HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag, jeg er Harley Schlanger, og velkommen til vores dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet. I dag er det onsdag den 8. juni 2022.

Om ti dage afholder vi en ekstraordinær konference, en opfølgning på den række konferencer, som Schiller Instituttet har sponsoreret for at behandle behovet for en ny sikkerheds- og finansarkitektur.  Denne konference har titlen: “Der kan ikke være fred uden en konkursbehandling, reorganisering, af det døende transatlantiske finanssystem”.(https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference20220618_19) 

Jeg mener, at det er det sted, vi bør begynde, for lige nu ser det ud til, at der ikke bliver fred, medmindre vi kan få gennemført en konkursreorganisering.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja. Det er klart, at det 64 millioner dollars dyre spørgsmål er, om vi kan få USA til at samarbejde med Rusland, Kina, Europa og andre nationer om at etablere et nyt globalt kreditsystem, som vil være løsningen på denne krise? Det er et spørgsmål, som jeg havde stillet på en tidligere Schiller Institut-konference den 26. maj til Ray McGovern og senator Richard Black (pensioneret), da det er meget væsentligt. Hele verden er i en sådan uro lige nu, krigsfaren, at der er dem der ønsker, at krigen skal fortsætte, indtil “Rusland er ødelagt”, som den tyske udenrigsminister Baerbock hele tiden gentager, eller USA’s forsvarsminister Austin, der ønsker, at Rusland skal “skæres i stykker”, og mange andre, der taler på den måde.  Men der er også mange lande, der nu er i en position, hvor de ikke ønsker at blive trukket ind i en geopolitisk konflikt mellem USA på den ene side og Rusland og Kina på den anden side; og der er dem, der presser på for at forhandle og få fred.  

Men det store spørgsmål, som alle har i tankerne, eller hvis de ikke overvejer det, er baggrunden: Kan USA inddrages i en kombination af lande, der tager fat på det faktum, at det finansielle system er ved at sprænge i luften i et hyperinflationært sammenbrud, eller ej?  For det er efter al sandsynlighed det spørgsmål, der vil være afgørende for udfaldet af denne forfærdelige krise.

Den gode nyhed er, at der er kræfter i USA, som går ind for denne politik. Det er meget lidt kendt i resten af verden, fordi massemedierne ensidigt mørklægger dette. Men vi har netop – og når jeg siger “vi”, mener jeg LaRouche-kræfterne i verden – vi har netop opnået et stort gennembrud i form af, at senatskandidat Diane Sare opnåede nomineringen som kandidat i staten New York , ved at indsamle langt over 45.000 underskrifter for at komme på stemmesedlen, og dette er ikke blevet anfægtet af valgmyndighederne.  Det betyder, at Diane Sare efter al sandsynlighed, medmindre senator Charles Schumer, som er hendes rival, vil anfægte dette, vil være kandidat som uafhængig som en LaRouche-kandidat ved det kommende valg i november, og hun vil være {den} førende stemme for dette program for at indføre Glass-Steagall, for at få et nationalt banksystem i alle lande, for at få et nyt kreditsystem og for at fremme et lynprogram for fusionskraft og samarbejde i rummet for at øge produktiviteten i verdensøkonomien.  

Det er virkelig gode nyheder! Hvis man nu synes, at der allerede er videoen af det interview, som vi lavede den 26. april med oberst Richard Black (pensioneret), der nu når 800.000 seere, at kombinationen af senator Black, som er en konservativ patriot i det republikanske parti, og Ray McGovern, som er en af grundlæggerne af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) – hvis man tager senator Black, Ray McGovern, Diane Sare, så repræsenterer de alle forskellige vinkler af det politiske spektrum i USA, men jeg tror, det er vigtigt for resten af verden at blive yderligere opmærksom på, at der er en sådan modstand mod den nuværende konfrontationskurs.  Det betyder, at der er et håb om, at USA kan vende tilbage til sin politik fra Den amerikanske Frihedskrig, til Lincolns, FDR’s og Kennedys politik, og at vi forhåbentlig kan løse denne krise på en fredelig måde. 

Det kan virke som et langt perspektiv, men hele denne diskussion vil blive taget op på vores kommende Schiller Institut-konference, som du lige har nævnt, Harley, og denne konference kommer naturligvis på et yderst vigtigt tidspunkt, fordi der nu er flere og flere mennesker, der er klar over faren; at vi befinder os i en farligere situation end nogensinde i verdenshistorien, farligere end under Cuba-krisen, men meget få mennesker bortset fra os selv, hvis nogen overhovedet, taler om at tage fat på årsagen til at vi befinder os i denne krigsfare, nemlig den absolut trøstesløse tilstand i verdens – især det transatlantiske – finanssystem, og hvad vi skal gøre ved det. 

Det må naturligvis besvares med min afdøde mand Lyndon LaRouches fire love, og Diane Sare er absolut talskvinde for dette synspunkt. (https://larouchepub.com/lar/2014/4124four_laws.html) Hun vil naturligvis være en meget fremtrædende taler på vores kommende konference, så I bør virkelig hjælpe med at gøre denne konference kendt, fordi den tilføjer et nyt perspektiv, som de fleste mennesker ikke kender, men som fuldstændig ændrer synet på, hvor vi befinder os strategisk set.

Se resten af interviewet med Helga Zepp-LaRouche i videoen.

 

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag, jeg er Harley Schlanger. Velkommen til vores ugentlige strategiske dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet. I dag er det torsdag den 19. maj 2022.

Helga, det virker som om der dagligt lanceres yderligere en omfattende provokation mod Rusland, idet Biden-administrationen, medlemmer af begge partier i Kongressen, regeringerne i NATO-landene i Europa, alle bevæger sig tættere på at overskride endnu en rød streg, som er trukket af præsident Putin og hans sikkerhedsfolk. Denne uge begyndte med, at regeringerne i Finland og Sverige meddelte, at de havde til hensigt at tilslutte sig NATO. Hvordan reagerer Rusland på dette, og er man ikke klar over, at dette er et skridt i retning af at gå direkte imod de røde streger, som præsident Putin har fastlagt?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg tror, at de er fuldstændig ligeglade. Der er ingen trussel mod Sverige og Finland. Enhver, der tror at russerne er ved at rykke ind i disse lande, er helt hen i vejret. Dette er den sjette NATO-udvidelse mod øst. Vi skal huske, at Putin den 15. december havde krævet bindende retssikkerhedsgarantier af USA og NATO for, at NATO afstår fra kontinuerligt at bevæge sig østpå, at Ukraine ikke bliver medlem af NATO, og at der ingen offensive våbensystemer vil blive placeret ved Ruslands grænse. Jeg mindes, at det var den tidligere chef for det italienske luftvåben, general Leonardo Tricarico (pensioneret), der netop erklærede, at denne sag med Finlands og Sveriges NATO-ansøgning er som at stikke en finger i øjet på Putin.

Jeg mener, at de forskellige russiske talsmænd allerede har sagt, at de vil træffe kompenserende foranstaltninger. De vil sandsynligvis placere nogle våbensystemer tæt på den finske og svenske grænse, eller noget tilsvarende, men det er yderligere en optrapning. Russernes reaktioner bliver mere barske, og de erkender i højere grad, hvordan situationen er. F.eks. erklærede lederen af det russiske sikkerhedsråd, Nikolai Patrushev, i hovedtræk, at grunden til at Rusland var nødt til at gennemføre det, de kalder en særlig militær operation i Ukraine, var, at NATO’s fortsatte bevægelser mod øst, mod en omringning af Rusland, bragte den russiske stats eksistens i fare. Det er en formulering, som burde forurolige enhver i Vesten, for det er hvad viceudenrigsminister Alexander Grushko havde sagt i sidste måned, nemlig at det er den tilstand, hvor Rusland har en doktrin, som i henhold til dets egne regler tillader brug af atomvåben.

Nu tror jeg ikke, at Rusland vil bruge atomvåben, men det ligner den ene provokation efter den anden, og vi bør ikke blive overraskede, hvis det går helt galt på et tidspunkt meget snart, hvis vi ikke formår at mobilisere en modstand overfor dette. Men russerne har gjort det meget klart, at målet er at udrydde det russiske system, at foretage et fuldstændigt regimeskifte, at indføre et regime, som grundlæggende er kontrolleret af Vesten, og dette er naturligvis ikke acceptabelt for den russiske ledelse. Så dette er en helt forfærdelig provokation, og folk bør virkelig være foruroligede, for dette er vejen til katastrofe….

Se resten af interviewet på videoen.

 

Helga indledte sin ugentlige webcast med at insistere på, at folk faktisk bør se præsident Trumps rally i Tupelo, Mississippi, da man her vil se en helt anden dynamik, end hvad der formidles i medierne og af hans modstandere. Et betydeligt udsnit af de amerikanske vælgere reagerer entusiastisk på hans præsentationer, idet han fortsætter med at betone afslutningen på krigene, der blev indledt af Bush og Obama, alt imens han bekæmper sammensværgelsen, der føres imod ham. Hun kaldte demokraternes pres for en rigsretssag for et “højrisikabelt spil… som kan give bagslag.”

Det vi gennemlever er et utroligt historisk øjeblik, et endeligt opgør mellem millioner over hele verden der er vrede, og som i USA bliver mobiliseret af Trump imod det britiske imperium, der har taget Det Demokratiske Parti [som gidsel]. Hun mindede seerne om, at hendes mand – da Trump blev valgt – sagde, at dette ikke var en amerikansk, men global begivenhed, hvilket vi ser nu med masseprotesterne, der pågår verden rundt. Hun gennemgik udviklingen omkring rigsretssagen, herunder bedraget med Schiffs “whistleblower”. Hun pegede på fremskridtene i Syrien, der er baseret på et samarbejde mellem Trump og Putin, samt handelssamtalerne med Kina, for at vise hvad det er som Trump gør, der forårsager hysteriet bag rigsretssagen.

Da hun gennemgik det igangværende finansielle/økonomiske sammenbrud samt de åndssvage løsninger der er foreslået af Lagarde, Carney m.fl., og som kun vil gøre ondt værre, pegede hun på de enestående løsninger, der er blevet udviklet af hendes mand Lyndon LaRouche. For Jer, vore seere, er tiden ikke til passivitet, konkluderede hun, men til nu at blive involveret og støtte vores organisation.

 

I denne uge drøfter Helga Zepp-LaRouche Trumps seneste træk for at afslutte krigene for regimeskifte, hvilket han blev valgt til at udføre, og stiller den amerikanske befolknings støtte til præsident Trump, der sås ved forskellige stævner i hele landet, op imod de etablerede mediers forsøg på at fremstille en helt anden virkelighed. Med en skrøbelig våbenhvile på den syriske/tyrkiske grænse er det nu tid til at begynde genopbygningen af regionen ved at udvide Bælte- og Vejinitiativet til Mellemøsten!

Helga Zepp-LaRouche understreger også den rolle, som vores bevægelse spiller i USA og i Europa med at uddanne befolkningen i den forestående globale finanskrise. DETTE er den virkelige baggrund for hastværket med at afsætte Trump fra embedet. Han har bevist, at han er villig til at vælte skakbrættet med det militærindustrielle kompleks’ årtier lange politik for regimeskifte; så hvilken garanti har Wall Street for, at han ikke vil gøre det samme imod dem, i takt med at finanskrisen fortsætter med at brede sig?

Det er nu vigtigere end nogensinde at organisere en ægte økonomisk renæssance på planeten, begyndende med at omorganisere Wall Street og give de suveræne nationer mulighed for at samarbejde om deres egne økonomiske skæbner.

Tak for at følge vores arbejde og for din støtte.

