
Street market status of where the markets were taking you. The
question of economics is on this question of the power of the
individual human mind to make new discoveries that are going to
increase and actually develop new capabilities for replenishing,
multiplying, and creating a more fruitful society. I think
that's what has been missing, now that the buzz-words that are
thrown around as you said — "infrastructure" — they don't have
a real human foundation to go with them. How are you going to
build infrastructure if you don't have a productive labor force?
This is what Mr. LaRouche has laid out in some of the
fundamentals and the foundations of his educationals in
economics. The power of labor and the science of physical
economy start with the fact that at the core of economics is the
human mind, and are human beings. The productive capabilities of
human beings which have been destroyed. That's going to be the
challenge to President-elect Trump; and what he really has a
challenge of doing right now, which is something which has not
been done in a very long time. Not really since the foundation
of our nation under Alexander Hamilton. What Hamilton, what
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to create, was really a new
economic system; that's what we're challenging and educating on.
This is not just about passing a piece of legislation and
separating the banking system by putting forth Glass-Steagall.
LaRouche has laid out the metrics to create a new economic system
that is going to be a system based on the development of the U.S.
potential for increasing our productivity and productive powers
of labor in collaboration with international relations which are
absolutely fundamental right now. It's not going to happen, as
has been pointed out in many cases already, without very concrete
and prominent cooperation with leading nations such as Russia and
China. We can come back to some of that, but I just wanted to
make those points at present.
RACHEL BRINKLEY: Listening to this discussion and
participating in it, it's just very fresh and optimistic compared
to what you hear everywhere else in the media. I think it's just
there for 2017 — we're entering a new year — to take it upon
ourselves, for every person viewing this webcast to take it upon
themselves to really live these ideas and grow by it. To see
your life not just as trying to pay the bills and survive in a
British mode of existence in our current culture; but to realize
that this is the way the Universe operates. I think it's just
very fresh and exciting; people should not just view it as
something that they watch and support; but really figure out how
you can do more yourself as a person to make this happen. It's
not just going to come from Trump. We support what he's done in
the positive, and he deserves all support of the population at
this time; but we also have to look at this from LaRouche's work,
as has been discussed. And as Helga LaRouche has really
emphasized, this has to really be the year of LaRouche's ideas.
We need to recognize that we're in a cycle of history which is a
larger arc of history, which is created by ideas which actually
had no physical existence — had no color, had no weight — but
are having an effect.
Just for the sake of this idea of the Year of LaRouche, I'll
just read a short section from his paper from 2006 called "Saving
the U.S. Economy". He says: "The most common failure of
economists and others today is their inclination to view economic
and cultural cycles incompetently from the standpoint of
Cartesian or Cartesian-like mechanistic statistical projections.
That method is easily recognized as the common failure of
generally-accepted economic forecasting today. However, a still
deeper problem presents itself. Actual cycles in history are
never determined in the way which mechanical, statistical methods
tend to imply. Actual cycles of importance are, as I have said,
dynamical rather than mechanistic; and may be compared on that
account with the notion of astronomical cycles as Johannes Kepler
first, uniquely, introduced those conceptions into modern
physical science in his {Mysterium Cosmographicum} and {The New
Astronomy}. The proper term for astronomical-like cycles in
history is again, Riemannian. The notion of a Riemannian rather
than a statistical conception of forecasting of economy is of
crucial importance for those among us engaged in providing a
genuine physical economic recovery from those quicksands of
misery which the alleged reforms of the 1971 to 2006" — or you
could say now, 2016 — "interval have dumped upon especially the
lower eighty percentile of our income brackets today." Then he
adds: "Hey, Congress! Tell us; tell the lower eighty percentile
of our citizens what have you done to the U.S. Constitutional
General Welfare principle's superior role in the making of our
law? Without a fair comprehension of the issues associated with
that distinction, no competent legislation could be crafted for
the presently onrushing crisis."
So, I think it's true; we have to look to LaRouche's history
and ideas for this period. Just on that, we were in Congress
this week, discussing Glass-Steagall; and the current Congress
does not view Glass-Steagall as a priority. Many Congressmen are
exactly what LaRouche refers to here — still thinking in
statistical modes or basically looking at economy the same way a
Wall Street banker does. They say they're against Wall Street,
or trying to rein it in, but they're doing the exact same thing,
in effect. There's no change. It is going to be up to us and
the population to demand this idea of a resurgence of the U.S.
Constitutional principle of the General Welfare. The only way
that can be done, is with Glass-Steagall.
This system is absolutely ready to go. There are two
components of that. One is the level of bankruptcy, of the
derivative debt and the leverage ratio; and the second is the
interconnection of the system, of U.S. banks to European banks,
and different sectors of the economy all tied in together also.
Insurance with hedge funds, with banks, with commercial banks;
it's all interconnected. The system can't be saved in its
current form; it has to be Glass-Steagall joined with the rest of
LaRouche's Four Laws. So, that's the urgent call to put this
legislation on Trump's desk; it's what we have to do.
DENISTON: Absolutely. The point is, we have to make clear
with people that this is what Glass-Steagall opens up. Just
clean out the system; cut out the speculation; and use money and
credit in the financial system for what its intended purpose is
— to facilitate this kind of process. Some of the difficulty
comes when people compartmentalize these laws as distinct things.
But money doesn't mean anything outside of the context of the
physical economy. The Four Laws are really one entity and I
think making that point, if people want a recovery, if they want
living wages, if they want their infrastructure rebuilt, if they
want water that's not going to kill them and make them sick; you
need Glass-Steagall so you have a system that can facilitate the
kind of long-term investment and growth that will enable these
things to happen. I think breaking this totally ridiculous idea
of market economics and the way people think about these things
today, shattering that with this real physical conception is
critical.
Just to come back to the global picture also, the world is
moving in this direction; you have a potential now. That's
what's so exciting about this period, the potential. A lot is
not decided, a lot is unclear; but we have an opening that hasn't
existed for — you could say the past 16 years, you could say
back to Truman coming in and completely overthrowing the Franklin
Roosevelt vision and orientation for the post-war world. All of
that is now up in the air; and you have now the openness where
serious people in power are honestly thinking, "What do we do to
move mankind forward?" Instead of people like Prince Phillip,
who are saying "What can I do to kill as many people today before
I go out for lunch?" This is the time when you need to have this
full outreach orientation and make these ideas the dominant
conception in the American population today.
So, I think what's been referenced in terms of this call to
action is really critical. Everyone watching this should be
taking to heart the responsibility we all have right now at this
current historical moment to make this a reality. This is not
something that comes and goes frequently, these kinds of
opportunities.
OGDEN: Yeah, and I just want to reiterate that. The
responsibility lies on the citizens of the United States that
decide to take that responsibility on. Nobody should be under
any impression that somehow everything is just going to fall into
place, or that even this administration is necessarily positive
on its own merits. Everything that has been created as an
opening has been forced as such by years and years of activism
among people in the United States and a shifting global dynamic;
something that the LaRouches have been right in the middle of.
It's true that Trump has definitely overturned a bunch of chess
boards and has made a lot of enemies among the neo-cons and the
anti-Russia crowd and so forth. But on economics, it is our
responsibility to set the agenda. It's very unclear what that
policy is going to be. The only thing that is clear is that
there is a core group of people among the activist-citizens in
the United States who have made a decision to say, "We are going
to hold him to Glass-Steagall; and we are going to force the
agenda around this policy." That's why we are highlighting this
initiative that's been taken by the group of activists out of
Ohio and others who are now coming in on that.
But people do have to have a sense of a broader sweep of
history. What is it that makes a President great? In the
history of the United States, especially, you can actually go
back to every great President and associate with them a
seriousness about moving mankind to the next level of economic
achievement. What Hamilton did for the Washington
administration, creating the ability to have the United States
become a manufacturing country; a lot of that was done through
inland navigation, canals. Water power was a major aspect of
what we were able to accomplish in the first few decades of our
existence as a country. John Quincy Adams built more of those
canals, but also initiated the age of the railroad in the United
States. And of course, Abraham Lincoln took that to its logical
next step through the construction of the Transcontinental
Railroad in the midst of the Civil War; but he understood this
was the next economic platform for the United States. Franklin
Roosevelt — I mean, this was the age of mass power generation.
At that time, it was hydroelectric power; look at the Grand
Cooley Dam, look at the TVA. But also, Franklin Roosevelt
understood that electrification was not just something for the
urban areas; even though it was not something that you were not
going to get a monetary return from immediately, Roosevelt
understood that you needed electrification for the whole country.
The Rural Electrification Administration used the power of the
Federal government to extend that financing, to extend that
credit, to do something that was not immediately profitable in
monetary terms, but was necessary to move the country to the next
level economically. Then, of course, that was the time of the
exploration of the harnessing of the power of the atom with the
Manhattan Project. Then, John F Kennedy, in his very short time
in office, became the champion of the space program, which was
the next step. What is it that makes a Presidency great? It's
moving the country and the world to that next platform in terms
of economic achievement; and that's what Lyndon LaRouche has been
defining for 30 years. The breakthrough in fusion, the
breakthrough in space exploration, and technologies that we don't
even know exist yet. But forcing the mind of man to push the
envelope in terms what we know and what we are able to imagine.
DENISTON: Sounds like a fun year to me.
ROGERS: Yes, and I think that what you just laid out, Matt,
has to be seen with all of these breakthroughs and continued
developments, is that the impact that it had on increasing the
level of productivity not just of the United States, but of the
entire world economy. What Franklin Roosevelt did with his
programs around the TVA, the rural electrification, wasn't just a
project for a certain southern part of the United States. People
came from all over the world to be inspired and to come to
understand the science and the metrics that went into this
development and the understanding of the policies of Franklin
Roosevelt. Today, the question still remains; what are going to
be the unique contributions of the United States working in
collaboration and cooperation with other nations to increase the
productivity of the world economy? We are in a global system,
where the question right now is really to find an increase in a
new paradigm which is going to effect the common aims of all
mankind. The best expression of that is some of the beautiful
expressions that we're getting back from the space program.
Those in cooperation with participating in the International
Space Station from all over the world right now, and the
continued idea is that the nature of man goes beyond any kind of
war, conflict, or borders. The identity of the increasing of the
productivity of society is really the basis for all human
progress. I think that continues to be the point right now. We
have a unique shift that's happening globally, which honestly is
freaking the oligarchy and the empire out. They don't know what
to do about the fact that they have lost all control; that's what
you're dealing with right now.
As we were discussing before the show a little bit, this is
not necessarily about attacks on President-elect Trump himself;
this is not Trump vs. those forces who want to go against him —
such as the intelligence community and so forth — because they
don't like the way he's talking to them. It goes a little bit
deeper than that, because you now have the emergence of a new
system coming into being right now, of cooperation that the
British Empire and financial oligarchy and Wall Street interests
have been trying to keep separated and keep tabs on for a long
time. They've lost control and they've lost power. As we
continue to say, with 60-plus nations joining with the New Silk
Road and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, this is what
we're talking about bringing the United States into; and
Glass-Steagall will be the first step in bringing the United
States into this global alliance and international cooperation
that breaks the back of the financial oligarchy and destroys this
Wall Street control. That is what people have to look forward to
— their role in the galactic system of the Universe in creating
something more profound.
OGDEN: Helga LaRouche, when we were speaking with her
earlier, cited the fact that President Xi Jinping of China always
talks about this in terms of a future of shared destiny among
mankind as a whole. This is the same thing that Dr. Edward
Teller talked about in the 1980s, and Mr. LaRouche has cited, as
the common aims of mankind. This is how you have to think about
international cooperation; nations have their own self-interests,
but it's in the interest of all mankind to achieve this future of
shared destiny, or these common aims of mankind. That doesn't
mean that there aren't differences between nations, and that
there aren't different policies; but the higher principle which
unites the contradictions through which you can resolve these
conflicts or contradictions among peoples is through this idea of
a vision for the future. This has to be what defines our
relationship with China; this has to be what defines our
relationship with Russia. Some of the more sober people have
begun to realize that the only way we can defeat terrorism — as
can be seen in Syria — is through collaboration with Russia.