 

Zepp-LaRouche indledte med at drøfte, hvad hun beskrev som den historiske pressekonference med præsident Trump den 9. oktober, hvor han gjorde det klart, at han havde til hensigt at vende de sidste 50 års geopolitiske krige. Under henvisning til præsident Eisenhowers identifikation af det “militære industrielle kompleks” som årsagen til krig, afsluttede Trump med en bevægende personlig erklæring, idet han identificerede omkostningerne ved disse krige, hvad angår de amerikanske tab af menneskeliv, samt de millioner der går tabt på den anden side i krigene.

Hun vendte flere gange tilbage til vigtigheden af to ting: For det første, præsident Trump må nu samarbejde med Rusland gennem Astana-processen og inddrage Kina, for at afslutte krigene via reel økonomisk udvikling; for det andet, at vejledningen til denne udviklingsproces må være Lyndon LaRouches liv, hvis renselse er den nødvendige ingrediens for at få det til at fungere.

LaRouches stemme er desuden vigtig, da det økonomiske sammenbrud er i gang, og det er hans videnskabelige metode, nedfældet i hans Fire Love, som er nødvendige for at forhindre sammenbruddet i at udløse global elendighed. Vi må direkte tage fat på den panik og kulturpessimisme, som dominerer befolkningen – nu er tiden inde til, at vores optimistiske synspunkt, baseret på en forståelse af menneskets sande, kreative natur, former diskussionen.

Tak fordi I følger vores arbejde i et så spændende historisk øjeblik. Der står meget på spil for menneskehedens fremtid, og vi gør en forskel.

 

Dagens store nyhed er, at dato og sted for det historiske Trump-Putin-topmøde nu er fastsat. Dette møde, der har været udskudt så længe, har været så længe undervejs, vil nu finde sted i Helsinki, Finland, den 16. juli, 2018.

Engelsk udskrift:  

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, June 29, 2018

TRUMP-PUTIN SUMMIT COULD CHANGE THE WORLD!

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon, it’s June 29, 2018.  My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re watching our weekly Friday evening
broadcast from larouchepac.com.
The big breaking news for today is that the date and the
location is now determined for the historic Trump-Putin summit.
This meeting, which has been long deferred, a long time coming,
will now be taking place in Helsinki, Finland on July 16, 2018.
This, as you can see from our title image, promises to be an
extraordinary and historic event.  “Trump-Putin Summit Could
Change the World!”  An announcement was posted on the White House
website yesterday when the details of this meeting were revealed.
As you can see here, it reads:
“President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin of
the Russian Federation will meet on July 16, 2018 in Helsinki,
Finland.”  “Statement from the Press Secretary on a Bilateral
Meeting Between the United States and Russia.”  It read:  “The
two leaders will discuss relations between the United States and
Russia and a range of national security issues.”  A similar
announcement was posted on the Kremlin press service website,
which was along very similar lines.  This one read:  “Vladimir
Putin and US President Donald Trump will meet in Helsinki on July
16th.  The two Presidents will discuss Russian-US relations and
their further development, as well as current international
matters.”
We know that there are many such issues which can be
discussed and are very important and will be discussed between
the President of the United States and the President of the
Russian Federation, including the situation in Syria, the
situation in Ukraine, and the mounting tensions around the
nuclear arms race and situations that are similar.  Also, we can
maybe presume that the situation in North Korea will be a subject
of the discussion between these two Presidents, because both of
them have been very intimately involved in bringing this
situation forward to the breakthrough that has now been achieved.
Now, President Trump himself, speaking with reporters on
Wednesday, so before the details of the summit were actually
announced, and before the official announcement was made;
President Trump had a discussion with reporters.  He reiterated
his commitment to working not only with Russia, but with China.
So, this is what President Trump had to say:  “As I’ve said from
day one, getting along with Russia and with China and with
everybody, is a very good thing.  It’s good for the world, it’s
good for us, it’s good for everybody.”  This is precisely what
we’ve been saying here at LaRouche PAC.  It’s this kind of great
power relationship — the United States, China, Russia, put India
into the mix there, and this is exactly what Lyndon LaRouche has
been campaigning for, for years under the rubric of this Four
Powers Agreement; that we have to escape from this geopolitical
“lose-lose” kind of drive for hegemony and say No.  This is now a
new system that the world is embracing, and the United States,
Russia, China, and other great powers should have a “win-win”
relationship.  It’s only through this kind of collaboration
between these leading powers of the world that you can resolve
the outstanding, looming issues and challenges which have been
threatening world peace and security.  North Korea is a perfect
example, and we can assume that the other such hotspots and
conflict zones can also be resolved in just such a manner;
exactly what Helga LaRouche has called over the past two weeks
“the Singapore model”.
The fact that this meeting is actually going to be taking
place in a little bit over two weeks from today, this fact is
huge.  This meeting has sent the entire trans-Atlantic
geopolitical establishment into a state of absolute hysteria.  It
was precisely this sort of face-to-face summit meeting between
President Trump and President Putin which the entire Mueller
Russia-gate probe was aimed at preventing.  But despite a year
and a half of witch hunts and propaganda, this so-called
investigation is yielding zero evidence at this point of
so-called “Russian collusion” in meddling with the elections.
Despite this attempted coup against President Trump and the
intended rapprochement between the United States and Russia,
despite these efforts this meeting is going forward, and is
poised to be just as historic and potentially even more historic
than the last big summit President Trump had; the one between
himself and Chairman Kim Jong-un in Singapore.
Let me just go through a couple of examples of the absolute
hysterical reaction that we’re seeing in the British and Western
mainstream press to this announcement.  Here’s an example in the
{Guardian} newspaper.  Headline:  “UK Nervous over Unpredictable
Trump Summit with Putin”.  Subhead:  “British diplomats fear
impulsive US President will make Russia a personal offer and
leave Europe in the lurch.”  So, that’s a picture of Trump and
Theresa May.  Then, {The Atlantic} had a similar headline:  “The
Trump-Putin Summit: What the Europeans Fear!”  And here’s one in
{Vanity Fair}:  “|’This Plays to Russia’s Advantage!’ As Trump
Salivates over Putin, Allies Fear Another Diplomatic Disaster.”
And then the subhead there, which you may or may not be able to
read, says the following: “Just as Trump blew off the G-7 and ran
straight into Kim’s arms, experts worry the President will clash
with NATO and find sucker in Putin. ‘The fact is, that he is
meeting with Putin right afterwards, and the Putin meeting is
going to go really well,’ said one analyst.  “And NATO, quite
possibly, is going to be as bad as G-7.’|”
So there you can see, they’re drawing the direct parallel to
what happened when President Trump attended the G-7 meeting in
Canada and said this institution is irrelevant.  He said Russia
should be a member and we should return this to the status of the
G-8.  And he left early and got on a plane to go to Singapore to
meet with Kim Jong-un, where he made much more significant
history.  As that article was saying, the exact same kind of
scenario could happen with the NATO summit; where Trump says this
is irrelevant, and instead goes and meets with President Putin in
Helsinki.  And says, we need a new security architecture.  That
would be a good thing, and not a bad thing.  The other headlines
include the {New York Times}: “As Summit Nears, NATO Allies Have
One Main Worry — Trump”.  And then the {Washington Post} had a
very similar headline: “NATO Members Worry as White House Plans
Trump-Putin Summit”.
What’s interesting is that this is not intended to just be
a one-off meeting.  This is intended to be the first in a
continuing series of such high-level President-to-President
bilateral summits.  According to reports, US National Security
Advisor John Bolton, who was just in Moscow on June 27th to
conduct the preliminary rounds of planning for this upcoming
summit between Trump and Putin, Bolton told a press conference
that it would be possible that President Trump might follow up
this meeting by going and attending the Eastern Economic Forum in
Vladivostok, Russia, on September 11-13th.  So, the month
following, have a follow-up meeting, during which he would have
another opportunity to sit down with Putin and follow up on what
they will discuss during the Helsinki summit on July 16th.  This
in and of itself is a very significant thing.  The meeting itself
is the so-called “deliverable”; that this is the opening of an
important relationship.  Just as we saw the developing friendship
between President Trump and President Xi Jinping with first the
Mar-a-Lago summit and then President Trump’s personal visit to
Beijing for the state visit-plus.  We may see a similar process
now beginning to unfold between President Trump and President
Putin.
So, let me just play a short clip from a webcast that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche broadcast earlier this week.  This was broadcast
before the official announcement confirming the date and the
location of this Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki.  But what you’ll
hear is her emphasis on the extraordinary strategic importance of
this upcoming meeting.  So, here’s what Helga Zepp-LaRouche had
to say:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I think it’s of strategic
importance, because obviously, Trump feels somehow freed, with
Russiagate turning into Muellergate, with the very successful
Singapore summit [with Kim Jong-un], so I think this is a very,
very important development.
But just clinically, I want to mention the fact that the
German conservative daily {Die Welt} says this summit would be
the absolute catastrophe, because there would be the danger that
Trump and Putin would make an agreement, whereby the NATO
maneuvers in Eastern Europe are reduced and that Trump would
portray himself as the big peace-maker.  [laughs]  That shows you
how absolutely crazy this neo-liberal/neo-conservative on both
sides of the Atlantic is: What could anybody who likes to have
world peace wish better than that Russia and the United States,
which after all are the two most powerful nuclear forces on the
planet, if they could come to a strategic agreement?
So, this is a very important, good development.  And
obviously, this will now occur after the NATO summit and after
Trump’s short trip to Great Britain, but I think my absolute
hunch would be that the two presidents will hit it off very well,
because they have basically a better understanding of the
strategic situation, than their critics.  So that is good
news….
This is exactly what should happen, that you have an
increasing cooperation among the largest powers in the world:
the United States, China, Russia, and as we discussed earlier,
there is also some slower motion on the side of India, to come to
such an agreement.  They have a good relationship with the United
States anyway, and also with Russia, but now they are working
more closely with China.
I can only repeat it:  Those people who are used to thinking
in terms of geopolitical blueprints, or paradigms, they should
really understand that in the world which has so many problems
and so many urgent tasks to solve, the best thing is really if
the large powers find a strategic understanding and hopefully,
eventually will work together to solve all of these problems.
And those people are still caught up in the old, geopolitical,
zero-sum game — one wins, the other one must lose — this is a
completely ridiculous, old-fashioned, outdated idea.  I have
called, at the beginning of the year, that this year must become
the year when geopolitics is overcome, and with China’s New Silk
Road, you have already a win-win model of relations, where
everybody wins. So I would just urge people to rethink the way
they look at the world….
Now, I’m just having the pleasure of reading a very nice
book which the Schiller Institute published.  It’s “The New Silk
Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, Vol. II}, just fresh off the
printer, and it has all the conceptions in it for what is
necessary to immediately start these large-scale development
projects.  So I would really think there may be more people who
would want to know what is in this book.

OGDEN:  Now, as we speak, Helga Zepp-LaRouche is beginning
to address an international conference which will be held this
weekend in Germany, sponsored by the Schiller Institute.  We’ll
have much more coverage of this conference for you over the
weekend as it proceeds.  You can expect further in-depth reports
during our Monday broadcast here on larouchepac.com.  But one of
the highlights of that conference is the official release of that
new special report that you just saw Helga mention and hold up.
“The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, Volume II.  A
Shared Future for Humanity.”  This was published by the Schiller
Institute and it’s an extraordinary follow-on to a similar report
on that same subject which was published now four years ago.
What I’d like to do is read you some excerpts from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s introduction that is published as the Preface to
this report, which she wrote to situate the entire contents of
this very extensive report.  So, here’s what Helga LaRouche’s
introduction is to this new special report:
“The spirit of the New Silk Road has changed the world for
the better much more thoroughly than the trans-Atlantic sector
has even remotely understood until now.  Since Chinese President
Xi Jinping placed the New Silk Road on the agenda in September
2013 in Kazakhstan, optimism on an unprecedented scale has swept
over the developing countries in particular.  A sense that
poverty and under-development can be overcome in the foreseeable
future, thanks to Chinese investments in infrastructure,
industry, and agriculture.  Geopolitically-oriented circles in
the West have not understood that China is implementing a new
model of international policy which tackles the deficit which the
legacy of colonialism and imperialism has bequeathed up to this
day; the absolute lack of development.  And because China is thus
addressing the existential needs of billions of people, that
policy is likely to be the greatest revolution in the history of
mankind.
“In the nearly four years that have elapsed since the
release of the first 374-page comprehensive study, ‘The New Silk
Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge’, in December 2014, numerous
projects that were conceptualized in that report have been
carried out.  Others, such as the Transaqua Project for the
revitalization of Lake Chad and the development of a waterway
system for 12 African countries have been agreed upon by the
governments involved, and feasibility studies are being drawn up.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative has become the largest
infrastructure program in human history.  The Belt and Road Forum
in May 2017 brought together 29 heads of state and government,
and more than 1200 representatives from more than 140 nations,
including this author [Helga Zepp-LaRouche herself].  Hundreds of
conferences and seminars on this subject have been held around
the world, and more and more countries see that their economic
opportunities lie in becoming a hub for the New Silk Road and the
Maritime Silk Road for the 21st Century.
“However, it is not only the enormous economic perspectives
derived from economic cooperation on a ‘win-win’ basis that have
fundamentally changed the overall strategic situation, but also
— and above all — Xi Jinping’s idea of a ‘community of shared
future for mankind’.  With the Silk Road initiative and the idea
of a ‘community of shared future for mankind’, Xi Jinping has
developed a totally new model for relations among the nations of
the world which supersedes the previous geopolitical rivalries of
the blocs with the higher idea of one, single mankind, whose
sovereign states cooperate with one another to their mutual
benefit.  As Xi Jinping explained in his October 8, 2017 report
to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, he
is pursuing the vision of initiating developments by 2050 that
allow for the peaceful coexistence of all sovereign nations on
Earth, and a happy life for people.  Largely unnoticed or
disregarded by the euro-centric or America-centric view of the
mainstream media, is the fact that entirely new strategic
orientations are developing in Asia as a result of this grand
design and that Asian countries are in the process of overcoming
past historical antagonisms and working out a new type of
cooperation.  Numerous countries which were played against each
other until recently in geopolitical scenarios, now see a much
more promising perspective in a strategic realignment of
cooperation for mutual benefit and for a higher idea of the
common development of all mankind.
“The historical breakthrough that President Trump and
Chairman Kim Jong-un were able to achieve in Singapore on June
12th, involving an agreement on full nuclear disarmament in
return for security guarantees which China wants to help provide,
as well as the lifting of sanctions and North Korea’s economic
development, would have been unthinkable without the spirit of
the New Silk Road that has triggered throughout Asia the
optimistic mindset that genuine changes for the better are,
indeed, possible.  The economic modernization of North Korea
pledged by Trump, Russia, and China, which will make it
‘prosperous and wealthy’ corresponds to the intention discussed
at the inter-Korean summit between Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un in
April, and prior to that at the Eastern Economic Union forum in
Vladivostok in September 2017.  Both Koreas are to be included in
the integration of the Belt and Road Initiative, and the Eurasian
Economic Union, including the connection of the future
trans-Korean railway to the Trans-Siberian Railway and to China’s
transportation network.
“Another good example of this is the policy change in Japan
and in India.  Following a two-day summit between President Xi
Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in April of this
year, the two most populous states in the world recalibrated
their relations to each other.  Speaking at the Shangri-la
Dialogue in Singapore on June 1st, Modi appealed to the world to
rise above divisions and rivalries, and to opt instead to work
together.  He referred to the deep conceptions of Vedantic
philosophy going back to the Vedas and Upanishads of ancient
India; namely the idea of the ‘essential oneness of all’ and the
idea that every individual soul is that being in full and not
part of that being.  Modi concluded, ‘This world is at a
crossroads.  There are temptations of the worst lessons of
history, but there is also a path of wisdom.  It summons us to a
higher purpose; to rise above a narrow view of our interests and
recognize that each of us can serve our interests better when we
work together as equals in the larger good of all nations.  I am
here to urge all to take that path.’
“Xi Jinping has developed a new model for relations among
major powers based on the principles of absolute respect for the
sovereignty of others, of non-interference in internal affairs,
and respect for the respective other political and social system.
From this standpoint, it is most fortunate that President Trump
and President Xi, from the very first meeting of the former and
the latter at Mar-a-Lago in April 2017, established an
exceptionally friendly relationship with one another.  Xi
returned the invitation to Trump’s private residence with a state
visit-plus for Trump to China in November.  Despite all the
tensions with China over differences of opinion as to how to
overcome the trade deficit, Trump has repeatedly called Xi a good
friend.  But it is above all the historic breakthrough with North
Korea that would have simply been unthinkable without the
relationship between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.
“The world is changing dramatically, and the change is happening
in Asia.  The new era must be based on the best traditions of all
the cultures involved.  In China, Confucius stand for the ideal
of self-perfection through lifelong learning and ennoblement of
the character as a precondition of harmonious coexistence in the
family, the nation, and among nations.  The notion of the mandate
of heaven implies that the duty of government is to ensure the
common good.  In Indian culture, this corresponds to the idea of
dharma; the idea that universal laws set the rules for shaping
relations on Earth; i.e., that the cosmic order is also valid on
Earth.  For European civilization, which America belongs to, the
equivalent is the humanist tradition.  An expression of this
approach are the ideas of Nicholas von Cusa, the {Coincidentia
Oppositorum}; that is, that human reason is capable of a higher
level of thinking on which the contradictions of the intellect
are resolved.  Order in the macrocosm is only possible if all the
microcosms develop in the best possible way and to their mutual
benefit.  The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia is built on this
foundation, which gave rise to international law; as is the
philosophy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Friedrich Schiller.
In Russia, the same basic principle is expressed in the idea of
Vladimir Vernadsky that the significance of the noosphere is
constantly increasing over that of the biosphere; and that
therefore, the role of creative reason as a physical power
increases.
“The spirit of a new beginning, the cultural optimism about
imminent breakthroughs in fundamental research and an
unprecedented dynamic towards the betterment of mankind’s living
conditions, all this characterizes the development in Asia.  And
this optimism has long since rubbed off on Latin America and
Africa.  We in Europe and the United States should recognize and
exploit the tremendous potential it will mean for our economies
if we join in this win-win cooperation.  Provided we count on
qualitative innovation as a source of social wealth,
collaboration with the New Silk Road is by no means a threat.  On
the contrary, it offers us the urgently needed chance to
rediscover our true identity.”
Now, this is the introduction, or an excerpt from the
introduction that Helga Zepp-LaRouche wrote to this new report
which, as I mentioned, is just being debuted and released this
weekend at the major Schiller Institute in Germany.  This report,
as you can see, is available and will be circulated.  It’s
something you should definitely get your copy of.  We’ll let you
know how you can access that once that’s available.  As you can
see, this report, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge”, lays out the blueprint for this New Paradigm of
civilization.  Emphatically this is not written from the
standpoint of dry observation as an outsider.  This is written
from the standpoint of the intellectual leaders of this New
Paradigm — Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche, the LaRouche
movement — which planted the seeds for what we’re now seeing
emerging as this dominant dynamic on the globe today, all the way
back as we reviewed on our Monday broadcast, all the way back in
the early 1990s; but really going back through the ’80s, and
including into the 1970s when Lyndon LaRouche first proposed in
1975 the idea of a new international economic order in the form
of his International Development Bank.  You can trace the
heredity of that idea all the way to what we’re now seeing
emerging with this New Silk Road which is now becoming this
global dynamic — the World Land-Bridge.
As Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in that introduction, this is
cause for extraordinary optimism, but we must absolutely fight to
bring the United States and Europe into this new, emerging
dynamic.  This cannot exist as an adversarial geopolitical
rivalry on this planet.  Neither one of these paradigms can
survive.  As Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against
itself cannot stand.”  You cannot continue to have this
trans-Atlantic, hegemonic type of geopolitical containment
operation against China, Russia, and these other emerging
economies, and still expect that this New Paradigm will continue
to march forward.  That will bring us to the cusp of another
World War, just as we observed with World War I at the beginning
of the 20th Century.  This is the so-called Thucydides Trap.
Rather, these countries of Western Europe and the United States
must recognize that this new win-win dynamic is the pathway
toward a shared future for mankind where we can finally overcome
the adolescence of mankind and overcome this idea that war is
even a possibility for resolving disputes between nations.  In
the age of thermonuclear weapons, you can no longer have that
option.  That’s why it’s absolutely laughable, as Helga
Zepp-LaRouche said, for those in the Western mainstream media to
say, “Oh, it’s a horrible thing for Trump and Putin to meeting,
because they might strike a peace deal.”  That’s a ridiculous
criticism.  In fact, as President Trump has said repeatedly, this
kind of relationship between the United States and Russia, and
also between the United States and China, and between the United
States and everybody else, is a very good thing.  Not only for
those countries, but for the entire world.
So, with that said, here in the United States, we must
continue our campaign for the United States to join this emerging
New Paradigm.  As we’ve documented repeatedly, our driving force,
our number one agenda here in the United States, is the LaRouche
PAC 2018 Campaign to Win the Future.  Here you can see,
LaRouche’s Four Laws for Economic Recovery.  This is the New
Paradigm for mankind.  The United States must join the New Silk
Road.  It’s available.  This is the campaign page —
lpac.co/yt2018.  You can get a copy of this platform which is in
mass circulation in the United States, and also become an active
member of this entire Campaign 2018.
When we launched this campaign months back, we said this is
what’s going to be shaping and determining the agenda for the
mid-term elections.  Well, the mid-term elections are ongoing,
and what we’re seeing is that indeed, we are in the midst of a
very fluid and dynamic situation in the politics here in the
United States.  As we said in the introduction to this pamphlet,
this LaRouche PAC 2018 Campaign to Win the Future, the 2016
elections — which not only elected President Trump above 12
other establishment Republicans; but also saw that Bernie Sanders
almost secured the Democratic nomination, if it were not for the
political machinations and the massive rigging of that primary by
the Hillary campaign — this was a demonstration that party
politics as usual, establishment politics as usual, was over in
this country.  Go back four years.  Lyndon LaRouche was already
forecasting that that would occur.  In his 90th birthday address,
Lyndon LaRouche said that in 2012; look, the age of establishment
party politics as we know it is over.  We’re seeing the brewing
of a revolt, an insurgency among the American people, where
they’re going to reject the party establishment of both political
parties.  Well, that was not just a one-time occurrence in 2016.
What we’re watching now is that we are indeed in the midst of an
ongoing revolt by the American people against this establishment
geopolitics, Wall Street crowd; a revolt which is continuing to
pervade and upend both parties.  So, demonstrating that the Trump
insurgency, the insurgency that carried Trump to number one in
the Republican Party, and almost carried Bernie Sanders to become
the nominee in the Democratic Party — again, were it not for the
rigging by the Hillary Clinton campaign — a demonstration that
this is continuing we saw unfolding over the course of this week
in Tuesday’s primaries.  We saw a couple of very surprising, big
political upsets on the Republican side, including in South
Carolina where Henry McMaster won this primary.  He was endorsed
at the last minute by President Trump in a move that the entire
media establishment said was a huge mistake.  He did, indeed,
come out on top.  Similar situations occurred elsewhere in
Republican primaries.  But even bigger than those results, were
the shocking, surprising results in the Democratic primary in the
Bronx-Queens district in New York City.  This seat has been held
for 20 years by Joe Crowley, who was considered to be
next-in-line to become Speaker of the House behind Nancy Pelosi
if the Democrats regained the majority in the House of
Representatives.  Crowley never had a primary opponent; he
doesn’t even live in the district.  His family reported had moved
out of New York City and had bought a house outside of
Washington, DC.  But for the first time ever, he faced a primary
opponent, and his primary opponent was a 28-year old Latina
woman, a daughter of a Puerto Rican and a former volunteer with
the Bernie Sanders by the name of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  In
this campaign, Crowley, who’s got deep pockets and huge
connections to Wall Street, spent $3.4 million in the campaign.
Ocasio-Cortez only spent $200,000.  In an absolute shocking
victory, Ocasio-Cortez on election night on Tuesday, came out far
ahead of Crowley; and not only upset his pathway to becoming the
next Speaker of the House, but proved that nobody is safe among
the Democratic establishment; just as nobody is safe among the
Republican establishment.  It’s being compared to Doug Brat’s
victory over Eric Cantor here in Virginia a few years back, which
was seen as a bellwether in fact for what later happened in 2016.
But to be honest, this is much bigger, indeed.  And it shows you
that the revolution that was going on inside the Democratic Party
in 2016 is indeed continuing.  Just to note, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, if she does win the November general elections, as
she almost 100% will, will also become the youngest woman to be
serving in the US House of Representatives.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche actually addressed this victory by
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the stunning defeat of Joe Crowley
at a later point during her webcast earlier this week.  I would
like to just play you that short excerpt from Helga LaRouche’s
webcast.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  This Crowley campaign with $3
million, and this 28-year-old woman who won the primary, she only
have $300,000 for the campaign. And she campaigned on the fact
that Crowley was a tool of Wall Street, and obviously this was
the main argument why she won the election.
So, I think it is a quite good reason to think that not
everything is controlled by the financial oligarchy, that money
no longer buys every seat, which it used to do for a long time,
and that there is the chance to really change the situation in
the world for the better.
Now, I want to end by again asking you to join the Schiller
Institute, join a Renaissance movement, and help us to distribute
these ideas, so that more people can share and join in this
optimism, that man {is} indeed greater than his destiny, and that
if many people of good will are joining forces together, that —
as Schiller says in one of his writings about the revolt of the
Netherlands from Spain — that you can bring down even the arm of
the strongest tyrant by uniting for a good plan.
So please, unite with us, and let’s really move civilization
in a better domain.