But there are other positive programs that have to be
pursued; and you can see a lot of potential right underneath the
surface. Last week we talked about how the memorial to the
Alexandrov Russian choir, many of whom died in the tragic plane
crash on their way to Syria, the Schiller Institute went to the
Russian consulate in New York City and sang a memorial for these
individuals. This has become an overnight sensation on the
internet, on YouTube; this video already has over half a million
views. This is the kind of relationship among peoples that we
have to pursue. On that subject, there will be another memorial
by the Schiller Institute Chorus in New York City, who will be
visiting the 9/11 Teardrop Memorial in Bayonne, New Jersey; which
is right across the Hudson River, looking at downtown Manhattan.
This memorial to the victims of 9/11 was contributed by the
Russian people to the people of the United States. This is being
highly anticipated; the press release has been circulated widely.
The Committee for East-West Accord has posted the announcement of
this on their website. The very beginning of this press release
is as follows, and we're going to be watching this tomorrow.
"Christmas Remembrance of the Alexandrov Ensemble of the
Victims of 9/11. On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10AM, the
Schiller Institute New York City Chorus will be singing the
'Star-Spangled Banner' and the Russian national anthem at a
wreath-laying ceremony at the Teardrop 9/11 Memorial in Bayonne,
New Jersey. The chorus will be joined by: the NYPD Ceremonial
Unit Color Guard, as well as FDNY representatives; Ms. Terry
Strada, the chairman of the 9/11 Families United for Justice
Against Terror, and others will make brief remarks."
I think this is just one of many initiatives that can guide
us into this New Paradigm as we begin the new year. We have to
realize that a lot has changed; this is not business as usual. A
lot of the ideas of what was possible and what was pragmatic
under the former rules of the game, and so forth, have got to be
changed. Members of Congress who might have supported
Glass-Steagall in the past, but said, "Oh, there's too much
opposition; the Republicans won't let it pass"; or "The Wall
Street bankers are too powerful." All of those parameters have
changed now; and it's up to us to tell people, "This is a changed
world; this is not business as usual. You have to renew your
commitment to what you think what must be done, and you have to
change your concept of what is possible."
So, I think with that said, I'll go back and cite that
petition we presented earlier in the show. This is obviously the
initiative over the next few days. We have 14 days until the
inauguration; the countdown of this transition to a new
Presidency. The only thing that is assured is what you decide to
do; the mobilization that you engage in, and the responsibility
that you take over the coming days, in order to set the agenda
for the future of the United States.
Thank you for tuning in today. Please sign up to the
LaRouche PAC email list if you haven't already. Over the next
two weeks, you will receive daily emails which will be essential
in terms of marching orders in this mobilization. And subscribe
to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel if you haven't already.
Thank you for joining us, and thank you to Ben, Kesha, and
Rachel. Happy New Year to you. Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. januar, 2017 – For at få et indtryk af LaRouche Manhattan Project’s stormende fremskridt, se pressemeddelelsen på New York Schiller Instituttets forestående begivenhed denne lørdag, 7. januar. Manhattan Projektets voksende, nationale magt, tilsammen med de nye, globale betingelser, som Putin og Kina, og valget af Donald Trump, har skabt, vil gøre det muligt for os at intensivere og udvide en mobilisering for vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall som vejen frem mod LaRouches Fire Love i deres helhed, og for at bringe USA ind i samarbejde med andre nationer som Rusland og Kina.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche er i gang med at lancere initiativer for en intensiv mobilisering for Glass-Steagall og de Fire Love, med langt mere vidtrækkende overskrifter, som vil begynde at give genlyd i de forestående timer og dage.
New Yorks senator Chuck Schumer, der er leder af et Senatsmindretal, angreb den 3. jan. den nyvalgte præsident for at være »virkelig dum« for at modsige chefer for USA’s efterretningstjenester. »Jeg siger jer, hvis man går op imod efterretningssamfundet, så har de utallige måder, hvorpå de kan angribe jer«, sagde senatoren på Rachel Maddox showet. »Så, selv for en praktisk, angiveligt benhård forretningsmand, er det virkelig dumt af ham at gøre dette.« Schumer, sagde, at han forstår, at efterretningsfolk er »oprørte over den måde, Trump har behandlet dem på og omtalt dem«.
Lyndon LaRouche sagde, at efterretningssamfundet er blevet korrumperet; at vi må dumpe al denne korruption, og at Schumers kritik af Trump ikke var værd at støtte.
De bemærkninger fra Trumps side, der i den grad har oprørt efterretningscheferne, var et tweet i tirsdags, der lød: »Briefingen om ’efterretningerne’ om den såkaldte ’russiske hacking’ blev udsat til fredag, måske fordi der var brug for mere tid til at opbygge en sag. Meget mærkeligt!« Men han havde ikke alene ret, for direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste, James Clapper, samt de andre, har stadig brug for mere tid; det blev klart i dag, at de ikke vil blive i stand til at få deres sag op at stå før i næste uge – og de ved stadig ikke, hvilken dag i næste uge.
I mellemtiden rapporterede Wall Street Journal den 4. jan. fra kilder, der er bekendte med Trumps planer, at han ville omstrukturere og nedskære direktøren for den Nationale Efterretningstjenestes kontor, som nu ledes af Clapper, og som han (Trump) mener, er oppustet og politiseret. (Bare se på Clapper …) Han vil omstrukturere CIA og nedskære personalet på Virginia-hovedkvarteret og få folk ud i poster i marken. »Trump-teamets synspunkt er, at efterretningsverdenen er blevet fuldstændig politiseret. De skal på slankekur.« Trumps tiltrædende nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, general Michael Flynn, som blev fyret af Obama som chef for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, er i centrum for den planlagte reorganisering.
Clapper blev tilsagt til at aflægge forklaring om »den russiske hacking af valget« for Lindsay Grahams og John McCains Senatskomite for de Bevæbnede Styrker i dag, men han sagde, at, før hans memo var klart, var han ikke indstillet på at sige mere, end han allerede havde sagt. Når dette memo er til rådighed på en ikke nærmere angivet dag i næste uge, sagde Clapper, at han vil aflægge forklaring om det for fire komiteer i Huset og Senatet, dernæst for hele Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og sluttelig offentliggøre en ikke-klassificeret version for hele landet.
De memoer, som Obama hidtil har fået fremstillet om den angivelige russiske hacking, har været temmelig latterlige – professionelle IT-sikkerhedsfolk fra alle politiske tendenser har kaldt dem et sjusket job. Den seneste version, der blev offentliggjort den 29. dec. af Homeland Security og FBI, har denne advarsel skrevet øverst. ANSVARSFRASKRIVELSE: Denne rapport udgives ’som den er’ udelukkende til informationsspørgsmål. Afdelingen for Homeland Security giver ingen garantier af nogen som helst art mht. de informationer, der er indeholdt i rapporten.« Efterretningsveteranerne William Binney og Ray McGovern afslører Clapper som en serieløgner i en kronik i Baltimore Sun i dag. Den 12. marts, 2013, aflagde han falsk vidnesbyrd til Kongressen mht. rækkevidden af NSA’s indsamling af data om amerikanere, som han indrømmede fire måneder senere efter Edward Snowdens afsløringer. Clapper havde tidligere hjulpet Donald Rumsfeld med at opretholde løgnen om de angivelige masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak.
Ingen af disse anklager mod Rusland vil holde vand – og således rejser den afsluttende del af et radioshow den 3. jan. med prof. emeritus fra New Yorks Universitet, Stephen F. Cohen, spørgsmålet, om »Obama kunne gribe til endnu mere radikale skridt i løbet af sine sidste dage i embedet … « Dette anså Lyndon LaRouche for en relevant og signifikant advarsel.
LaRouche tilrådede også, at den nyvalgte præsident spiller en ledende rolle mht. Glass-Steagall. Giv Trump større juridisk spillerum. Hav en velvillig indstilling til den tiltrædende præsident. Erkend, at han har et vanskeligt job som udgangspunkt, og at vi derfor må give ham en vis opmuntring. Åbn sagen i sin helhed på denne måde, og gå ikke ind i enkelte punkter.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg:
Lyd:
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
28. december, 2016 – Mens Obama fortsat demonstrerer, at han er »politisk afdød«, som Lyndon LaRouche udtrykker det, og kaster tordenkiler fra sin politiske kiste, som om han stadig var »dræberkongen« fra før, udstedte nyvalgte Trump i dag et tweet, hvor han fordømte de »mange inflammatoriske udtalelser og vejspærringer«, som kommer fra Obama. Obama har meddelt, at han snart vil annoncere »forholdsregler til gengældelse« imod Rusland for fantasifostret med Putins angivelige tyveri af valget, i håb om, at han kan underminere Trump-teamets plan om at gøre en ende på galskaben.
Men, Putin har ikke spildt tiden med at fumle rundt med det amerikanske valg. Hele Mellemøsten er blevet transformeret af hans succesfulde intervention i Syrien, der har vendt stormløbet fra de saudisk-britisk sponsorerede terroristnetværk. Ødelæggelsesprocessen imod Irak, Libyen og Syrien – de tre stærkeste, sekulære, antiterrorist-nationer i området, er nu slut. Undervejs er der dukket beviser op allevegne for, at Obama har bevæbnet terroristerne – russiske sappører, der rydder miner fra det befriede Aleppo, annoncerede i dag fundet af et terrorist-våbenlager, proppet med amerikanske, tyske og bulgarske våben, mens den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan annoncerede, at han havde sikre beviser for USA’s bevæbning af selve ISIS.
Men, hvad der er vigtigere, så har kombinationen af den russiske rolle i Syrien og Putins nylige besøg i Japan transformeret begge områder og forenet dem bag kendsgerningen om et nyt paradigme, baseret på udvikling. Den østrigske mellemøstekspert Karin Kneissl kom i dag med den indsigtsfulde pointe, at Ruslands evne til at hjælpe den syriske regering med at knuse terroristtruslen på dramatisk vis blev fremhjulpet af Kinas »den bløde magts strategi« og bringer den Nye Silkevej ind i regionen og således skaber jobs for de millioner af unge mennesker, hvis fremtid var blevet tyvstjålet af Bush’ og Obamas krige, og som skaber potentialet for, at de millioner af flygtninge kan vende tilbage til produktive beskæftigelser i deres hjemlande.
I dag pegede Lyndon LaRouche på Putins højst succesrige besøg til den japanske premierminister Shinzo Abe i denne måned, hvor han igangsatte enorme, fælles udviklingsprojekter i det russiske Fjernøsten, og endda på de omstridte Kurilliske Øer, og som således forbereder vejen for en fredstraktat mellem Rusland og Japan.
»Dette er ikke blot en lokal aftale«, sagde LaRouche. »Det vil stimulere væksten ikke alene i hele Asien, men det vil stimulere hele verden.« Abe besøgte Pearl Harbor tirsdag sammen med præsident Obama, hvor førstnævntes udtalelser kun kunne forstås som en advarsel til USA om ikke at følge Obamas vanvittige konfrontation med Rusland, men derimod gå sammen med Japan og med Kinas Nye Silkevejsproces for at skabe et nyt paradigme for fredelig udvikling for menneskeheden.
LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) er i færd med at forberede en opdateret rapport om »USA tilslutter sig Den Nye Silkevej – en Hamilton-vision for en økonomisk renæssance«. Rapporten vil gennemgå det utrolige tempo, i hvilket udviklingsprojekter er blevet igangsat i hele verden i 2016, under Kinas Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ og dermed relaterede bestræbelser fra Ruslands og Indiens side, og fremlægge for det amerikanske folk, og Trump-teamet, at USA kan og må deltage i denne revolutionære proces. Ikke alene kan en genoplivet amerikansk industri i stor stil bidrage til disse globale projekter, men den smuldrende, amerikanske infrastruktur kan også selv blive genopbygget, med nye, storstilede projekter inden for vand, transport, et genoplivet rumprogram og videnskabelig udforskning på den menneskelige videns fremskudte grænser.
Magten hos det finansielle oligarki, der har påtvunget verden sin vilje, har nu mistet kontrollen over det meste af verden uden for de transatlantiske nationer, og dets magt dér står nu på højkant. Deres finansielle kartellers bankerot kan ikke længere udskydes, og deres befolkninger er i en tilstand af oprør, som de miskrediterede oligarker afviser som »populisme«. Raseriet imod deres onde nedskæringspolitikker, og imod deres fremstød for krig imod Rusland og Kina, er åbenbart overalt i Vesten. Dette raseri må finde sit fokus i positiv hævdelse af sund fornuft, baseret på fremgangsmåden med LaRouches Fire Love: underkast kartellerne konkursbehandling iflg. Glass-Steagall; skab nye kreditinstitutioner efter Hamiltons model; målret kreditudstedelse til genopbygning af industri, landbrug og infrastruktur; og stimuler vore borgeres kreative evner, for at virkeliggøre fusionskraft og rumforskning, og for skabelse af en fremtid i overensstemmelse med menneskeværdet.
Foto: Kesha Rogers fra LaRouche Komite for Politisk Strategi (LPAC) ved NASA’s Johnson Space Center, (Houston), i januar 2016. Se hendes artikel: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=11543
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 27. december, 2016 – I denne uge udgav Kina sin rapport, »Kinas aktiviteter i rummet i 2016«, med en gennemgang af rumprogrammets præstationer igennem de seneste år, og med en fremlæggelse af planer for den kommende periode, med det formål, lyder rapporten, at tjene »menneskehedens utrættelige forfølgelse af en fredelig udforskning og anvendelse af det ydre rum. Kina står ved en ny, historisk startlinje og er fast besluttet på at fremskynde udviklingen af sin industri og aktivt udøve international udveksling og internationalt samarbejde omkring rummet således, at resultater fra aktiviteter i rummet vil tjene og forbedre menneskehedens trivsel i bredere omfang … «
I skarp modsætning hertil befinder USA og det transatlantiske område sig i et økonomisk sammenbrud, der udgør en stor fare for hele menneskeheden, og de fortsætter desuden med at forfølge den selv samme politik, der var årsag til dette sammenbrud.
Nærmere bestemt, så finder der i øjeblikket et opgør sted mellem Den europæiske Centralbank (ECB) og Italien over Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS), som truer med at bryde ud i kaos. I denne uge kom det frem, at ECB har beordret MPS til at fremskaffe – genkapitalisere – 8,8 mia. euro, og ikke de tidligere 5 mia., som den italienske regering har arbejdet på at fremskaffe. Befolkningen er rasende.
Den eneste fornuftige respons til alt dette er at dumpe det døde system ved at indlede en Glass-Steagall reorganisering og etablere et ordentligt banksystem. Udsted kreditter til prioriterede, produktive aktiviteter og promover den økonomiske virkning, med videnskab som drivkraft, af at fremme arbejde omkring rummet og omkring gennembrud inden for fusion. Dette fremlægges i Lyndon LaRouches forslag fra 2014 med de »Fire Love«, som vi vil præsentere i den kommende, nye brochure fra LaRouchePAC til masseomdeling – en opdateret version af brochuren »USA går med i den Nye Silkevej; en Hamilton-vision for en økonomisk renæssance« (2015).
Dette program må sættes øverst på dagsordenen i USA, og ligeledes i Europa og andre steder, og det må ske omgående. Det er desuden ligeledes presserende nødvendigt at formidle videnskaben bag de ’Fire Love’. Se tilbage og studer LaRouches gennembrud inden for metodologi i årtiernes løb. For eksempel, hans koncept med potentiel relativ befolkningstæthed; hans koncept med energigennemstrømningstæthed; hans koncept med den ’produktive platform’ – og ikke blot infrastruktur.
I dag bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at det, man ser i den netop publicerede kinesiske rapport om rum-infrastruktur, faktisk er, at man har taget halvdelen af Lyndon LaRouches forslag for en økonomisk platform og projiceret det ud i rummet. Det er meget rigt og håbefuldt.
Den 3. januar vil den nye, 115. Kongres træde sammen i Washington, D.C. De skal mærke presset for at handle. Den 6. januar vil alle kongresmedlemmer være til stede for at gennemføre protokollen med at optælle valgmandskollegiets stemmer og officielt erklære valget af Donald Trump, hvis kampagne red ind på en bølge af befolkningens afsky for den nuværende politik med økonomisk destruktion og krig. Vi må nu sætte dagsordenen for, hvad der må gøres for at gøre en ende på denne befolknings trængsler, fortvivlelse og vrede.
Lyndon LaRouche talte om denne bydende og presserende nødvendighed: »Læg pres på kongresmedlemmerne for at få tingene til at ske.« Han sagde, »Vi må opbygge mennesker, der blev ødelagt af det, som Bush-familien og Obama gjorde. Det er spørgsmålet.« Han talte om Franklin D. Roosevelt og sagde, »Se på, hvordan FDR var foregangsmand for nye fordele for USA’s befolkning« og bemærkede, at FDR og hans politik dernæst blev knust. Men, »vi har en latent mulighed. Vi kan få det tilbage«. Ideen er, at »vi må genopdrage. Brug redskaber til at gøre folk kreative … Se, hvad FDR opnåede. Det må gøres klart.«
Den 12. december 2016 var Helga Zepp-LaRouche – Lyndon LaRouches hustru, Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og en international nøgleperson i kampen for et nyt globalt udviklingsparadigme – særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar på Frederiksberg med titlen: »Donald Trump og det Nye Internationale Paradigme«. Blandt deltagerne var diplomater, aktivister og repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.
Arrangementet blev indledt med fremførelsen af en kendt traditionel kinesisk sang, Kāngdìng Qínggē (Kangding Kærlighedssang), af Feride Istogu Gillesberg (sopran) og Michelle Rasmussen (klaver). Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som på smukkeste og mest optimistiske vis førte publikken igennem en tour-de-force af den nuværende politiske situation med såvel befolkningens afvisning af det nuværende paradigme gennem Brexit, Hillary Clintons valgnederlag til Donald Trump og det italienske ”Nej”, som et forsøg på at skabe kaos (og krig) inden Donald Trumps indsættelse den 20. januar. Dertil kom en fremstilling af det nye globale paradigme, som allerede er ved at overtage verden, illustreret ved Kinas politik for Den Nye Silkevej – som den kommende amerikanske administration skal finde sin plads i – og den videre udvikling, der er nødvendig, hvis menneskeheden skal finde sin sande identitet. Hele talen og den efterfølgende diskussion kan ses, høres og læses på: www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=16773.
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. december, 2016 – Alt imens et ekstraordinært drama udspiller sig i USA, hvor man bruger efterretningstjenester til at forsøge at vælte et præsidentvalg, der er afgjort, har den nyvalgte præsident talt ved en række enorme stævner i hele nationen.
Trumps vælgere har i titusindvis ventet i kulden for atter at lade deres vrede høre, imod de forhadte anslag imod deres liv, som er »globaliseringen« og dens tilhængere. Men, de har presserende brug for noget mere og bedre end vrede.
I verden uden for USA findes der et nyt, økonomisk paradigme, der især kommer fra de asiatiske magter, og som kunne vende amerikanernes held. Men som borgere må de forstå, hvordan de skal koble deres land til dette nye paradigme. Der er nye, fremskudte grænser inden for videnskab, inklusive inden for rumfart og fusionskraft, der kan betyde en højere, menneskelig tilværelse for deres børn. De må forstå, at disse fremskudte grænser i det forgangne blev glemt i Amerika, og de må forstå, hvem de skal samarbejde med for at genoprette dem.
De må se den politiske kamp, der nu forestår, ikke som de ser en Super Bowl, hvor man hylder »dræberslag« og sårede modspillere, men derimod som man ser et Shakespeare-skuespil, der afføder ideer. Ikke som en heavy metal-rockkoncert, men som en opførelse af Beethovens Ode til glæde som Europa holdt, da det kastede Sovjetunionens kommunisme af sig.
Støtterne bag Obama og Hillary kan ikke omstøde valget. Deres mål er at bringe en anden præsident, Ruslands Putin, til fald. De er ubøjelige i deres forfølgelse af evindelig krigsførelse, krige for »regimeskifte«, hvis målskive sluttelig er Rusland og Kina. De har til hensigt at bekæmpe disse nationer, om nødvendigt gennem krig, før de rent økonomisk overgår Obamas økonomisk forfaldne USA.
De amerikanske vælgere, nu borgere, er selv med i dramaet. De må agere for at sikre, at den nye præsident ikke forsøger at fortsætte denne krigspolitik; og at han ikke forsætter Obamas – eller det Republikanske lederskabs – økonomiske og videnskabelige politik.
De kan i stedet igangsætte en mobilisering for at redde økonomien og nationen: for en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall; skabelse af en nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition, til produktiv kredit; byggeri af ny infrastruktur på teknologiens fremskudte grænser – såsom højhastighedsjernbaner og magnetiske svæve-jernbaner – i hele landet; genindførelse af NASA’s missioner til Månen og Mars og det dybe rum, og forfølgelse af gennembrud i fusionsteknologier.
Denne form for kreativitet, hos tusinder eller endda millioner af mennesker, er det, LaRouchePAC og EIR eksisterer for. Amerikanere bruger ikke denne kreativitet, før de indser, at det amerikanske valgchok var en del af et globalt fænomen, der kan føre til et nyt paradigme for menneskets rettigheder og evner.
Foto: Et nyt vindue, der for nylig blev installeret i målkammeret i National Ignition Facility (NIF), gør det muligt for NIF-teamet og besøgende gæster at kigge ind i kammeret, mens dette er vakuumforseglet til eksperimenter. Marts 2011. (Foto kredit: LLNL)
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. december, 2016 – Mangeårig medarbejder Harley Schlanger sendte her til morgen følgende rapport:
»Jeg briefede Lyn [Lyndon LaRouche] her til morgen og gennemgik optrapningen af hele anti-Putin-hysteriet. Efter fem minutter eller så, hvor jeg rapporterede om de utroligt absurde historier på NBC (’høj grad af overbevisning om Putins direkte involvering’ i hacking); New York Times’ (’Hvordan Moskva sigtede et perfekt våben mod de amerikanske valg’, og lederartikel, ’Aleppos ødelæggere: Assad, Putin, Iran’), og andre, samt kravet om enten, at Valgforsamlingen (Electoral College) afviser Trump, eller et nyt valg, sagde Lyndon LaRouche,
’Dette er tåbeligt sludder, det er et bedrag’.
»Jeg sagde, jeg ved, det er bedrag, men, mener du ikke, at dette tilsigter enten at fjerne Trump, eller begrænse ham? (LaRouche):
’Nej, det vil aldrig virke. Dette er alt sammen fantasi, det er vrøvl. Det kommer fra den politisk døde Obama. Han er færdig, han burde anklages for sine forbrydelser. Dette er et forsøg på at holde ham fri af fængsel.’
Jeg (Schlanger) sagde til ham, at Roger Stone har kaldt dette for et ’blødt kup’ og mindede om Watergate. LaRouche sagde,
’Nej, det her er helt anderledes, der foregår noget andet’,
hvor han igen henviste til det nye paradigme. Han understregede, efter en briefing om [Janet] Yellens (direktør for Federal Reserve) kommentarer efter gårsdagens møde i Federal Reserve,
’Det er uden betydning; det er alt sammen fantasi. De kan intet gøre.’