OGDEN:  So, that’s a very optimistic note from Helga
LaRouche.  And this indeed proves that we are in very fertile for
a political revolution in this country.  Do not get trapped into
thinking in partisan terms.  Do not allow yourself to get sucked
down into that level.  Think on the level that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche just said; if people around the world can unite
around a good plan, around the policies which are urgently
necessary to resolve the crisis which we’re now facing, we can
move history forward and we can overcome our destiny.
So, what is that good plan?  What is the program to unite
around?  That’s the entire core purpose of the LaRouche PAC 2018
Campaign to Win the Future.  LaRouche’s Four Laws:
Glass-Steagall.  Shut down this Wall Street casino.  Erect a
firewall; protect the legitimate banking operations in commercial
banking in the United States as a means of protecting us from the
probability of a trans-Atlantic meltdown of this casino economy.
Then use that to completely recreate the financial processes here
in the United States by reinstituting the Hamiltonian idea of a
national bank.  A Third National Bank, or a revival of, what
Franklin Roosevelt did with the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, to use the credit creation capabilities of the
Federal government to direct trillions of dollars of credit
directly into great projects like we’re seeing in China and
China’s building in Africa and elsewhere.  Great projects to
rebuild the United States, to employ the American population in
high productivity, highly skilled, high paying jobs; and to use
that to increase the productivity and the living standards of the
United States.  Then the entire way that that can be directed
forward into the future is to adopt a vision; a vision of space
exploration, breakthroughs in the frontiers of science and
technology, including fusion power and all the derivatives of
that kind of scientific breakthrough.  From that standpoint, the
United States can join this emerging New Paradigm for a common
future for all humanity.
So, that’s the vision.  We’re in the middle of an ongoing
political revolution in this country, and it requires leaders,
citizens in this country who are able to overcome this idea of
partisanship and party politics as usual and say No.  We will
unite our efforts towards this common destiny, towards these
common aims.  And do that here in the United States, and then
also do that among nations abroad.  That’s the New Paradigm of
politics here in the United States and that’s the New Paradigm of
international relations on this planet.
We’re living in very exciting times; very historic times.  I
think that this conference that’s happening this weekend in
Germany could not be scheduled to be occurring at a more timely
moment in world history.  You can look forward to some very
exciting updates from that, and I’m sure that there will be
countless numbers of emerging developments that are going to be
occurring on the global stage as well.  So, by all means, become
active in what we’re doing; join our 2018 Campaign to Win the
Future; get a copy of this new special report, Volume 2 of “The
New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.”  And stay tuned to
larouchepac.com, because we have a lot of work to do.  Thank you
very much, and we’ll see you on Monday.

… I denne appel opfordrede Helga Zepp-LaRouche til at anvende denne model, Singapore-modellen, til situationen i Europa, hvor hele den såkaldte alliance, den europæiske alliance, den Europæiske Union, nu opløses i splittelse og kaos over det, der lokalt set synes at være en fuldstændig uløselig og umedgørlig flygtningekrise. I stedet anbefaler Helga LaRouche, at EU omgående afholder et topmøde mellem de ledende europæiske lande, afrikanske ledere og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping for at indlede en proces for samarbejdende, økonomisk udvikling i Afrika for at løse problemerne med fattigdom og krig, som er roden til masseimmigrationen ind i Europa af afrikanere, der søger at flygte fra denne situation. Denne løsning ville omgående møde troværdighed hos afrikanerne takket være den gode vilje, der nu eksisterer over for Kina på det afrikanske kontinent, pga. de økonomiske udviklingsprojekter, som Kina allerede har igangsat dér i form af det forlængede Bælte & Vej Initiativ.

Lad os nu se på USA. Nøjagtig den samme model kan anvendes på spørgsmålet om migration her i Amerika på den nordlige og sydlige halvkugle. I stedet for at forsøge at adressere symptomerne, kan vi, hvis vi i stedet bruger Singapore-modellen til at adressere roden til denne krise, løse den. Den kan ikke løses på sine egne vilkår, men den kan løses, hvis man introducerer en ny dimension i denne geometri. Hele områder af Mellem- og Sydamerika er blevet ødelagt af disse kapløb-mod-bunden-politikker for billig arbejdskraft, frihandel, udplyndring fra Wall Street-gribbefondes side, og udbredt vold og en tilstand, hvor man ikke kan regere, pga. narkokartellerne og narkobanderne, som disse tilstande afføder, og hvor mange af dem hvidvasker deres narkopenge gennem disse selvsamme Wall Street-banker. Dette er den sump, der må dræneres gennem den omgående genindførsel af Glass-Steagall, som ville lukke disse kriminelle foretagender med pengehvidvask og lyssky penge ned. I stedet må man vedtage Lyndon LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love for at øge arbejdskraftens produktivitet her i USA og bringe USA ind i dette Nye Paradigme for økonomisk udvikling. Men det ville også udgøre en bro til at bringe hele Bælte & Vej Initiativet ind i de amerikanske lande som helhed. Den Nye Silkevej kunne forlænges gennem et Beringstræde-tunnelprojekt, der forbinder Eurasien med Nordamerika. Hele dette højhastigheds-jernbanenet og andet, kan dernæst forlænges mod syd ind i Mellem- og Sydamerika. Dette bør være emnet for et omgående topmøde mellem præsidenterne Trump og Xi Jinping, sammen med andre statsoverhoveder og ledere af de suveræne nationer i Mellem- og Sydamerika. Dette ville udgøre midlerne til at løse den gærende handelskrig mellem USA og Kina ved at fjerne den såkaldte handelsubalance gennem tredjeparts-udviklingsprojekter, som ville være til fordel for begge nationers økonomier. Igen en win-win-løsning. Denne handelskrig er meget farlig. Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i dag, at dette er noget, der ikke blot er protektionisme; dette skal på ingen måde fortolkes som en god politik. Dette er faktisk meget farligt i det nuværende strategiske og økonomiske miljø. 

Her følger engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet:

 