Det, der karakteriserer det her, er, at Putin er en
’selvstændig person, der ved, hvad han gør. Det kan ikke stoppes.’
Systemet er færdigt, og det, vi hører, er
’folk, der er skyldige og har et reb om halsen og håber på, at rebet ikke trækker dem ned’.
Han sagde, at vi blot behøver at gennemgå Obamas forbrydelser: han slår amerikanere ihjel med Obamacare (Obamas ’sundhedsreform’: Loven om Beskyttelse af Patienter og en Økonomisk Overkommelig Sygesikring) og sin økonomiske politik, og med sine tirsdags-dræbermøder, burde han sættes i fængsel; han har gentagent begået forbrydelser. Fortæl blot dette til folk – der er ingen substans i det, som efterretningssamfundet, medier osv., siger,
’det er alt sammen sludder’. ’Vi må holde fast ved det, vi laver. Dette er alt sammen hysteri, men intet vil komme ud af det; det vil ikke få nogen effekt’«.
Her sluttede Schlangers rapport.
Hvad dette betyder, er ganske enkelt: Hvem vil yde det amerikanske folk et lederskab for gennemførelse af LaRouches Fire Love, og for at bringe USA med ind i Verdenslandbroen? Bortset fra os, er der ingen. Ingen!
København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.
Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.
Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale, der varer omkring 1 time og 20 minutter, kan høres ovenover eller her:
En dansk oversættelse af talen kommer på torsdag.
Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.
Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende.
Diskussionen findes kun som engelsk udskrift (se nedenfor).
—–
English: Introductory article
Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynotes Copenhagen Seminar on `Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm'
COPENHAGEN, Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS) — Today, Helga Zepp-LaRouche was the special guest speaker at a Schiller Institute/{EIR} seminar in Copenhagen entitled, "Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm." Eight diplomats from six countries attended, including two ambassadors. There were nations from Western Europe, Southwest Asia, Western and Eastern Asia, and Africa. In addition, there were around 30 Schiller Institute members and contacts, as well as a few representatives of various Danish and international institutions.
The event was opened by the presentation of a Chinese love song performed by Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Michelle Rasmussen. Afterwards, Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark, introduced Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, describing her historical role in bringing about the New Silk Road policy.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche's very inspiring, in-depth speech began with the revolution against globalization represented by the Brexit, the Trump election, and the Italian No vote. She gave an evaluation of the potential represented by some of the statements and appointments Trump has made so far, and then proceeded with a detailed discussion of the two conflicting paradigms in the world today. Zepp-LaRouche then uplifted the audience with the beautiful ideas of space scientist Krafft Ehricke and Renaissance philosopher Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. She concluded with an appeal to those present not to act as spectators on the stage of history, but engage in the battle for the new paradigm with us.
Her speech, about 80 minutes long, may be heard above, or at: https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen -donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1
Afterwards, there was an intensive hour-long discussion, with questions from all of the different groups represented. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche ended by challenging the audience to decide what they want to do with their lives, what mark they will make to benefit all humanity, far into the future.
Zepp-LaRouche's speech and discussion had a profound effect on all present.
Discussion:
(There is no video or audio of the discussion period, only this transcript.)
Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Copenhagen December 12, 2016
Discussion
(To facilitate free discussion, the questioners are not identified, and the questions are summarized. The answers are complete.)
Question: Can we be optimistic about Trump’s presidency, because he is skeptical about climate change, is for trade war with China and Mexico, opposes the free trade deals, and has called for tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I said earlier that the potentialities for change are there, but it depends, to a very large extent, upon us – what we do. When Trump got elected, my first response was, this is what I call the ‘dog pull-tail, let-go feeling.’ What I mean by that is that when you pull the tail of a dog, which you should never do, naturally, and you let go, the pain stops. When you pull, there is pain, and when you stop pulling, the pain goes away.
So, in a certain sense, the election of Trump was the tail let-go feeling, because we were on an immediate course toward WWIII, and that was really the primary point, because if Hillary Clinton would have been elected — unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, when she was in the Obama administration, transformed from being a relatively OK person, she was never great, but in 2008, she was relatively decent, compared to what she became, because she capitulated to Obama, and when she made this terrible statement, for example, in Libya, about the murder of Gadaffi, “We came, we saw, and he died.” This is barbarism.
Her behavior in the Ben Ghazi case. There were so many things where she became worse than Obama, almost. So the immediate thing was that that big danger, that she would have continued the policies of Bush and Obama, in the confrontation with Russia and China, that that was stopped is, already, for the survival of civilization, the most important step.
Now, on these other points. Naturally, there is climate change. There is no question about it. But the question is, what is the cause of it? And the Schiller Institute had several conferences where we invited extremely important scientists who presented, beyond a doubt, that if you look at the last 500 million years in the history of the Earth, you have a continuous cycle of ice ages, of warming periods, of small ice ages, and the man-made component of climate change is absolutely negligible. It’s a big fraud, for example, it’s a big business. To sell CO2 omission quotas, is like selling indulgences in the Middle Ages.
Obviously, there are climate changes, and some countries which have low coasts are very much affected, but then you have to adapt to these climate changes with modern technology, and you cannot solve the problem by going to electric cars, or going to decarbonization of the world economy. This is a big fraud, and I am not saying that Trump is saying this for all the right reasons, but the idea to impose measures implied with the “great transformation” Schellnhuber is talking about – I mean these people do not want development.
We have been on this case for the last — as a matter of fact, we, the LaRouche movement, had a conception about the development of the world really starting at the end of the sixties.
I joined Mr. LaRouche because I went to China, Africa, other Asian countries, and I saw the horrible, horrible underdevelopment. So I came back from this trip, and I said, ‘I have to become political, because I want to change this.’ I could give you a long, long story of the many observations, because I went with a cargo ship, and when you go to these countries with a cargo ship, you get a quite different idea than if you go on a 5-star cruise, and hotels. You see how the poverty affects people in their real lives. And I came back, and I looked at all the political movements, and I saw that LaRouche was the only one who said, ‘We have to have Third World development. We have to have technology transfer. We have to alleviate this poverty.’
And we had a positive conception already in the seventies, and therefore, when the Club of Rome appeared, we immediately said, ‘This is a fraud.’ Because the Club of Rome said, ‘There are limits to growth. We have reached equilibrium. Until the year 1972, you could develop, but now, we have reached equilibrium, and we have to have sustainable development. We have to have appropriate technology.’ These notions did not exist before, because before, you had the idea of a UN Development Decade, where each decade, you would overcome the underdevelopment by qualitative jumps. And when we recognized this propaganda by the Club of Rome, we immediately said, ‘This is a complete fraud,’ and the people who wrote the book “Limits to Growth,” Meadows and Forrester …
Q: A followup about the Paris climate summit.
A: I would like to give you written documentation afterwards of the studies that were made by these geologists, which are, without question, the explanation of climate change is not man-made. The anthropogenic aspect of it is so miniscule. Climate change has to do with the position of the solar system in the galaxy, which goes in cycles around a certain axis, and you can see that over 500 million years, the data confirms that you have these wide changes. Greenland is called Greenland, because it was green. There used to be vineyards. You had ice ages which completely covered the Earth, and the reason why I went into this longer history, is to show how the environmentalist movement was created with the attempt to keep development down, and climate change is just another expression of the same effort.
If you look at which firms which are investing in solar parks, in wind parks, who is controlling the CO2 emission trade, you have all the top hedge funds in London and Wall St. I can give you a lot of documentation about it, which does not mean that climate change is not real, because you have the rise of the oceans, and you have climate change, you have extreme weather, but that has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.
And, on the other points you raised, obviously, from our standpoint, the cancellation of NAFTA, is a good thing, because NAFTA did not allow development for Mexico. As a matter of fact, NAFTA is the incarnation of the cheap labor production model of free trade. What you need is – especially countries which are not developed, you need protective tariffs for their own good. They have to develop a domestic market first. The booklet which I emphasized, which you should please read, “Against the Stream,” is one of many, but it is very condensed, and a very good book.
The question is, ‘What is the source of wealth?’ Is the source of wealth cheap labor, to buy cheap raw materials, produce cheaply, and sell expensive? Is that the cause of wealth? No.
The only cause of wealth is the increase in the creativity of labor power. And a good government is, therefore, investing the maximum amount into education, into sponsoring the creativity of youth, of labor, and the more people in the labor force, by percentage, are engineers, scientists, the more productive the economy becomes.
And the free trade system, of which NAFTA is just one example, did exactly the opposite. China, which was part of this in the beginning — the reason why China today has so many environmental problems, like smog, like a large amount of groundwater being contaminated, is the result of the fact that China, in the beginning of its industrialization, accepted being a cheap labor production place for the U.S. and for Europe. When I was in China, even in 1971, I visited some factories which were horrible. They were absolutely horrible. The working conditions were terrible, the labor force, which produced electrical devices for radios, it was horrible. They worked for 18 hours. No health system. It was just terrible. And that is how China developed in the first phase.
But then China, with Deng Xiaoping, started to recognize that that is the wrong way. So China is now on a completely different track. They are putting the maximum emphasis on science and technology, the increase of excellence. Last year, they produced 1 million scientists. That’s double of what the U.S. produced. Obviously China is a larger country, but still. What will finally be decisive is the number of people who are creative. And that is why China, right now, has the best education system, because they have understood that the source of wealth is not raw materials. Is not trade conditions. It is the creativity of their own people. And that it a good thing. If we go to a system where we have a certain amount of protectionism, to protect the development of the domestic market, it is a good thing.
There is no danger of cutting [countries off from one another], because all of these infrastructure projects are connectivity. The world will be more connected than ever before. But this whole myth of free trade is really a very bad thing. It has been coined by the people who profit from it. That’s why the world is in the condition it is right now, where the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. The middle class is being destroyed all over the world. And I would really like to communicate with you so that we can deepen this dialogue.
On the Iran thing, I don’t think he will break it, but that is my hope. I don’t know.
So, I’m not saying he’s a – as I said, Baron von Knigge would get a heart attack when he hears Trump’s speeches, but the world was in such a grip of evil, satanic evil, that it is a good thing that there is a break, and the unfortunate thing, is that Europe is still in this grip.
You can see it. Von der Leyen, the German Defense Secretary, had the funniest reaction. The day after the election of Trump, she said ‘I am deeply shocked,’ about this election result, because nobody thought this would happen. Now, this same lady is now parading in Saudi Arabia with Crown Prince Bin Salman Al Saud, and she isn’t shocked. So, I don’t know what’s wrong with her. I think that that would be a good place to be shocked, or not even go there.
So, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the Europeans who react this way to the defeat of Hillary, are obeying another power in their head, and that power I call The British Empire, which is still in place, and it dominates Europe, and that is why they feel – I was asking myself, how come all of these politicians are so arrogant towards the new president of the U.S.? Because they were the boot-lickers of Washington until yesterday, and they would immediately do everything Washington would say and do, so I asked myself, ‘Where is this sudden self-assertedness coming from?’ And the only explanation I came up with, was to say, they must have an idea that there is another power which is more powerful than Trump, otherwise, they wouldn’t have this sudden arrogance.
And it is the British, because you will see tomorrow, because tomorrow, there will be a federal press conference in Berlin, where a number of people will present their contribution to the German chairmanship of the G-20, which will take place in July in Hamburg. This will be Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change), this is the scientific advisory organization advising the German government. He put out this paper about ‘the great transformation,’ which we wrote about. You can look in the archive. He is the head of the idea of a decarbonization of the world economy.
Now, if you decarbonize the world economy, without having fusion, that would be one thing, to have fusion power in place. Then you can talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, but without having fusion, and being against nuclear energy, fission, it means that you will reduce the world’s population to 1 billion or less, because there is a direct correlation between the energy-flux-density, and the number of people you can maintain. Schellnhuber said that the carrying capacity of the Earth is maximum 1 billion people. He didn’t say that he wants to do with the 6 billion who are already there. If he would be consequent, he should hop away from this planet.
And they will announce a sinister plan, to try to use the fact that many countries have environmental problems, to sneak in their anti-development programs. People should not be naïve, because not everybody thinks that population growth is a good thing. There are many people who think that each human being is a parasite, destroying nature. That is the image of man which many people have. The greenies, for example.
We look at it in a different way. We think that the more people you have, the greater longevity you can have, division of labor, and a modern scientific society needs many people with a long life span. Because if you are in the Third World, and you die, and you have an average life expectancy of 40 years, or less, you cannot have scientists, because the production of a scientist takes 30-35 years, and if people then die right away, then you can’t have a modern society.
So the more creative people you have, the better. Each human being is an incredible addition, because we are creative.
Tom Gillesberg: Schellnhuber, for his services, was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), and for him, he personally has said, that the highpoint of his existence was that the British Queen, personally, gave him the Order of the British Empire, for his efforts to reduce the possibility for mankind’s survival, you could say, so it is connected with what you said.
Q: This is the best speech I have ever heard in my life.
Is this a second American Revolution, and will the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned, be closed down, and will money be created for the benefit of all people, and not just the private Fed?
A: I don’t know, because, as I said, there are so many unknowns about Trump, and what he will do, and how it will play out. All I can say is, if Trump does not fulfill his promises, the same people who caused his election, will topple him. Because I don’t think that this process, which is now underway, where ordinary people have just had it — If you think about the declaration of Independence, it has this formulation that you will not bring down a government system for light reasons, but, if for a long time, the common good is being violated, I don’t know the exact text, then, people have the right and duty to replace this government with a rightful one, and that idea I call natural law.
It’s the same idea that Friedrich Schiller had in Wilhelm Tell. This is a play he wrote, which takes place in Switzerland. There, the Hapsburg oligarch is also trampling on the rights of the Swiss people, then they unite with the Rütli Oath. There is this beautiful formulation which says, ‘When the rights of people are trampled upon, they have the right to reach out to the stars, and take from the stars those rights which are eternally embedded in these stars. (I am not saying it as beautifully as Schiller does.)
If you compare these two texts, the Declaration of Independence, and the Rütli Oath from Schiller’s play, they are almost identical, and it’s very clear that Schiller was inspired by the American Revolution when he wrote that play, because in his plays, there are many ideas which resonate with the American Revolution, and he actually wanted to immigrate, at one point, to America.
So I think that if Trump turns out to be another fraudster, which we don’t know yet, I think that this process of revolt will continue, because I only mentioned some elements.
I could mention that there are many countries now in realignment. for example, the Philippines, Duterte. This was supposed to be the playground for the conflict with China in the South China Sea. Now Duterte sent his Defense Secretary, Lorenzana, to Russia and China, to buy weapon systems from Russia and China, and to establish a friendship with China, and he said, ‘The Philippines is no longer the colony of the U.S.’
Then you have Japan, which was the junior partner of the U.S. in the Pacific. Abe went to Sochi, meeting with Putin. In three days from now, Putin will go to Japan to have a state visit. They are talking about a peace treaty between Russia and Japan.
All of these are new alignments. There is a shift in the strategic situation, and I don’t think that that shift can be reversed.
Q: About Russia hacking the U.S. election. Why doesn’t the U.S. have anti-hacking measures? Can you explain that?
A: I cannot explain that, for the same reason that I cannot explain why the NSA is surveilling everyone, all their phones, their communications, worldwide. They can observe all of these things, but they don’t know about terrorism. They don’t know about drug trafficking. They don’t know about money laundering. Either their system is not so good, or they are looking in the wrong direction. I can’t answer your question.
Q: Will the result of the Brexit be positive for Europe, to enable continental Europe to become stronger, and to improve cooperation with the eastern parts of Europe?
A: I think that the EU is not functioning, and I think it is not just the Brexit. The “No” in Italy is a reflection of the same dynamic. Now you have Gentiloni, the new prime minister, and they will probably go for new elections. Right now, in the polls, you have the 5 Star Party leading. If they win, and form the new government, they have already said that they would leave the EU, and leave the Euro, and, in a certain sense, it is not functioning.
The reason I was against the introduction of the Euro from the beginning, was because we said that it cannot function. You cannot have a European currency union in something which is not an optimal economic space. You cannot put advanced industry together with an agrarian country, with completely different tax laws, pension laws, and you don’t want a political union, because Europe is not a people. You don’t have a European people. I don’t know what the Danes are saying. I don’t know what is in the Danish newspapers. The people of Slovenia have no inkling of what is happening in Alsace-Lorraine, and so forth, and so on. You don’t have a European people. Esperanto doesn’t function. You have 28 nations, 28 histories, 28 cultures.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t work together. I think that the idea of Charles de Gaulle to work together as an alliance between perfectly sovereign fatherlands, that is a correct idea. And all these fatherlands can adopt a joint mission, like to develop Africa, or other things.
I just think that this European Union is not going to stay forever.
Q: (followup) Will it be easier for Germany and France to promote this development, as the leading countries?
A: Everybody says that Germany is the biggest beneficiary of globalization, the EU, and the Euro, but that’s not really true, because, if you look at it more closely, then you can say that since the introduction of the Euro, the domestic market of Germany has completely stagnated. And the number of people who became poorer has increased.
Q: (followup) What about regarding the dialogue with Russia.
A: Oh yes, that would be much easier.
I do not think that this EU bureaucracy is capable of reform, because by their self-understanding, they are the local pro-consuls of this empire, and I think that it would be much better if Germany, France, and other countries have individual relations. And I don’t think that – this whole idea that you need a European Empire to compete with Russia and China and other emerging countries – The EU, by definition, is an empire. They have said it themselves. Robert Cooper, who has some kind of advisory function [currently serving as EU Special Advisor with regard to Myanmar], he said that the EU is the fastest expanding empire in history. It’s a bad idea.
And the Russians for – I noticed this since the beginning of the year 2000, that the Russians did not make a difference anymore between the EU and NATO. They said that it’s the same thing. And it is the same thing.
Q: You said that the One Belt, One Road was stripped of commercial interests from the Chinese side, as opposed to the IMF, World Bank. On what basis do you say that it is less interest-driven than the Bretton Woods institutions?
A: Well, because, the question is not that I’m saying that China is perfect. I’m not saying that. But when you look at anything, you have to look at the vector of development, is it going upward, or is it going downward? And from that standpoint, I had the advantage that I was in China in 1971, which was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution. This was so different than China today.
The Cultural Revolution was horrible for the people. The Red Guards would take people out of their homes, put them in jail, send them to the countryside, and people were distraught.
And now, people in China are happy. If you talk to students, or to young people, they are optimistic. They say, ‘Oh. I will do this in the future. I have these plans.’ I talked to a group of students in Lanzhou two years ago, and they said, ‘We will go to Africa. We will develop Africa.’ I have never heard a German student say this. Yeah, when I was a student, but that’s a long time ago.
I think that it is very worthwhile to read the speeches of Xi Jinping. There is a book, “The Governance of China,” but that only has about 60 speeches, and there are many, many more. For example, you should read the speeches he gave when he went to France, to Germany, and to India.
For example, when he went to India, he made a speech which was really incredible, because he said that he loved Indian culture from his early youth, and then he gave so many examples of the high points of Indian culture, the Gupta period, the Upanishads, the Vedic writings, Rabindranath Tagore, many predicates which prove that he really knows what he is talking about. He is not just one of these politicians who have a PR advisor about how to make nice bubbles in your speeches, but you could really see that he means it. And the same for Germany. He came to Germany and he emphasized Schubert and Heine, things which I also appreciate about Germany, and he did the same thing in France.
And I don’t think that the Chinese leadership would agree with me when I say this, but I think that they are less communist than Confucians. They probably would not admit that, because they are officially the Communist Party, and that’s OK, but, I come from Trier, and Trier is the birthplace of Karl Marx, so I have studied Karl Marx, and I think that they are still socialist, or communist, or whatever, but they always said that they are communist with Chinese characteristics, and these Chinese characteristics are Confucianism.
And the Confucian idea of man is lifelong learning, lifelong perfection, that everyone should be a Jinzi, a wise man, a noble man, and Confucius said, if the government is bad, then the Jinzi, these wise people, should replace the government. Also the idea that you have to have an harmonious development, starting with the family, continuing in the nation, and then, larger, among the nations.
China is the only country that has not made wars of aggression, colonial wars, in its 5,000 years of history. It was invaded many times, the Opium War, and things like that, but China is not an aggressive nation, at all.
And if you look at what they are doing in practice, the IMF and the World Bank have prevented Third World development, and China is going from one country to the next, building science cities, helping with space cooperation, bringing in developing countries in the most advanced areas of science, in order to not prevent their development. I think this is a completely different approach.
I think that the Chinese have come up with a new model of government, which I have not seen in any place in Europe, the U.S. ever, and it’s a model which is overcoming geopolitics, which is, if you say, ‘I have a win-win for cooperation. Everybody can join.’ Then, if everyone joins, then you have overcome geopolitics.
And geopolitics is the one thing that caused two world wars, and in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we cannot have geopolitics anymore. So I think that these are very important differences.
Sure, China has its own interests. Win-win means that China also has an interest. China has advantages, but, for example, if you ask people from Africa, ‘Would you rather have deals where China gets raw materials for long periods of time, but they build infrastructure for Africans.’ They like that much better than Europeans who come and say, ‘Oh, you should obey democracy,’ and do nothing.
Q: Statement about Chinese infrastructure projects in Morocco. Both are winners, as opposed to projects 20 years ago run by other countries. The Chinese there have learned Arabic. The projects have greatly reduced the travel time. They have a different perspective than the French, and Europeans had.
Tom Gillesberg: Do you have final remarks?
A: I would just say that people should not just believe, or not believe, what I am saying, but take an active attitude to try to find out what the truth is, for themselves. Because the world is not helped by replacing one ideology by another. The only way you can be certain, is that you become a truth-seeking person yourself. Because the whole question about what went wrong, is that people forgot what it is to be an honest truth-seeking person, taking the truth not as something you reach finally, but something you always improve.
Schiller had this beautiful writing about universal history, where he said that the philosophical mind is the first one to take his own system apart, to put it together more perfectly again.
I think that that quality – and, also, we had two days ago in Berlin, a very important event, which was also about the dialogue of cultures, and every – we had a very important presentation, which you can soon see on our webpage, where we had a double bass player who spoke about the importance of Wilhelm Furtwängler as a conductor, and he gave some musical examples, and he compared the performances of Furtwängler with some modern conductors, and the difference is so unbelievable. The music of Furtwängler is transparent. It is beautiful. It is absolutely overwhelmingly uplifting, and many of the other conductors are just playing along, with no respect for what the composition is.
And he really described, with many quotes from Furtwängler, that what is needed is this inner quality of truthfulness. That you don’t fake it, because if you’re not truthful – for example, you cannot recite poetry, if you’re not truthful. You cannot sing beautifully, if you’re not truthful. Sure, you can sing brilliantly, you can do all kinds of tricks, and it impresses people, but to really produce art, you have to be truthful. You have to try to understand the poetical idea, the musical idea. You have to step back with your ego behind what the composer or the poet wrote. And that’s what is wrong with modern theater. In Regietheater, they just say, ‘I don’t care what Schiller wrote, or what Shakespeare wrote. I just make my modern interpretation. I put Harley Davidson’s into Shakespeare, and it doesn’t matter.’ And that is not art.
And I think the question is, ‘What do you do with your life?’ That is really the question. Are you becoming a creative person, devoted to that with your life, you contribute to enable mankind to move on a little step further, and become better.
Or, are you just eating three tons of caviar, and have 3,000 Porsches. And then, when you die, they write on your gravestone, ‘He/she ate three mons of caviar, and had 3,000 Porsches,’ and that was it.