THE SINGAPORE MODEL MUST BE APPLIED GLOBALLY

LaRouche PAC International Webcast for Friday, June 22, 2018

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon! It’s June 22, 2018. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our Friday evening
broadcast from larouchepac.com.
As you can see, the title of our show today is “The
Singapore Model Must Be Applied Globally”. As our viewers know,
and as we discussed extensively on Monday, Helga Zepp-LaRouche
has issued a statement for wide circulation in which she praises
the breakthrough which occurred in Singapore in the summit
between President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un, as you can see
depicted in this picture here [Fig. 1]. She said, “You have to
realize that this is an enormous breakthrough. You saw
yesterday’s adversaries becoming tomorrow’s friends,” as Donald
Trump said many times during his trip to Singapore. This was done
through shared and mutually beneficial win-win agreements. This
is both between the United States and North Korea; but also take
note, this is between the Republic of Korea — South Korea — and
North Korea, otherwise known as the DPRK. What Helga
Zepp-LaRouche did in this statement is that she called for this
model to be applied to other adversarial situations in order to
unlock similar win-win solutions. Crises which, if you looked at
them just in the small, in the regional setting, would seem
intractable and insoluble; but as soon as you bring in a new
dimension, as was done in the case of the Korean Peninsula, those
crises can be unlocked and new solutions are available on the
table. That new dimension is emphatically the One Belt, One Road
initiative; the New Paradigm that China has championed.
Development truly is the new name for peace.
What Helga Zepp-LaRouche did in this statement is that she
called to apply this model, the Singapore model, to the situation
in Europe in which the entire so-called alliance, the European
alliance, the European Union, is disintegrating into disunity and
chaos over what seems like in the small to be a completely
insoluble and intractable refugee crisis. Instead, Helga LaRouche
recommended that the EU immediately host a summit between the
leading European countries, African leaders, and Chinese
President Xi Jinping, in order to initiate a process of
collaborative economic development in Africa in order to resolve
the problems of poverty and warfare which are the root causes of
the mass migration into Europe of Africans seeking to escape this
situation. Now this solution would be instantly credible among
the African nations, due to the good will which now exists
towards China on the African continent because of the economic
development projects which China has already undertaken there in
the form of the extended Belt and Road Initiative.
Now, let’s take a look at the United States. That exact same
model can be applied to the migration issue here in the Americas
in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Instead of attempting
to address the symptoms, if we instead use the Singapore model to
address the root cause of this crisis, we can resolve it. It
cannot be resolved within its own terms, but it can be resolved
if you introduce a new dimension to this geometry. Whole portions
of Central and South America have been destroyed by
race-to-the-bottom cheap labor policies, free trade, looting by
Wall Street vulture funds; and emphatically widespread violence
and ungovernability because of drug cartels and the drug gangs
that they spawn, many of whom launder their drug money through
these very same Wall Street banks. This is the swamp which must
be drained through an immediate reinstitution of Glass-Steagall,
which would shut down these criminal enterprises of money
laundering and dark money. Instead, adopting Lyndon LaRouche’s
Four Economic Laws to increase the productivity of labor here in
the United States, and bring the United States into this New
Paradigm of economic development. But also, it would serve as a
bridge to bring the entire Belt and Road Initiative into the
Americas as a whole. The New Silk Road could be extended through
a Bering Strait tunnel project connecting Eurasia to North
America. That entire high-speed rail network and otherwise, can
then be extended southward into Central and South America. This
should be the subject of an immediate summit between President
Trump and President Xi Jinping, along with other heads of state
and leaders of the sovereign nations of Central and South
America. This would be the means to resolve the brewing trade war
between the United States and China, by eliminating the so-called
trade imbalance through third-party development projects which
would benefit the economies of both nations. Again, a win-win
solution. This trade war is very dangerous. Helga Zepp-LaRouche
emphasized today that this is something which is not mere
protectionism; this is not in any way to be construed as a good
policy. In fact, this is very dangerous in the current strategic
and economic environment.
But if you take a look at this application of the Singapore
model, bring China in on it. The United States and China in
collaboration can help develop these countries of Central
America, South America, and the Caribbean. China has immense
credibility in South America right now as well, just like in
Africa. Indeed, we’re seeing numerous Latin American nations
already in the process of officially aligning themselves with
China on the Belt and Road Initiative. For example, you can see
in this picture here [Fig. 2], Bolivian President Eva Morales
travelled to Beijing this week to meet personally with President
Xi Jinping. They signed several commitments for trade and
economic development collaboration, including a commitment for
collaboration on the Belt and Road. Morales elevated the status
of the bilateral relationship between China and Bolivia to the
level of “strategic association”; which he had also just done
during a trip which he had just concluded immediately preceding
his trip to China, during a state trip to Russia. During which,
he and President Putin also had elevated their relations to the
status of a strategic association; which Morales also indicating
his interest in allying Bolivia with the Eurasian Economic Union
as well.
Now in China during this trip, President Morales signed a
document which committed Bolivia to collaborating with China to
jointly build the Belt and Road Initiative, saying that this will
mean economic development and peace throughout the continent and
expressing that it is his hope that by working together with
China to build the Belt and Road, this would also contribute to
expanding cooperation between China and Ibero-America in general.
Which sentiment President Xi seconded, saying that the Belt and
Road offers a new platform by which China’s relations with
Ibero-America as a whole can be strengthened. So, this is very
significant. This is just one example of these nations of Central
and South America realigning themselves away from this failing
trans-Atlantic system and towards this new emerging Eurasian
system with both China and also with Russia.
At the same time President Morales was in China, also there
was a delegation from the Dominican Republic who were also
discussing economic development projects in the Dominican
Republic; specifically ports, highways, sanitation projects,
urban development. But also discussing broader development and
trade cooperation between China and the Caribbean generally. Were
this collaboration to be generalized across the entire region,
and also if the United States were to come onboard as a full
participant in this development vision, this — and only this —
would address the root cause of the current migration crisis
which we are observing. Ending the poverty and ending this cycle
of violence which is driving millions of people to flee their
homelands. At present, 200 million out of the current 650 million
people who live in Ibero-America as a whole and the Caribbean,
200 million live in poverty; which could all be changed through
this sort of vision. Remember, China’s vision is to eliminate
poverty in China in a few short years. Why could this commitment
not also be extended to other regions of the world that are in
desperate need of that kind of vision? Again, the New Paradigm of
the New Silk Road spirit is the key here to unlock this seemingly
intractable crisis now plaguing the Western Hemisphere; just as
in the case of the Middle East, of Africa as we discussed
previously, and as we observed in the up-to-this-point successful
solution which has now been committed to in North Korea.
Thus, the Singapore model should be applied to the entire
world. This breakthrough, what we just observed in North Korea,
represents an entirely new era of possibility. And indeed, as
President Trump said, the past does not define the future;
everything now has changed. But we need to seize this
opportunity. As we’ve discussed, this vision — what we just
discussed with the case of Europe, China, and Africa, and also
this case of the United States, China, and South America — this
vision is by no means impossible. In the wake of his success in
North Korea, President Trump now seems committed to continue to
kick over the British geopolitical chessboard, and usher in an
entirely new paradigm of relations among nations. The premier
example of this, of course, is his upcoming summit with Russian
President Vladimir Putin; which by all indications seems to be in
the process of being planned for some time during the month of
July — possibly coinciding with President Trump’s trip to Europe
for the NATO heads of state meeting. This prospect has sent the
entire British geopolitical establishment into absolute hysteria.
Take for example, this article [Fig. 3] which just appeared in
the Times of London under the title, “Trump and Putin Plan
Talks during Europe Trip”. You can see here the subtitle is,
“Alarm in Whitehall ahead of NATO Summit.” This is what the
article has to say:
“Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are preparing to meet
during the US president’s visit to Europe next month in a move
that is causing alarm in Whitehall.
“The prospect is adding to fears over Mr. Trump’s commitment
to NATO and the effect on his trip to Britain….
“The prospect of a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin
appalls British officials. ‘It’s unclear if this meeting is after
or before NATO and the UK visit. Obviously after would be better
for us,’ a Whitehall official said. ‘It adds another dynamic to
an already colorful week.’…
“A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin
meeting before the NATO summit would cause ‘dismay and alarm’,
adding: ‘It would be a highly negative thing to do.’
“NATO is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter
Russian aggression. ‘Everyone is perturbed by what is going on
and is fearing for the future of the alliance,’ a Whitehall
source said.”
So you can see, absolute hysterics on the part of the
British geopolitical establishment. They fear what President
Trump could commit to with President Putin, and that indeed, the
end is nigh for this entire NATO, anti-Russia, British
geopolitical regime in Europe and the United States. Now what
we’re seeing is a mortal threat to British geopolitics. We’re
seeing in many instances a new era beginning to emerge. None of
these cases should be taken in isolation; but in fact, we should
see that the entire global strategic geometry is in fact in the
process of a rapid change and a complete realignment of nations
is in the process. This is really the fear that the geopolitical
establishment has had since the very beginning of President
Trump’s Presidency; that he could be a loose cannon. He won’t be
an Obama or a Bush, who were just following their orders.
Instead, he will assert the sovereignty of the United States and
he’ll pursue an entirely new alignment among the great powers.
That’s what we’re seeing: Collaboration among the United States,
Russia, and China. This has been the key in the breakthrough in
Korea, and it remains the key to unlocking the other outstanding
problems that are facing the world.
In the immediate aftermath of the breakthrough in Singapore,
South Korean President Moon Jae-in also made a three-day state
visit to Russia, to discuss the outcome of the summit and to
discuss the path forward; including how North Korea, South Korea,
and Russia will have a future relationship. This trip included a
bilateral meeting between himself and Russian President Vladimir
Putin. During this trip, Moon addressed the State Duma, making
him the very first South Korean head of state to have ever done
so. He urged a trilateral alliance between South Korea, North
Korea, and Russia; and he urged Russia to “join a northeast Asian
economic community” amid an historic paradigm shift on the Korean
Peninsula. So, this article [Fig. 4] that you’re now seeing on
the screen, titled “Moon Promotes Trilateral Ties in Russia”,
reported extensively on this trip. This is what this article had
to say:
“President Moon Jae-in urged Russia to join a Northeast
Asian economic community amid ‘a historic paradigm shift on the
Korean Peninsula’ in a speech to the Russian legislature, the
first by a South Korean leader, in Moscow on Thursday.
” ‘When a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula is
established, economic cooperation between North and South Korea
will become regularized and expand to trilateral cooperation
involving Russia,’ Moon said before the State Duma, the Russian
legislature’s lower house.
“On Thursday, Moon kicked off a three-day state visit to
Russia, the first by a South Korean president since Kim
Dae-jung’s trip in 1999.
“In his speech to the Duma, Moon mentioned his first summit
with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in April and the result of
that meeting, the Panmunjom Declaration. He also touched on the
subsequent North-U.S. summit, the first ever between the leaders
of both countries, earlier this month.
“South Korea and Russia are already researching and
discussing trilateral cooperation in rail, gas and electricity,
Moon said, adding that cooperation in these areas can create ‘a
strong foundation for a Northeast Asia joint economic community.’
” ‘A stable peace regime between South and North Korea will
enable the advancement of a multilateral peace and security
cooperation regime in Northeast Asia,’ Moon said.
“The president called for expanding technological
cooperation with Russia, which is leading in basic science.
Combined with Korea’s strength in information technology, the two
countries can ‘jointly lead the way toward a new era of the
fourth industrial revolution.’
“He also emphasized the development of Russia’s Far East
region. At the Eastern Economic Forum last year, Moon proposed
building ‘nine bridges’ between South Korea and Russia in gas,
rail, electricity, shipbuilding, job creation, the Northern Sea
Route, seaports, agriculture and fishing.
“Moon also shared his so-called New Northern Policy aimed at
creating an economic region that connects Korea to the Russian
Far East, Northeast Asia and eventually Europe.
” ‘The Korean people desire peace and co-prosperity not only
on the Korean Peninsula but all of Northeast Asia,’ Moon said.”
That article also notes that Moon will be attending the
South Korea versus Mexico World Cup game during his visit to
Russia. But here you can see a second article [Fig. 5] which was
published in the {Korea Herald}, which also reports on the trip;
including some extensive quotes from President Moon’s speech. So,
let me just share this quote, which I think really makes clear
what his vision is:
“There is a grand historic transition underway on the Korean
Peninsula. Now the two Koreas step toward the era of peace and
cooperation, leaving behind the times of war and confrontation.
Once a peace regime is established on the Korean Peninsula that
is when an era of South-North economic cooperation will take off
in earnest. I believe it must be a three-way cooperation that
includes Russia. In the case of railways, when those of South and
North Korea are connected, and the cross-border railways are
linked with Russia’s Trans-Siberian Railway, direct shipment of
goods from South Korea to Europe will be possible. This will be a
great economic gain to North Korea as well as South Korea. And of
course, it will be a great help to Russia, too. Also, in the case
of Russian gas, Russia’s natural gas can be supplied to North
Korea through a gas pipeline, and to South Korea and to Japan
through a sea underwater pipeline.”
So, this is a beautiful vision of what the future of this
region can be, and you can see he also included the role of Japan
in this. But this kind of connectivity, connecting South Korea
through North Korea and then via the Trans-Siberian Railway all
the way to Europe; this is the vision which has been what the
LaRouche movement has promoted for decades, as the Eurasian
Land-Bridge or this New Silk Road. Specifically this vision to be
able to travel from the very tip of South Korea all the way to
the coast of Europe on the Atlantic. This kind of vision is now a
possibility, a very strong possibility because of the peace that
was established on the Korean Peninsula through the efforts of
President Moon, Chairman Kim, President Trump, and also the role
that Russia and China both played in that process. So you can see
that this is win-win economic development as the pathway towards
peace.
At the same time that President Moon was in Russia, his
counterpart, Chairman Kim Jong-un of North Korea was in China;
really, literally at exactly the same time. This was Kim
Jong-un’s third trip to China in just the past few months, and he
met directly with President Xi Jinping once again. The {Global
Times} has an article [Fig. 6] which is titled “Kim’s China
Visits Cement Friendly Ties”. This article published in the
{Global Times} reports extensively on Kim Jong-un’s trip to China
this past week. Here’s what this article had to say:
“Kim’s visit might also foreshadow Pyongyang’s shift to
economic revival as North Korea has the need to learn from
China’s experience on establishing special economic zones and
reform and opening up. A group from the Workers’ Party of Korea
visited China on May 16 to observe the country’s economy,
agriculture and technology. It shows that North Korea is trying
to learn the experiences of economic development from other
countries. With its current system, it is very much possible that
North Korea learns from China and Singapore…. There is no doubt
that North Korea will take economic development as its central
task in the future….
“The crux of the regional integration in Northeast Asia is
the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue and its peace regime. With
China promoting the Belt and Road Initiative, North Korea could
be an important country connecting Europe in the west and Japan
in the east. Kim’s visit not only shows North Korea’s friendly
relations with China, but also reflects the urgent need to
consolidate the hard-earned achievements on the peninsula after
the Kim-Trump summit…. [P]eace and stability on the peninsula
will promote North Korea’s economy and help regional integration
in Northeast Asia and even in the Asia-Pacific.”
So once again, you can see this emphasis on regional
integration. {Xinhua}, another Chinese newspaper, in its report
of this meeting between Chairman Kim and President Xi Jinping,
listed two of the sites which Chairman Kim visited in the Beijing
area during this trip there. Both of them are critical to North
Korea’s development. One was a Beijing rail traffic control
center; and the other was a national agricultural technology
innovation park under the Chinese Academy of Agricultural
Sciences. So, this is the future of North Korea looks like,
emulating what China has been able to accomplish in its great
economic miracle, and integrating into this entire region and
ultimately into the entire extended Belt and Road Initiative
globally. So once again, this is an example of economic
development as the path to peace.
Now, Helga LaRouche addressed this extensively during her
webcast yesterday, and she emphasized, as we said at the
beginning of this broadcast today, that what has occurred at the
Singapore summit has unlocked the possibility of similar
strategic miracles that could take place elsewhere globally. And
that this Singapore model is exactly what should be applied both
in the case of what we’re talking about with Europe and Africa,
but also as you’ll see her elaborate more extensively here, in
the case of China, the United States, and Central and South
America. So, let me play that clip from Helga LaRouche’s
broadcast for you now.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