No, you should try to be an honest person, trying to make human society better with what you do. And, once you do that, you become happy. Then you are free. This inner freedom, is what you should try to find. And that is the only way that we will win that battle. It’s not Trump. It is, can we get enough people to be innerly free.
And then we win.
End of discussion
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 11. december, 2016 – ISIS er på flugt fra de syriske og russiske styrker; det ene valg efter det andet (Brexit, Filippinerne, USA, Frankrig, Italien, Sydkorea) viser, at befolkningerne føler afsky for det britisk/amerikanske bankimperiums økonomiske diktatur og forsøget på at indlede krige med Rusland og Kina; Kina og Rusland opbygger partnerskaber med over 100 nationer for at samarbejde om store udviklingsprojekter for at skabe moderne nationer og eliminere fattigdom, som Kina næsten har opnået.
Alt dette giver grund til optimisme. Men, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i dag, så må vi ikke blive selvtilfredse. Det sårede dyr, som er Det britiske Imperium og dets marionet-neokonservative, der især omfatter Obama, i USA, vil ikke sky noget middel for at ødelægge fremvæksten af dette nye paradigme, især i USA. I takt med, at ISIS er i færd med at blive besejret i Syrien, går de saudiskskabte terrorister bersærk internationalt med morderiske selvmordsangreb, der blot i løbet af de seneste dage har dræbt over hundrede mennesker og såret mange andre, i Egypten, Tyrkiet, Yemen og Nigeria. Obama og fraktioner i CIA kommer med vilde påstande om, at de ikke tabte valget i USA, men at det var Putin, der stjal det! Det får på en måde 1940’ernes og ’50’ernes Harry Truman/Joe McCarthy-heksejagt på kommunister til at ligne en barneleg, og Obama har krævet, at James Clapper, direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste, leder et team, der skal undersøge det såkaldte russiske valg-tyveri til fordel for Trump.
Husk på, at det var Clapper, der for den amerikanske Kongres svor på, at der ikke fandt nogen masseovervågning af amerikanske borgere fra efterretningsvæsenets side sted – en løgn, der var en vigtig årsag til, at Edward Snowden besluttede at afsløre, at det var præcist, hvad de gjorde, og mere til, i hele verden. Set i dette lys var det rigtigt af Donald Trump at afvise denne fraktion af efterretningssamfundets »latterlige« påstand om russisk indgriben (andre fraktioner tilbageviser løgnen), og at minde os om, at dette var de samme mennesker, der lancerede ødelæggelsen af Mellemøsten ved hjælp af den overlagte løgn om Saddam Husseins angivelige masseødelæggelsesvåben, selv, da FN’s team i Irak rapporterede, at disse ikke eksisterede.
På den anden side, så må optimisme ikke blive til selvtilfredshed. Trump er en ukendt størrelse. Alt imens han har omgivet sig med ledende generaler, der har udtrykt stærk opposition mod Obamas risikable militæreventyr i Mellemøsten og ønsker at samarbejde med Rusland om at knuse terrorist-svøben, og ligeledes, at han har krævet en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, så er Trump samtidig omgivet af Goldman Sachs-folk, der har anført udplyndringen af ikke alene USA, men af en stor del af verden, på vegne af finansimperiet i London og New York. Hvilken politik, der vil lede USA og Vesten i de kommende måneder, vil blive afgjort af den grad af mod og beslutsomhed, som mønstres af den amerikanske og europæiske befolkning, der vil gå videre end til at »smide disse uduelige karle ud« og kræve et ægte, nyt paradigme – som vil erstatte City of Londons og Wall Streets herrevælde med Glass-Steagall og Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love samtidig med et krav om, at USA og Europa går med i den Nye Silkevej og samarbejder med Kina og Rusland, snarere end at true med krig mod dem.
(Se LaRouchePAC-video om LaRouches Fire Love, med fuldt dansk udskrift)
Spørgsmålet om et potentielt Nyt Paradigme, baseret på udvikling snarere end geopolitik, var på programmet i denne uge i Shanghai ved et forum, der var sponsoreret af Shanghai Institut for Internationale Studier og Forskningsinstituttet for Dialog mellem Civilisationer (DOC), hvor man forbereder samarbejde mellem den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU), der er lanceret af Rusland, og Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, lanceret af Kina. Som stifter af DOC, dr. Vladimir Yakunin, formulerede det som et spørgsmål, der skal løses: »Hvordan sikrer vi os, at den samtidige udvikling af disse forskellige vækstcentre fører til synergi, og ikke konflikt? Det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union kunne blive det, der viser vejen.«
Foto: Syrisk militæroperation for at befri de sydlige distrikter af det østlige Aleppo. (30. nov.) (twitter.com/AlalamChannel)
10. december, 2016 – Lyndon LaRouches kortfattede 2014-dokument for den politiske strategi, med titlen, »Fire Nye Love for USA’s omgående redning: Ikke en valgmulighed, men en uopsættelig nødvendighed!«, skitserer grundlaget for, at menneskeheden uophørligt kan gøre fremskridt. Ikke flere økonomiske recessioner! Denne video dækker LaRouches ’Fire Love’, der har rødder i Alexander Hamiltons originale, økonomiske principper, der skulle lede USA: Glass-Steagall, Stats-bankpraksis (gennem en Nationalbank), udstedelsen af statskredit til forbedring af produktiviteten samt et forceret program for fusionskraft. De betydningsfulde, politiske forandringer, der finder sted i hele verden, inklusive valget af Donald Trump i USA, reflekterer et internationalt skifte, bort fra det transatlantiske områdes nedbrudte og rådne system, og hen imod det spændende, nye paradigme, der kommer fra Kina og Rusland, med økonomisk og videnskabeligt fremskridt. Lyndon LaRouches politik med de »Fire Love« er midlet til at vende det økonomiske forfald omkring, som har fundet sted under Bush’ og Obamas præsidentskaber, og slutte os til Rusland og Kina for at udvikle et helt nyt paradigme med samarbejde mellem nationer. Jason Ross fra LaRouchePAC Videnskabsteam (også kaldet The Basement) diskuterer, hvordan vi kan gennemføre LaRouches ideer i USA i dag.
LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, December 9, 2016
A NEW ERA FOR THE UNITED STATES: LaROUCHE'S FOUR LAWS
– Preface –
The election of Donald Trump was a resounding defeat of the
legacy of the past four Presidential terms; and it was no
surprise to anyone watching the planet as a whole. It was part of
a broader, worldwide repudiation of the prevailing trans-Atlantic
paradigm of the US and NATO, in favor of the New Paradigm now
taking hold, a New Paradigm being led by China and Russia.
Consider the storm of election results worldwide that the US was
a part of: Think of the Brexit vote in the UK, think of the votes
for President in the Philippines and France, the referendum in
Italy, the elections in Bulgaria. The only reason to be shocked
by the Trump election, would be by ignoring the perspective of
Lyndon LaRouche that Russia — and in another respect — China,
have become the dominant force on the planet.
The truth of the matter is that in spite of Obama's
assertions that he has organized the "greatest economic recovery
in modern history," most people's personal experience tells them
otherwise. We see increases in suicides and drug overdoses,
stagnant or falling wages, exploding costs for medical care.
People also fail to see the advantage of picking a fight with
nuclear-armed Russia in order to support and arm alleged
"moderate" Syrian rebels in order to overthrow that nation's
President.
What Americans want, is a true economic recovery, a real
future, and an end to the state of perpetual war. Like all
people, we would like to see a world in which our children and
grandchildren are better educated, live longer, and are happier
than ourselves. We want to have a {mission}; a sense of
contributing to something thrillingly important and new for
mankind as a whole. In that sense, we need a huge leap in
productivity, and a renewed sense of the best meaning of that
term.
"There's a problem in the United States as such and the
world as such also; and the problem here is, we've got to
increase the productivity per capita of the human population.
It's not enough to get increased employment; you've got to
increase the productivity per capita of the citizen. Without
that, you cannot win."
This short video presentation is about how to accomplish
exactly that, and how to think about it. We will present Lyndon
LaRouche's economic policy for the nation, what he calls "Four
New Laws to Save the USA Now"; and we'll discuss how you can help
make it happen.
– Introduction –
What you think you know about economics is probably wrong,
and what US "experts" on economics think is {definitely} wrong.
Economy is not about money, about making money. That we humans
have an economy in the first place comes from the fact that our
minds are capable of discovering principles of nature by which we
increase our power to achieve new things in the world. The first
great invention of mankind — it wasn't money — it was fire. The
use of fire is what separates our species absolutely from all the
animals, and it is the basis of the Greek creation story of
Prometheus, who, in giving fire to human beings, {created} the
human species as being the intelligent, creative, changing
species.
Thinking in broad strokes, new types of fire have allowed us
to fundamentally change our relationship to the physical world.
In one way, this has been by changing the kinds of materials
available and useful to us. Charcoal fires allow us to make
metals from ores. In a second way, the power liberated from the
chemical bonds of hydrocarbon fuels created the steam engines of
the past, and the internal combustion engines of the present. The
potential of nuclear power, with fuel one million times more
efficient and energy dense than chemical power, beckons us into
the future; allowing for a re-configuration of our relationship
to our material surroundings and our access to space. With a
plasma torch, powered by nuclear fusion, we would achieve 100%
recycling, and we could mine our landfills for resources. At a
higher magnitude of power availability, manufacturing reaches a
new level. And with plentiful energy, new solutions to water
supply become possible. To learn more about these topics, see our
videos on the plasma torch and on the fusion economy.
Thinking on such a long-term scale, the factors that truly
transform human productivity come into sharper relief. What are
we doing today to achieve the next levels of knowledge and
physical power? Are we intensely working to achieve nuclear
fusion; or are we reverting to the Middle Ages and building
windmills? What course are we setting for ourselves? Where are we
going? Will we look back in a century, and point to this period
as setting the stage for the major breakthroughs that will have
defined that coming future world?
At present, there are two main systems in the world: (1) the
relatively dying, money-based, depressing trans-Atlantic world of
the Americas and Europe; and (2) the thrilling potential of a New
Paradigm launching off from China's Belt and Road Initiative. The
21st Century Maritime Silk Road links the sea routes throughout
Eurasia and Africa in a new integrated development. On land, the
Silk Road Economic Belt presently features six economic
corridors, bringing a new high-tech infrastructure platform
across the Eurasian continent. Together, the full Belt and Road
Initiative is bringing dozens and dozens of nations into the
largest development program the world has ever seen. And it's
being led by a nation — China — that has concrete plans to
{entirely} eliminate poverty within its borders by 2020. This is
already rapidly expanding — further agreements with the BRICS
nations and other nations throughout the world are bringing this
closer and closer to the World Land-Bridge proposal made by
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, and which has been promoted for
decades.
This concept reaches beyond this planet, up to space, and to
the Moon. Again, China leads the way, with the first ever landing
on the far side of the Moon planned for the near future, and
permanent lunar manned bases coming after.
{This} is the future of mankind that the US must join; and
here's the policy to make that happen:
-The Four Laws –
In June 2014, Lyndon LaRouche authored a document, "Four New
Laws to Save the USA Now: Not an Option, an Immediate Necessity!"
He wrote:
"The economy of the United States of America, and also that
of the trans-Atlantic political-economic regions of the planet,
are now under the immediate, mortal danger of a general,
physical-economic, chain-reaction breakdown-crisis of that region
of this planet as a whole."
To address this collapse of the financial system, as seen in
today's banking crises, as with Deutsche Bank, the moneyed
interests of Wall Street and London proposed a system of bail-in,
of looting and theft; to steal from the economy to support the
financial system, creating the effect of further destroying the
physical economy and causing an accelerating rate of death. Take
as example the situation in Greece, where during this decade, GDP
has fallen nearly in half, and unemployment has doubled. Every
EUROur100Euro the IMF succeeds in cutting from Greek expenses h
to a 150Euro decline in income. Such are the results of
following the economic advice of the trans-Atlantic economic
order.
So what do we do? LaRouche points to the needed remedies:
"The only location for the immediately necessary action
which could prevent such an immediate genocide throughout the
trans-Atlantic sector of the planet, requires the U.S.
Government's now-immediate decision to institute four specific,
cardinal measures. Measures which must be fully consistent with
the specific intent of the original U.S. Federal Constitution, as
had been specified by U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton
while he remained in office:
(1) Immediate re-enactment of the Glass-Steagall law
instituted by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, without
modification, as to principle of action.
(2) A return to a system of top-down, and thoroughly
defined, National Banking.
(3) The purpose of the use of a Federal credit-system, is to
generate high-productivity trends in improvements of employment;
with the accompanying intention, to increase the
physical-economic productivity, and the standard of living of the
persons and households of the United States.
(4) "Adopt a Fusion-Driver 'Crash Program'." The essential
distinction of man from all lower forms of life ⦠is that it
presents the means for the perfection of the specifically
affirmative aims and needs of human individual and social life."
We'll cover these Four Laws, these four aspects, and provide
you with the means to make it happen!
1. Glass-Steagall
Despite chronic lying by Rep. "Bailout Barney" Frank and
Barack Obama himself, the repeal of Franklin Roosevelt's
Glass-Steagall Act created the conditions for the crash of 2008,
then; and the imminent crash of the entire trans-Atlantic system
today.
For the 66 years it was in force, from 1933-1999 —
especially up until the 1990s weakening of it — Glass-Steagall
kept our financial system stable and laid the basis for physical
economic growth unseen by any other nation in the history of
mankind. Think of the economic accomplishments by the United
States over that period, particularly from 1933 through the 1969
Moon landing.
Glass-Steagall created the ability increase the physical
wealth of the nation by strictly separating commercial banking
from investment banking and insurance. Under Glass-Steagall,
commercial banks took deposits and made loans, thereby allowing
idle money to be used by others in the community to engage in
productive activity. Under Glass-Steagall, your bank didn't
gamble with your paycheck, invest it in securities, lose
everything, and then turn to the government demanding a bail-out;
leaving the people high and dry.
Since the repeal of Glass-Steagall, we haven't seen any
growth of the productive economy, but rather the growth of
swindles — of stealing — at the expense of the population. The
industrial capacity of our nation, our moral outlook, our
commitment to future, have all dwindled to a faint glimmer of
their former selves since Glass-Steagall's repeal.
Without the separation between commercial activity and
investment activity, banks have transformed into parasites;
rather than functioning as Alexander Hamilton intended, when he
wrote that "The introduction of Banks ⦠has a powerful tendency
to extend the active Capital of a Country. Experience of the
Utility of these Institutions is multiplying them in the United
States. It is probable that they will be established wherever
they can exist with advantage."
For example, despite Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Chairwoman Sheila Bair's testimony that approximately $15
trillion in bail-outs, loan guarantees, and other government and
Federal Reserve assistance was made available to major banks from
2007-2011, their lending into the real economy kept falling
through 2012. That government assistance was used for securities'
speculation, and never left the banking sector to benefit the
physical economy.
We must get Glass-Steagall restored immediately. The
so-called Too-Big-To-Fail banks are larger now than they were in
2008. They're destined to blow any week. If they blow out now in
an uncontrolled way, the destruction to the physical conditions
of life for Americans, in terms of jobs lost, houses lost,
retirement funds lost, the chaotic breakdown of the financial
system, will far exceed the crash of 2008, and the image of 1929.
The system {has} to be put under control. Restoring
Glass-Steagall today forces Wall Street to reconcile their huge
debts on their own (bankrupting most investment banks, in a
controlled and orderly way), and it will free up commercial banks
to act as banks again. {We don't need Wall Street gambling!}
2. National banking
Alexander Hamilton stated in his "Report to the Congress on
National Banking": "A National Bank is an institution of primary
importance to the prosperous administration of the finances [of
the United States], and would be of the greatest utility in the
operations connected with the support of the public credit."
Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton reorganized the
post-Revolutionary War debt of the United States; developing a
means of funding it through a series of new taxes. He then set up
the Bank of the United States, using the now-stable debt as its
primary asset. The bank was able to stabilize the money supply,
reduce speculation, and make the needed loans to finance the
build-up of the newly unified economy.
After that first national bank was allowed to lapse in 1811,
a successful fight was waged to charter the Second Bank of the
United States, which functioned from 1816-36, during the
presidency of John Quincy Adams; who oversaw extensive investment
in canals and transportation, made possible by the national
top-down approach. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin
Roosevelt also both applied the principles of national banking.
Lincoln, through the issuance of "United States Notes" or
"greenbacks" as they were called, and through a series of banking
acts, reasserted the authority of the federal Treasury over all
the numerous banks in the various states; requiring "all banks to
purchase United States [Treasury] stocks to hold as securities
for their circulating notes." In this way, Lincoln set up a
national banking system, even though he was unable to establish a
national bank.
Later, Franklin Roosevelt utilized his own approximation of
the National Bank principle, when he converted the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation, created under the preceding Herbert Hoover
Presidency as a means of intervening into financial markets.
Roosevelt converted it into an institution for physical economic
development. Roosevelt's RFC issued the equivalent of $500
billion (in today's dollars) of credit directed towards specific
employment programs and infrastructure and other development
projects. This credit was repaid both directly, and indirectly:
The increased tax revenue resulting from the tremendous
productivity increase brought about by the RFC, would itself have
paid for many of its programs. National banking — this approach
— allows investments whose returns are not made simply through
user fees, but through improvement in the nation's overall
productive powers.
By making the goal the improvement of national productivity,
rather than turning an immediate profit, the national banking
approach allows investments that would otherwise not be made; and
it is absolutely essential today. The need for infrastructure
financing today is an order of magnitude beyond what the RFC
financed in Roosevelt's time. In addition to our own national
resources, the involvements of the extensive credit facilities of
China, as well as its currency holdings (and those of Japan, for
example) will be essential for the needed US recovery.
3. Credit for higher EFD
What makes a loan worthwhile? We are {so} far behind, that,
for example, a national effort to build high-speed rail would
founder for lack of basic building supplies, such as steel.
Investments must be directed to where they would be most useful.
As a metric for this, consider energy-flux density, an economic
indicator used by LaRouche. It is a measure of the intensity of
energy flow through the economy, considered at the point of
application. For example, contrast the energy required to cut a
material with a dull blade versus a sharp one. It actually takes
more energy, more effort, to use the dull blade, while the energy
concentration in the sharp blade, delivered over a smaller area,
is more effective and requires less overall effort. In this way,
we should measure not simply energy used per se, but the density
of the applied energy in an economy. By increasing this, we are
able to achieve more with less effort, and, of course, achieve
new feats that were otherwise impossible.
A priority must be given to these economic activities; those
that tend to increase the energy-flux density of the economy as a
whole. By investing in higher platforms of infrastructure, such
as efficient nuclear power, high speed rail, and water management
systems, in this way we increase the potential of every local
area of the economy. Just as shipping and canals made more areas
able to trade, and as the railroads opened up the interior
regions for development and an opportunity to transport goods
efficiently, increasing the productive potential of the nation as
a whole, the next generations of infrastructure increase the
value and opportunity all along the development zones they
create. And by improving the means of production itself, as
through up-shifts in the design of machine tools, the apex of the
productive and manufacturing process, the increased powers of
labor shape the entire created world.
Alexander Hamilton writes in his "Report on Manufactures" of
the effect of increasing the power of labor: "The annual produce
of the land and labour of a country can only be increased, in two
ways — by some improvement in the productive powers of the
useful labor ⦠or by some increase in the quantity of such
labor. With regard to the first, the labor of Artificers
[manufacturers in today’s language] ⦠is susceptible, in a
proportionally greater degree, of improvement in its productive
powers, whether to be derived from an accession of Skill, or from
the application of ingenious machinery.
"The employment of Machinery forms an item of great
importance in the general mass of national industry. 'Tis an
artificial force brought in aid of the natural force of man; and,
to all the purposes of labor, is an increase of hands; an
accession of strength¦…"
Today, we must focus the increasing of energy flux density
in the infrastructure/public works platform, in machine-tooling,
and on science itself — the key to making all other developments
possible. Improving the economy of labor is accomplished through
technological progress in an energy-intensive, capital-intensive
mode of investment in basic economic infrastructure, agriculture,
and manufacturing. And even occupations that don't directly
change still have their effects improved. The produce of a
farmer, maybe produced in the same way, is now going to the
dinner table of a fusion scientist. The mechanic's work on a car
is now allowing a machine-tool operative to reliably drive to
work, creating parts for a nuclear power plant. The trash
collector brings this week's refuse to a regional plasma torch
facility, recovering as much rare earth metals as would be
gathered from a mine. Everything changes together; productivity
is about the whole.
4. Fusion
It is an outrageous crime that we don't yet have fusion
power, and that existing fission power — both uranium and
thorium — has seen relatively so little utilization. The next
stage in our journey of higher forms of fire and control over the
physical world, lies in the tiny world of the atomic nucleus. If
the nucleus were the size of a basketball, an atom itself would
be a kilometer in radius. Yet the forces in the tiny area of the
nucleus are of a power density 100,000 to 1 million times greater
than the chemical forces holding together atoms in molecules. A
molecule is about 100,000 times larger than a nucleus; and yet
the nucleus has 100,000 times more power. Put that together and
you're talking about a thousand million or a million million
times more power density in the nucleus. It's almost
incomprehensible how large that number is. It's like comparing
the mass of our solar system to the entire Milky Way galaxy!
That's the power of the nucleus. It's an absolutely phenomenal
aspect of nature. So, don't research solar panels; unlock this
almost {incomprehensibly} greater potential!
Through a greater mastery of the nucleus, we'll open the
potential for dramatically increasing our energy supply to
transform our relationship to physical materials through new
types of ore processing, our relationship to water as through
desalination, and the ability to rapidly reach any part of the
Solar System; such as to deflect a deadly asteroid headed our
way. You can't do that with a wind turbine! This is an essential
component of becoming a truly space-faring species.
So why hasn't it happened yet? Why don't we have nuclear
fusion power today? Check out this chart. It shows a 1976
estimate of when various funding levels would be expected to
achieve commercial fusion. At a maximal level of funding, fusion
was expected by 1990. You'll see at the bottom a line labelled
"Fusion Never." That was the level of funding expected to keep
programs alive, but without ever making the needed breakthrough.
The black line {below that} is actual funding for fusion research
in the United States. A decision was made and remade, and remade,
{not} to make this breakthrough; {not} to reach the next stage of
"fire" that would transform our civilization far more profoundly
than did the development of the steam engine. Our growing reach
into space — made possible by fusion engines — will enable the
next level of scientific breakthroughs; requiring the export from
space back to Earth of that great, man-made resource: knowledge.
But instead, we saved pennies while sacrificing the potential to
advance on the grandest of scales.
Imagine living in a society committed to achieving fusion,
and to implementing its benefits. How would being a part of that
society shape its citizens' self-conception? A human life has
consequences and meaning that last far beyond physical death —
at least in potential. Adopting a mission to achieve fusion is
putting into practice a goal of Hamilton, who wrote that "To
cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by
multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least
considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation
may be promoted. Even things in themselves not positively
advantageous, sometimes become so, by their tendency to provoke
exertion. Every new scene, which is opened to the busy nature of
man to rouse and exert itself, is the addition of a new energy to
the general stock of effort." – Make It Happen! –
We need to make this happen! You only get to vote for
President one day every 4 years. What about the other 1,460 days?
The LaRouche PAC is active {every day}. For decades, Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche and their collaborators have been relentless
organizing for the new economic paradigm coming into being now.