: It is sort of obvious, that if
President Trump and President Kim Jong-Un are able to complete
transform a very dangerous situation around North Korea within a
few months, into the total opposite, from the danger of being the
trigger point of World War III, to the absolutely hopeful
perspective that North Korea can be integrated into the Belt and
Road Initiative, with the support of the United States, China and
also Russia; by basically promising security guarantees, lifting
eventually the sanctions, denuclearize completely, integrating
North Korea with the Belt and Road Initiative making it a
prosperous country, these were really groundbreaking
developments. And as President Trump had said in his press
conference, “the past does not determine the future.”
That is obviously the proof that you can turn the worst
situation around if you have an inspiration, a vision, and the
political will to do so….
I think that the meeting between Putin and Trump is
obviously the next important item on the strategic agenda. And I
think the fact that you have now active preparations for it, the
meeting could possibly take place in July, and possibly in
Vienna, is also the result of the fact that the Russiagate has
fallen apart. And as the Inspector General Horowitz said in the
Senate hearing, that this was only on the email scandal around
Hillary Clinton, that there was absolute, unprecedented bias on
the part of all of these people [involved in the Clinton
investigation] and that Trump was completely justified in firing
FBI Director Comey. So I think this has somehow freed Trump to
move forward on this front.
But let me raise another issue, because there are obviously
very bad escalations around this trade war. And tariffs which
have been imposed — I mean Trump altogether raised the
possibility of putting tariffs on $450 billion in imports from
China, and there are now countermeasures going into effect.
Tomorrow the EU will put in countermeasures. Already, such
countries as Turkey, Canada and Mexico are also putting up
tariffs, and there is a big danger of an escalating trade war.
All the media, from Russia, China, — the Chinese were very
indignant, saying this is completely counterproductive; this is a
lose-lose policy. There are many people who voted for Trump —
farmers and industrialists, who are now hit by the effects of
these tariffs and are in danger of going bankrupt. This is no
good.
And what we have proposed, and what I have proposed with the
Singapore approach, would be obviously a solution to this
problem. Because if the United States and China would engage in
joint ventures to develop Central America, Latin America, South
America, the trade volume could be increased so significantly, in
a multilateral way, that the trade imbalance could be overcome by
{increasing} the trade. I would like to get this message out, in
particular, to the voters of Trump who are affected by these
policies, the farmers, people who have cross-investments in part
in China, in part in the United States, who are in danger of
going bankrupt, and that a lot of jobs are in danger as well. I
would like to ask them to pick up this proposal, the Singapore
solution proposal and get it to Trump. Because I think there are
some ideologues in the Trump camp who are also anti-China and who
are extreme neo-liberal free-traders and they are giving him
advice which is really potentially turning his base away from
him.
So Trump could continue to have his excellent relations with
Xi Jinping, add to that an excellent relation to Putin; and then,
go in the direction what he has proven he can do already in
Singapore with North Korea, he could do the same approach —
naturally, the predicates are different, but the approach would
be the same: that you turn a bad policy, a lose-lose policy into
the opposite, and you go on a win-win cooperation. And the world
is urgently in need of such a policy change. I think it can be
done! The fact, that the Singapore summit took place, is the proof
that you can completely change a policy when it is leading
nowhere.
The West right now is really faced with this decision in
general, to either change policy, or collapse! And that is what
is at stake. So I would appeal to the Trump supporters to pick up
on this proposal and help us to turn this around.

OGDEN: So, this is a call to action from Helga LaRouche. As
she said, history can indeed be changed, but you need the
political will to do so. It’s our responsibility to do so, to
generate that political will. This is going to be done through an
educated leadership within the United States’ citizenry. To
conclude, what I’d like to do is to notify you, if you don’t
already know, that an 8-week class series on Lyndon LaRouche’s
method and economics will be beginning starting this weekend,
tomorrow, Saturday. This class series is an essential ingredient
if you intend to develop the kind of leadership which is
necessary to become a leading citizen in this nation right now,
and to understand the dynamics which are happening globally. As
you can see here, this class series, which is on Lyndon
LaRouche’s economic method, is what you need to know for the
future of mankind. The article which was published in this week’s
edition of {Executive Intelligence Review}, which sort of
previews this class series, has an extensive description by those
who will be leading the class series about the contents of this.
You can see here on the screen the article which was published on
this subject, and the text of the description of this upcoming
class series reads as follows:
“Starting June 22, LPAC will offer an eight-part class
series on the science of physical economy. Completely untaught in
American universities today — despite the work of 19th century
American economists Mathew and Henry Carey, Friedrich List, E.
Peshine Smith and many others — physical economy is the only
competent basis upon which a prosperous future for the United
States, or any other country, could be established. Originally
created by German scientist Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), and
advanced by Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton among
others, it was Lyndon LaRouche who achieved breakthroughs in
physical economy in the 1950s that allowed him to accurately
forecast, in nine different instances, crises in the financial
system and the economy, all of which could have been averted. As
a result of his documented success, today LaRouche’s ideas are
widely studied in China, Russia, and other countries.
“Shouldn’t these ideas be studied in the policy circles of
the United States?
“During and after his successful campaign for President,
Donald Trump called for implementing the American System of
economics, but he has done little so far to demonstrate a
scientific understanding of what that means in practice. Does he
have such an understanding? It is unclear. And yet a more
important question is, do you know what the American System of
economics is? Would you like to know all about real economics,
not money? Are you ready to fight to gain that knowledge?…
“In an eight-week course in LaRouche’s economics, you will
be challenged to question all of the accepted, but nonetheless
false, axiomatic assumptions which have wreaked economic havoc on
this nation and much of the rest of the world, increasingly since
World War II, and which continue to be an obstacle to the
creation of a New Paradigm of Global Peace based on Economic
Development. More importantly, you will learn the anti-entropic
scientific principles which underlie mankind’s limitless future.
Most importantly, by challenging and having the courage to change
your own axioms, you will be challenged to make the creation of
that New Paradigm the mission of your life.”
So, as you can see here, this is the screen, this is the
site at LaRouche PAC, the address is discover.LaRouchePAC.com.
You can sign up for this class series; you have to register for
it, and be a participant in this class series. Again, this begins
just this weekend. We are looking forward to the outcome of this
class series and to increasing the number of qualified,
intellectual leaders of this country, as we continue to watch the
world rapidly change.
Thank you very much for joining us here today, and please
stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Sikke en ekstraordinær uge! Som I ser her af vores grafik, så er titlen på aftenens udsendelse, “Det Nye Paradigme begynder: Fortiden definerer ikke fremtiden!” Og dette er selvfølgelig et fotografi fra det absolut ekstraordinære topmøde i Singapore mellem USA’s præsident Donald Trump og Nordkoreas leder Kim Jong-un. Dette møde, der gav langt mere positive resultater, end nogen kunne have forudset før den 12. juni, indvarsler begyndelsen til et Nyt Paradigme, afslutningen af geopolitik og fremkomsten af en ny filosofi for win-win-relationer mellem nationer og fred gennem økonomisk udvikling.

 

Engelsk udskrift:   

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, June 15, 2018

 

RSBA NEW PARADIGM BEGINS:

THE PAST DOES NOT DEFINE THE FUTURE!

 

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon.  It’s June 15, 2018.  My

name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re tuning in for our Friday

evening strategic webcast from larouchepac.com.

All I can say is, what an extraordinary week!  As you can

see here in our graphic, the title of our show today is “A New

Paradigm Begins!  The Past Does Not Define the Future.”  And this

is, of course, a photograph of the absolutely unprecedented

historic Singapore summit between President Trump of the United

States of America, and Chairman Kim Jong-un of North Korea, of

the DPRK.  This meeting, which rendered results which were far

more positive than anybody had expected going into this June 12th

summit, this meeting heralds the possibility of the beginning of

a New Paradigm; the end of geopolitics; and the emergence of a

new philosophy of win-win relations between nations, and peace

through economic development.  As President Trump himself said

repeatedly during his trip to Singapore throughout this summit,

“The past does not define the future.  Past conflicts do not have

to be tomorrow’s wars.  Adversaries can, indeed, become friends.”

We see that philosophy being put into practice with the events

that we all watched unfold in the Singapore summit between

President Trump and Kim Jong-un.

Now, this was not the only extraordinary event which

occurred this week.  At the very timely moment, over the course

of this past weekend, the week began with a conference which was

held in New York City under the title “Dona Nobis Pacem” — grant

us peace — through economic development.  This conference was

sponsored by the Schiller Institute.  This theme — grant us

peace through economic development — was exactly the theme that

we saw unfold in practice on the world stage over the course of

this week.  This conference was keynoted by Helga Zepp-LaRouche,

the founder and President of the Schiller Institute; but she was

joined on the first panel by Dmitry Polyanskiy, the First Deputy

Permanent Representative to the United Nations from the Russian

Federation, as well as — via video — Dr Xu Wenhong, who is the

Deputy Secretary General of Belt and Road Studies at the Chinese

Academy of Social Sciences.  They were also joined on the podium

by LaRouche PAC’s Jason Ross.  The second panel in this very

timely conference was opened by Dennis Speed, who spoke about the

LaRouche method; but then he was joined by James George Jatras,

former US diplomat and former advisor to Republican Senate

leadership.  He spoke on the urgency of an upcoming Trump-Putin

summit.  Then, Virginia State Senator Richard Black reported on

the strategic importance of victory, peace, and development in

Syria.

Now what I would like to do, just to give you a flavor of

how prescient and timely this conference over the course of last

weekend was, is play for you a short clip of the opening keynote

remarks from Helga Zepp-LaRouche.  So, here’s what Helga has to

say:

 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  , I’m actually very optimistic

about the situation.  I think there is the absolute possibility

that we will, in the very near term, see the emergence of a

completely New Paradigm of civilization.  Because already now the

majority of nations are all gathering around the idea that there

is the one humanity which is of a higher order than national

interests and even geopolitical confrontation.  Never before has

the contradiction and the openness of the fight between the New

Paradigm and the old paradigm been more obvious than right

now….

Now, the important changes which are taking place are best

illustrated or imaged with the two parallel conferences and

summits which are taking place this weekend.  One, the G-7 taking

place in Canada; and the other one, the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation

Organization] taking place in Qingdao in China.  The one, the

G-7, most of the countries, or at least some of the countries

want to defend the status quo of the neo-liberal, geopolitical

old paradigm; and the other summit, the Shanghai Cooperation

Organization, is typical for those nations which are trying to

establish a new order — a win-win cooperation of all nations on

this planet.  On the G-7 meeting, where Trump came late and he’s

leaving early, and he refused to meet the Prime Minister of Great

Britain, Theresa May — which I think is a good thing; to go as

quickly on to Singapore to have this summit with Kim Jong-un.  He

brought it to the point when he said that the combination of

people meeting at this G-7 meeting was really not the one which

should come together; but that Russia was missing, and it should

be the G-8 again.  He said this may not be politically not

correct to say it, but after all, we have a world to run.  I

think that that is exactly the spirit….

[T]he entire model of the world order as it developed after

the collapse of the Soviet Union, the idea to establish a

unipolar world to which all countries must submit, and those who

do not want to do that get regime change through color revolution

or even humanitarian intervention wars.  As it happened in Iraq,

in Libya, as it was attempted in Syria, and as it is ongoing in

the Ukraine.  Part of that world order was the idea to have an

encirclement of Russia and China, and in those two countries also

have ultimately regime change to get rid of President Putin and

to get rid of the Communist leadership of China; as unlikely a

proposition as this may be….

You have a new model of win-win cooperation, of acting in

the interest of the other, of respect of the sovereignty of the

other country, of non-interference, of respect for the different

social system of the other country, and of the idea to be united

for a higher purpose of all mankind.  Now that policy, which is

the result of China’s New Silk Road policy, which has now been on

the table for almost five years, which has developed the most

incredible dynamic ever.  It is the largest infrastructure

project in history, and it is already clear this will define the

new rules of the world….

This is actually the vision of my husband, Lyndon LaRouche,

who already in 2007 demanded that the three countries — Russia,

China, and India — absolutely must work together to counter the

evil influence of the British Empire as it existed at that time.

In 2009, at the Rhodes Forum of the Dialogue of Civilization,

demanded that the only way the world would get out of its present

condition would be a four-power agreement among the United

States, Russia, China, and India.

 

OGDEN:  So, that was a very short clip from Helga

Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote at this Schiller Institute conference in

New York City over the course of last weekend.  As you heard her

say, never before has the contrast between the old and the New

Paradigm been more clear for all the world to see.  She cited the

fact that, at the exact same time, there were two parallel

conferences that were occurring on the world stage.  We had the

counterpoint between these two conferences demonstrating the

counterpoint between these two paradigms.  You had the parallel

meetings of the G-7 in Canada on the one hand, and the SCO — the

Shanghai Cooperation Organization — in China on the other hand.

On the one hand, you had the practically irrelevant G-7 meeting;

I think this picture here [Fig. 1] sums it up.  You can see

President Trump leaving this summit; walking away.  He did indeed

go, but he showed up late, and he left early.  He didn’t even

stay the entire time because he had much more important business

to attend to in Singapore at this historic summit between himself

and Kim Jong-un.  He went on what he called a “mission of peace”.

How has this summit come about?  It wasn’t through this

dinosaur of the G-7.  It was brought about through a great powers

cooperation among the United States, China, Russia, South Korea,

Japan, and of course, Chairman Kim of North Korea.  So you can

see that this is the emergence of a Eurasian world; this is the

emergence of what you heard Helga Zepp-LaRouche refer to very

briefly there as Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas of the four powers

alliance shaping world history as we watch this play out.

Now the G-7 meeting itself was dominated by petty

geopolitics and squabbling between the representatives of the

nations of the bankrupt trans-Atlantic system.  There was no

unity among these nations.  They even discussed kicking the

United States out and turning themselves into the G-6; becoming

even more irrelevant.  But it’s doubtful that the G-7 as an

institution retains any clout or relevance at all.  This was

demonstrated by President Trump himself, who kicked over the

entire chessboard of this structure of so-called trans-Atlantic

elites.  And as Helga Zepp-LaRouche reported there in that clip

that we played, President Trump said that Russia should be

brought back into the grouping, should be allowed to rejoin, and

turn the G-7 back into what it had been as the G-8.  This is what

President Trump had to say during the course of the meeting of

the G-7 about the subject.  He said, “Having Russia back in the

G-8 would be good for the world.  Good for Russia, good for the

United States.  I think that it would be good for all of the

countries of the current G-7.  I think having Russia back in

would be a positive thing.  We’re looking for peace in the world,

we’re not looking to play games.  I would rather see Russia in

the G-8 as opposed to the G-7.  I would say that the G-8 is a

more meaningful group than the G-7, absolutely.”  So, that’s what

Trump said.

Now, you can see on the screen [Fig. 2] a tweet that was

sent out by the Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who just

came to power in Italy; Italy also being a member of the G-7.

Prime Minister Conte came out and agreed with President Trump.

This is what his tweet had to say, translated into English.  “I

agree with President Donald Trump.  Russia should go back to the

G-8.  It is in everyone’s interest.”  So, there you have at least

two of the seven members of the G-7 — the United States and

Italy — calling for Russia to be re-admitted.  Of course, Prime

Minister Conte is the new leader of the government in Italy; and

this is a very important developing story which we have talked

about previously on this show.  But the majority of the ministers

in the new Italian government of Prime Minister Conte are in

support of Glass-Steagall.  They have signed an open letter to

President Trump about a year ago, which was circulated by

Movisol, the {Movimento Internazionale per i Diritti Civili —

Solidarietà} in Italy.  This is the LaRouche movement’s sister

organization in Italy.  But this is the majority of those

ministers who have called for a reinstitution of Glass-Steagall,

so this is a very fluid, developing situation; and very positive.

Now, President Putin, fresh off of a highly significant

meeting with President Xi Jinping in China, was asked about Trump

and Prime Minister Conte calling for Russia to be allowed back

into the G-7, turning it back into the G-8.  He responded to this

with his typical sense of humor by inviting the G-7 member

nations to come have their next meeting in Russia, in Moscow.  He

also pointed out, however, that another meeting which was

occurring at the exact same time as the irrelevant G-7; this was

the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which was

far more significant in terms of economic power, and also in

terms of overall population.  In fact, in the aftermath of this

SCO summit, where you can see the photograph [Fig. 3] of the

nations that are involved, which includes Russia, China, India,

and a number of other Eurasian countries, in the aftermath of

this summit, the Chinese Foreign Minister pointed out that the

SCO represents 3.1 billion people on this planet.  That’s over

one-third and close to one-half of the world’s population.  He

said it already now represents a completely new system of

international relations, which is built on mutual trust, built on

cooperation, built on friendship, and on common aims.  He said

this is a new model that leaves behind and transcends the old

geopolitical order.

At this SCO summit itself, President Xi Jinping, who again I

said had just had a very significant meeting with President Putin

of Russia, President Xi made a very profound speech which sort of

kicked off the entire event.  He began this speech by citing the

universal idea of Confucius; stating that Confucianism is an

integral part of Chinese civilization.  And it believes that “a

just cause should be pursued for the common good.”  And he said

that this what the SCO is built on, this philosophy of harmony,

unity, and a shared interest, a shared community for all nations.

So, this is what President Xi Jinping went on to say:  “The

Shanghai spirit, a creative vision transcending outdated concepts

such as a clash of civilizations, Cold War, and zero-sum

mentality, has opened a new page in the history of international

relations; and gained increasing endorsement of the international

community.  The pursuit of cooperation for mutual benefit

represents a surging trend.  While we keep hearing such rhetoric

as the clash of civilizations or the superiority of one

civilization over another, it is the diversity of civilizations

that sustains human progress.  Indeed, mutual learning between

different cultures is a shared aspiration of all peoples.  We

should reject the Cold War mentality and confrontation between

blocs, and oppose the practice of seeking absolute security of

oneself at the expense of others, so as to achieve security of

all.  We should champion equality, mutual learning, dialogue, and

an inclusiveness between civilizations.  It is important that we

overcome cultural misunderstanding, clash, and supremacy through

exchanges, mutual learning and co-existence.”

So, that’s a beautiful summary of this New Paradigm, this

end of geopolitics, the end of zero-sum mentality, the end of

Cold War blocs, and the pursuit of hegemony.  Instead, I think a

declaration of exactly what this win-win cooperation means in the

eyes of President Xi Jinping.  So, the contrast could not be more

clear.  This contrast between the outdated geopolitics of the

G-7, and this New Paradigm of win-win which is represented there

at the SCO summit; but is also represented much more broadly in

these alliances in Eurasia and the idea of the One Belt, One Road

initiative.

But let me just come back to this exemplary case of the

developments in North Korea.  Here on the screen you can see the

historic handshake between President Trump and Chairman Kim

Jong-un.  So, let me just play for you a short, one-minute video

which was produced by the White House right after President Trump

returned from his trip to Singapore.  They put together this

video so you can see the highlights of this encounter between

these two leaders — President Trump of the United States of

America, and Chairman Kim of North Korea.  Here’s this short,

overview video; very exciting.

So, these images are absolutely

extraordinary.  Really, ask yourself: six months ago, did you

expect to see those kinds of video images actually happening in

real life?  This is an extraordinary summit and an extraordinary

moment in civilization.  In fact, if President Trump is able to

achieve peace with North Korea and build a relationship with the

leader of this country; in fact, they have actually announced

that at a certain point, Kim Jong-un will be invited for a state

visit to the United States, visiting the White House.  And

President Trump himself said that he would go to Pyongyang; he

would visit North Korea.  So, if President Trump is able to

achieve this peace and this new relationship, it will be the

greatest accomplishment of his Presidency so far.  In fact,

reports are in that two Norwegian parliamentarians have nominated

President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

During her webcast yesterday, Helga Zepp-LaRouche actually

began her discussion of this situation by citing that fact.  I

would like to play for you her first opening statements from that

webcast yesterday.  You can see the context in which she places

these extraordinary events in Singapore.

 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I’m actually quite pleased to

tell you, and you may know it already or not, that two Norwegian

parliamentarians have proposed to award Nobel Peace Prize for

President Trump.  Now, I find this very appropriate, in contrast

to the Nobel Peace Prize being given to Obama for absolutely

nothing, just the contrary.  But I think this development of

North Korea and the United States finding a way to completely

transform an old adversary relationship into one of cooperation

and a bright future, I think this is really a fantastic

development.  And I know that all the mainstream media of the

West are having apoplectic attacks over this, but if you look at

it, I think it is absolutely promising.

First of all, the facts you all know:  They agreed on the

complete denuclearization of North Korea, in return for the

prospect of making North Korea a prosperous and wealthy country.

Now, I find it very interesting that the White House,

between Trump and the National Security Council produced a

four-minute video, where the two options for North Korea were

portrayed:  One is the old status and war, or to have a complete

modernization of the country, with modern railway — they even

showed the Chinese maglev running, and people prosperous and

productive.  I think this was very good, because this video is

exactly what will happen, and it goes very far beyond a similar

video which was produced by South Korea in the past.  Trump

showed it to Kim Jong-un in the meetings, and then he also showed

it before giving his press conference.

I watched his entire press conference, and I must say, I

would advise all of you, our viewers, to do likewise. Because you

hear so much about Trump being this and that, and the way he

conducted himself in this lengthy press conference, fencing off

the most typical, old-fashioned thinking, questions from mainly

American journalists, he did not let himself be provoked — you

know, journalists try to ask him, “What will you do, what is your

punishment if North Korea does not comply?” but he wouldn’t go

into this trap; but he just said that he was very confident that

this process was on a good way.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0BWMd1R7wE]

And very important was that he also announced that the

United States would stop what he called the “war games,” the

U.S.-South Korea military maneuvers, and obviously, this is

psychologically very important for the North Koreans, because if

you have these war games on your doorstep all the time, this

creates a permanent psychological terror.

People who have to still form their judgment about how to

look at this, they should just consider that the South Korean

people were absolutely enthusiastic.  They were happy in the

streets.  President Moon, who watched the live stream coming from

the conference from Singapore, applauded several times.  And

given the fact that the German unification which took place now

almost 29 years ago, people in Germany may remember the absolute

jubilance and happiness of families hugging each other, who

haven’t been together for very many years; friends falling into

each other’s arms, and kissing each other.  And it was a joy!

That the German unification did not produce only happiness

afterwards had to do with the larger geo-strategic environment:

You know, like Bush, and Thatcher and Mitterrand they all were

extremely hostile to the process of German unification, and

therefore the East German states were practically economically

dismantled, pretty much.  And the environment in North Korea is

obviously completely different.

So I would like to just say that I’m very optimistic that

this process will succeed, for the very simple reason that this

is taking place in a completely different strategic context,

namely of the Belt and Road Initiative, the integration of the

Belt and Road Initiative with the Eurasian Economic Union, and

these kinds of economic development plans, which also Russia

spoke about and China said they would contribute, and also

together with the United States take over security guarantees for

North Korea, these economic plans take place in the context of

the intention to develop the Far East of Russia, to integrate it

with all of Asia, which was discussed at the Eastern Economic

Forum in Vladivostok last September, and it was also discussed in

the inter-Korean dialogue in April between the two Presidents of

the two Koreas.