Decades of conferences, studies, reports, meetings, fundraising,
videos, election campaigns, and collaboration are now coming to
fruition. The outlook of the Belt and Road Initiative put forward
as official policy by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, is
something the United States can adopt as well, rather than
opposing. We can join this effort, we can rebuild our economy; we
can have something fundamentally useful to offer the world.
Work with us! Join our Manhattan Project of political,
intellectual, and musical activity in our nation's center of New
York. Work with the leadership of LaRouche and his decades-long
record as the conscience of America. From our website, you can
sign up at our action center to get more involved. There is so
much you can do, from setting up meetings in Congress to
attending and organizing events in your area, from letters to the
editor, studying economics, and raising contributions for the
LaRouche PAC. Help to:
* Force Congress to immediately vote up the reinstatement of
Glass-Steagall as the first of LaRouche's "Four Economic Laws";
* Educate yourself on fusion and forms of "fire";
* Join or start up a reading group to master the ideas of
Alexander Hamilton, our nation's first Treasury Secretary;
* Study the World Land-Bridge proposal, and create events in your
area. Discuss how the US can join this outlook. Inspire others
with what is already happening, and with what could happen.
{You} can learn economics. {You} can be a political leader.
Do it, {be that leadership the US needs.} It's up to us; let's
work together.
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 8. december, 2016 – Alt imens det aktuelle, afgørende spørgsmål er, om den tiltrædende Trump-administration virkelig vil begrave »krigsdoktrinen for regimeskifte« og forfølge produktivt, økonomisk samarbejde med Kina og Rusland, så blev vi i dag mindet om den anden, triste arv fra Barack Obama: økonomien. Det amerikanske Konkurrenceråd har udgivet en rapport om USA’s produktivitet med titlen, »Ingen økonomisk genrejsning«, og i USA Today lød overskriften meget passende, »Obamas økonomiske genrejsning var alligevel ingen genrejsning«. Og det Nationale Center for Sundhedsstatistik udgav en grummere undersøgelse, der fandt, at den forventede levealder for alle amerikanere faktisk er faldende, og at dødsfald som følge af alle de mest almindelige sygdomme er stigende, og det samme er spædbarnsdødeligheden. En af undersøgelsens forskere sagde: »Der er simpelt hen dette fænomen med, at tingene ikke står så godt til i USA, over hele linjen.«
På trods af »markedets« kortvarige eufori over valget af Trump, så forudsiger mange økonomer, at Obama har efterladt ham »en ny, stor recession«; og faktisk, et snarligt finanssammenbrud på grund af Dodd/Frank-lovens åbenbare manglende evne til at kontrollere og undertvinge Wall Street. Mange af de mest aktive og interesserede amerikanere er også meget bekymrede over dette.
Det ovenfor nævnte «største spørgsmål« vil fundamentalt afgøre det; amerikansk velstand vil vende tilbage gennem at samarbejde omkring »Den Nye Silkevej« om store infrastrukturprojekter, gennem fælles gennembrud inden for teknologier for fusionskraft; og inden for kernekraft og afsaltning af havvand ved hjælp af kernekraft.
Som Rachel Brinkley, fra LaRouchePAC National Policy Committee, udtrykte det i en udtalelse om den mislykkede Dodd/Frank-lov: »For det første, så er der … forøgelsen af reel velstand som resultat af forøgede rater af fysisk produktivitet. Kinas politik for den Nye Silkevej har en positiv effekt på 70 lande og 4,4 mia. mennesker, ved at fokusere på byggeriet af nye transportruter og udvikling af energi, inklusive byggeriet af højhastighedsjernbaner og mere effektive havne, at bringe elektricitet til landdistrikterne, og ved at indgå partnerskaber for avanceret, videnskabeligt samarbejde med andre lande. Dette er en aktuel, levende demonstration af, hvordan man påvirker nettorater af fysisk vækst i positiv retning. Monetære processer må altid være underordnet dette … «
LaRouches Fire Love
De undervurderer det tilbageholdte krav fra millioner af informerede amerikanere, om at få retfærdighed gennem Glass-Steagall og få »lukket Wall Street-kasinoet ned«. Dernæst kan en politik for statslig kredit og produktivitet, i Franklin Roosevelts tradition, løfte nationen ud af det langvarige, økonomiske kollaps, i hvilket Bush og Obama har efterladt den.
Foto: Nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump har forpligtet sig til, at USA skal ophøre med at føre en politik for regimeskifte …
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 6. december, 2016 – Den formelle overgang til USA’s næste præsidentskab – der er 45 dage til Indvielsesdagen for Donald Trump – får uophørlig opmærksomhed i USA og i andre medier, men, den historisk vigtige overgang i verden som helhed er det følgende: hvor hurtigt og vist vil USA og Europa opgive det geopolitiske, kasino-økonomiske system og gå med i det nye, globale win-win-paradigme? Udfordringen består i at mobilisere folk til at være med til at få dette til at ske. Dette omfatter, at de foretager en personlig ændring og bliver aktive, og ikke længere blot ser passivt og afventende til. Der gives øjeblikke i historien, hvor den subjektive faktor er altafgørende. Vi befinder os ved et sådant øjeblik.
Omstændighederne er dramatiske. Yderligere initiativer for fred og udvikling kommer i denne uge fra Rusland og Kina.
I dag var premierminister Dmitri Medvedev vært for mange møder i Moskva med den tyrkiske premierminister Binali Yildirim, inkl. møder med præsident Vladimir Putin. Sammen med afgørende, økonomiske engagementer, såsom byggeri af kernekraftværker og gasledningen Turkish Stream, bekræftede lederne det, som Yildirim kaldte behovet for en ny, international sikkerhedsarkitektur for at besejre terrorisme, og en ny dialog med vestlige magter på dette grundlag.
I Tokyo fremlagde en kinesisk embedsmand fra den magtfulde Nationale Udviklings- og Reformkommission (NDRC) i går et tilbud om at opkoble Bælt-og-Vej-programmet til Japans og Sydkoreas økonomiske »arbejdsplaner«. Hr. Cao Wenlian, generaldirektør for NDRC’s Internationale Samarbejdscenter, talte om at styrke komplementariteten i de tre nationers økonomiske aktiviteter, der tilsammen allerede udgør 36 procent af verdens BNP. Cao talte i anledning af det Første Forum for Samarbejde om Industrikapacitet mellem de tre lande. Dette fremstød med det kinesiske tilbud tilsidesætter Japans mangeårige underdanighed under transatlantisk, økonomisk og militær, tvivlsom og aggressiv manipulation.
Selv Henry Kissinger – hvis personlige historie kan siges at indbefatte særdeles uønskede paradigmer – taler offentligt til fordel for samarbejde mellem USA og Kina. Kissinger mødtes den 2. dec. med præsident Xi Jinping i Beijing. I dag mødtes han med Donald Trump i New York City. I går aftes under et Manhattan-arrangement svarede Kissinger på et spørgsmål, der var stillet af LaRouchePAC’s Daniel Burke, som spurgte: »Hr. LaRouche deler stærkt Deres mening om, at USA og Kina må samarbejde. Og han understreger, at USA og Kina kan samarbejde omkring politikken med Ét bælte, én vej; at dette ville være en indlysende vej til at genopbygge USA’s kollapsende økonomi … « Kissinger svarede: »Jeg mener, at konceptet med Én vej, ét bælte [sic] er et vigtigt spørgsmål. Jeg mener, at Kina kan og bør finde en måde at tale om det. Det er et af de spørgsmål, hvor samarbejde sandsynligvis er muligt … «
I denne uge vil LaRouchePAC-aktivister fra flere østkyststater anføre angrebet på Capitol Hill i Washington, D.C., for at lægge pres på virkeligheden og politikken med det formål at få USA til at gå med i det nye paradigmes æra, med start i en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, der følges op af gennemførelse af de handlinger, der fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Love.
Ved et arrangement i går i Washington, D.C., talte både vicepræsident Joe Biden og Thomas Hoenig, vicepræsident for den amerikanske Statslige Indskudsgarantifond, FDIC, offentligt til fordel for Glass/Steagall-loven. Biden fordømte sin egen stemme til fordel for en ophævelse af Glass-Steagall i 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley-loven) som »den værste stemme, jeg nogensinde har afgivet i hele min tid i USA’s Senat«. Men så vendte han rundt og sagde, det er derfor, vi nu »ikke kan tillade en ophævelse af Dodd-Frank«, fordi vi har brug for »en opmand i marken«.
Hoenig udtalte imidlertid støtte til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall og forklarede, at ophævelsen af denne lov førte til de risikable omstændigheder, der skabte krisen i 2008.
»Man gav de kommercielle banker, der har et statsgaranteret sikkerhedsnet, lov til« at engagere sig i alle former for aktiviteter, og man »forsynede dem endda med udvidet statsstøtte til at handle … « Hoenig er en potentiel Trump-udnævnelse til viceformand for banktilsynet i Federal Reserve (USA’s centralbank).
Hvis man træder et skridt tilbage og betragter historien, ser man, at visse øjeblikke træder frem som tidspunkter, hvor en afgørende, personlig ændring finder sted. I denne uge tænker vi med alvor tilbage på den 7. december, 1941, Pearl Harbor Day, hvor amerikanske borgere, som nation, gennemgik en ændring over en nat.
Vi skal i dag forstå, at vi alle er kaldede til aktivt at intervenere for at være med til at afgøre det historiske udfald.
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. december, 2016 – I modsætning til det hysteri, der stadig fortsætter i USA, så er der ingen, der påstår, at Rusland riggede stemmeboksene til Italiens overvældende sejr i en folkeafstemning, der ellers ville have overgivet deres love, domstole og lovgivende magt til den Europæiske Union. Men den, der promoverede en sådan folkeafstemning, den italienske premierminister Renzi, blev alligevel grundigt slået og træder nu tilbage.
Som den russiske præsident Putin samme dag bemærkede i et interview til Tv, »Vi lever nu i en anden tid … Den globale balance er gradvist i færd med at skifte.« Obama har igen tabt; endnu en leder, som han havde overøst med ros, har erkendt sit nederlag til det »nye paradigme«.
Dette nye paradigme afviser det gamle – der sluttelig drejede sig om britisk finansimperialisme – som var det paradigme, Obama har tjent: Det drejede sig om at ofre økonomier til globale finansmarkeder og globale finansinstitutioner; om at ofre industrier for traktater om »frihandel«; om at fjerne uønskede, »diktatoriske« regeringer gennem permanent krigsførelse. Ironisk nok var det de britiske vælgere, der startede den til alle lande nu spredende afvisning af dette »globaliseringsparadigme«.
Som eksempel for dette nye paradigme står de næsten 70 nye, store infrastrukturprojekter, hvor Kina er involveret i finansieringen og opførelsen, i Eurasiens, Afrikas og Sydamerikas nationer – og, potentielt set, også i Nordamerika, når Obama først er af vejen.
Dette nye paradigme kunne meget snart komme til udtryk gennem den måde, hvorpå Putin er i færd med at gennemtvinge en løsning på forsøget på at gennemtvinge regimeskift i Syrien; og gennem Kinas fremstød for udvikling med den Nye Silkevej, der også forlænges ind i Mellemøsten. Selve den Europæiske Union har bøjet sig for denne »skiftende balance« og fremlagde i dag en Plan B, hvor det vil være med til at finansiere genopbygningen af Syrien og opgive kravet om Bashar al-Assads tilbagetræden.
Valget af Donald Trump udgør en åbning i kampen for dette nye paradigme i USA – han blev valgt gennem en afvisning af den gamle globaliseringspolitik, og har visse mål til fælles med det nye paradigme.
Men håbet om dette nye paradigme, der besjæler hele Amerika og Europa, ligger i kampagnen for Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Økonomiske Love til USA’s redning«, som diskuteres i LaRouchePAC National Policy Committee fra 5. dec. Følg diskussionen her: https://larouchepac.com/20161205/larouchepac-policy-committee-show
Med formand Tom Gillesberg