So I think the perspective that North Korea, soon, will be

integrated into the Eurasian transport system, the two railways

connecting to the Trans-Siberian Railway, to the Chinese railway

system, and that you will have a complete transformation of this

part of the world.  And I think Trump is absolutely right:  He

said the past does not determine the future.  Real change is

possible.  And I think this is a very good development, and all

the nay-sayers they should just go home and think.

 

OGDEN:  As you just heard Helga Zepp-LaRouche say, the

possibility of peace and these extremely positive developments

that we’re seeing in North Korea, is possible only because of the

emergence of this New Silk Road spirit.  The connectivity between

South Korea, North Korea, China, and Russia through these

high-speed rail corridors and these other economic development

projects, this was the basis on which President Trump could

travel to Singapore, sit down with Kim Jong-un, and say look, the

future is brighter than what has come before.  If we put away the

story of conflict and if we end this legacy of generation upon

generation of warfare, and the threat of thermonuclear war, and

embrace instead this new era of economic development; then the

future of the North Korean people will be bright, and the future

of the entire world will be bright.  So, it’s this context of the

New Silk Road; this is the difference between what’s occurring

now with North and South Korea versus what occurred back in 1989,

1990 with West and East Germany.  You didn’t have that context at

that point, although it was at that moment that the World

Land-Bridge or this New Silk Road idea was born, and the seed of

what we now see culminating was planted.  This was Lyndon and

Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s idea first of the development of the

Productive Triangle; bringing together Eastern and Western Europe

for the rapid economic development of the East, the former Soviet

bloc.  That was quickly expanded to bring in the entirety of

Eurasia with this New Silk Road idea.  That is what we now see

playing out and giving the context and the possibility for these

positive developments in North Korea.

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche cited in that video clip, President

Trump played a short video, which I think sums up this vision.

It was like a trailer.  It was put together by a team, and it was

posted on the White House Facebook page.  He played this for

Chairman Kim in their meeting.  They sat down and watched this

video together, and I think it illustrates the contrast between

what has occurred up to now with the status quo, and what would

be possible if you believe in this idea that the past does not

necessarily have to define the future.  So, I would like to play

for you what President Trump played for Chairman Kim Jong-un at

the beginning of their summit in Singapore.  So, here’s that

video.

 

NARRATOR

:  Seven billion people inhabit planet

Earth.  Of those alive today, only a small number will leave a

lasting impact, and only the very few will make decisions or take

actions that renew their homeland and change the course of

history.

History may appear to repeat itself for generations, cycles

that never seem to end. There have been times of relative peace,

and times of great tension.  While this cycle repeats, the light

of prosperity and innovation has burned bright for most of the

world.

History is always evolving.  And there comes a time when

only a few are called upon to make a difference. But the question

is:  What difference will the few make? The past doesn’t have to

be the future.  Out of the darkness can come the light, and the

light of hope can burn bright.

What if?

A people that share a common and rich heritage can find a

common future?  Their story is well known, but what will be their

sequel?

Destiny Pictures presents: A story of opportunity, a new

story, a new beginning.  One of peace.  Two men, two leaders, one

destiny.

A story about a special moment in time when a man is

presented with one chance that may never be repeated.  What will

he choose?  To show vision and leadership?

Or, not?

There can only be two results.  One of moving back — or one

of moving forward.

A new world can begin today.  One of friendship, respect,

and good will.  Be part of that world, where the doors of

opportunity are ready to be opened:  Investment from around the

world, where you can have medical breakthroughs and abundance of

resources, innovative technology, and new discoveries.

What if?

Can history be changed?  Will the world embrace this change?

And when could this moment in history begin?

It comes down to a choice, on this day, in this time, at

this moment.  The world will be watching, listening,

anticipating, hoping.  Will this leader choose to advance his

country and be part of a new world?  Be the hero of his people?

Will he shake the hand of peace and enjoy prosperity like he has

never seen?

A great life?  Or, more isolation?  Which path will be

chosen?

Featuring President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un,

in a meeting to remake history, to shine in the sun — one

moment, one choice.

What if?

The future remains to be written.

 

OGDEN:  So this is a very inspirational video.  As it said

right there at the end, “The future remains to be written.”  It

asks the question, can history be changed?  What choice are we

going to make?  What pathway will we follow?  Very importantly,

it says, the past does not define the future.  You could see

those shots of the Chinese maglev train; this is very well in the

future of the Korean Peninsula.  You could also see that

beautiful shot of the Korean Peninsula at night.  Currently,

South Korea, below the line of demarcation, is very developed

with lights and modern cities.  North Korea is very

under-developed.  But then all of a sudden, you could see the

vision of the future with the North Korea portion lit up just the

same as South Korea, China, and Russia.  So, this is an

extraordinary image or vision, and you can see what’s in the

minds of President Trump and others at the White House going into

this summit.

Immediately after President Trump signed these agreements

with Chairman Kim Jong-un, he held a press availability.  Helga

Zepp-LaRouche mentioned this, and encouraged that people actually

watch this press conference in full.  But in the beginning of

this press conference, he played that entire video that you just

saw for the representatives of the press corps who were in the

room, in order to set the tone of what this press conference

would be about.  He played that before he took the stage, and

then he immediately came on stage and reported on what he had

just accomplished in his meetings with Chairman Kim Jong-un.  I’m

not going to play the entirety of this hour-long press conference

for you, but I’m going to play for you just a couple of key

excerpts from President Trump’s opening remarks.

 

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

:  Well, thank you very much,

everybody.  We appreciate it.  We’re getting ready to go back.

We had a tremendous 24 hours.  We’ve had a tremendous three

months, actually, because this has been going on for quite a

while.  That was a tape that we gave to Chairman Kim and his

people, his representatives.  And it captures a lot.  It captures

what could be done.  And that’s a great — a great place.  It has

the potential to be an incredible place.  Between South Korea —

if you think about it — and China, it’s got tremendous

potential.  And I think he understands that and he wants to do

what’s right.

It’s my honor today to address the people of the world,

following this very historic summit with Chairman Kim Jong Un of

North Korea.  We spent very intensive hours together, and I think

most of you have gotten the signed document, or you will very

shortly.  It’s very comprehensive.  It’s going to happen.

I stand before you as an emissary of the American people to

deliver a message of hope and vision, and a message of peace….

I also want to thank President Moon of South Korea.  He’s

working hard.  In fact, I’ll be speaking to him right after we’re

finished.  Prime Minister Abe of Japan — a friend of mine —

just left our country, and he wants what’s right for Japan and

for the world.  He’s a good man.  And a very special person,

President Xi of China, who has really closed up that border —

maybe a little bit less so over the last couple of months, but

that’s okay.  But he really has.  And he’s a terrific person and

a friend of mine, and really a great leader of his people.  I

want to thank them for their efforts to help us get to this very

historic day.

Most importantly, I want to thank Chairman Kim for taking

the first bold step toward a bright new future for his people.

Our unprecedented meeting — the first between an American

President and a leader of North Korea — proves that real change

is indeed possible.

My meeting with Chairman Kim was honest, direct, and

productive.  We got to know each other well in a very confined

period of time, under very strong, strong circumstance.  We’re

prepared to start a new history and we’re ready to write a new

chapter between our nations.

Nearly 70 years ago — think of that; 70 years ago — an

extremely bloody conflict ravaged the Korean Peninsula.

Countless people died in the conflict, including tens of

thousands of brave Americans.  Yet, while the armistice was

agreed to, the war never ended.  To this day, never ended.  But

now we can all have hope that it will soon end.  And it will.  It

will soon end.

The past does not have to define the future.  Yesterday’s

conflict does not have to be tomorrow’s war.  And as history has

proven over and over again, adversaries can indeed become

friends.  We can honor the sacrifice of our forefathers by

replacing the horrors of battle with the blessings of peace.  And

that’s what we’re doing and that’s what we have done.

There is no limit to what North Korea can achieve when it

gives up its nuclear weapons and embraces commerce and engagement

with the rest of the world — that really wants to engage.

Chairman Kim has before him an opportunity like no other: to be

remembered as the leader who ushered in a glorious new era of

security and prosperity for his people.

Chairman Kim and I just signed a joint statement in which he

reaffirmed his “unwavering commitment to complete

denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”  We also agreed to

vigorous negotiations to implement the agreement as soon as

possible.  And he wants to do that.  This isn’t the past.  This

isn’t another administration that never got it started and

therefore never got it done.

Chairman Kim has told me that North Korea is already

destroying a major missile engine testing site.  That’s not in

your signed document; we agreed to that after the agreement was

signed.  That’s a big thing — for the missiles that they were

testing, the site is going to be destroyed very soon.

Today is the beginning of an arduous process.  Our eyes are

wide open, but peace is always worth the effort, especially in

this case.  This should have been done years ago.  This should

have been resolved a long time ago, but we’re resolving it now.

Chairman Kim has the chance to seize an incredible future

for his people.  Anyone can make war, but only the most

courageous can make peace.

The current state of affairs cannot endure forever.  The

people of Korea — North and South — are profoundly talented,

industrious, and gifted.  These are truly gifted people.  They

share the same heritage, language, customs, culture, and destiny.

But to realize their amazing destiny, to reunite their national

family, the menace of nuclear weapons will now be removed.

In the meantime, the sanctions will remain in effect.  We

dream of a future where all Koreans can live together in harmony,

where families are reunited and hopes are reborn, and where the

light of peace chases away the darkness of war.  This bright

future is within — and this is what’s happening.  It is right

there.  It’s within our reach.  It’s going to be there.  It’s

going to happen.  People thought this could never take place.  It

is now taking place.  It’s a very great day.  It’s a very great

moment in the history of the world.

And Chairman Kim is on his way back to North Korea.  And I

know for a fact, as soon as he arrives, he’s going to start a

process that’s going to make a lot of people very happy and very

safe….

[I]f I can save millions of lives by coming here, sitting

down, and establishing a relationship with someone who’s a very

powerful man, who’s got firm control of a country, and that

country has very powerful nuclear weapons, it’s my honor to do

it.

 

OGDEN:  So once again, this is just absolutely incredible.

This is an unprecedented moment in history.  As President Trump

said right there, people thought that this could never happen,

people thought that this was impossible.  But now, the impossible

has become real.  This is now in fact happening.  I think in a

very profound statement, he said, “Anyone can make war, but only

the most courageous can make peace.”  So, let me return one more

time to one of the portions of those remarks, and let me just

read this back to you once again.  This is what President Trump

just said, you heard him say this:  “The past does not have to

define the future.  Yesterday’s conflict does not have to be

tomorrow’s war.  And as history has proven over and over again,

adversaries can indeed become friends.  We can honor the

sacrifice of our forefathers by replacing the horrors of battle

with the blessings of peace.”

So, I think that’s an extraordinary and beautiful expression

of what this New Paradigm among nations can be.  This is

actually, if you think about it, the spirit of the Treaty of

Westphalia; this Thirty Years’ War, which was generation upon

generation of endless war among the people of Europe.  It was

just never-ending, and no one could see the end of it.  This was

brought to an end by the Treaty of Westphalia, which said forgive

and forget, and honor the past by creating a new future based on

the spirit of mutual benefit between these nations.  This is,

again, what is necessary today; a new Treaty of Westphalia.

Lyndon LaRouche elaborated that in his historic book, {Earth’s

Next Fifty Years; The Coming Eurasian World”, which was published

over a decade ago, where he called for a new Treaty of

Westphalia.  This expression of a very important understanding of

how in fact history is made; that history can be changed, and

that the past does not have to define the future.  This is the

kind of leadership which President Trump is bringing to the stage

right now.  But this is the kind of leadership which is necessary

to save civilization and to put the entire world on a new path.

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche has said, a path towards win-win

relationships and a future of common destiny of all mankind.

This has been an absolutely incredible week, and I think

we’ve witnessed history unfold.  It’s very important to recognize

that the ideas of the LaRouche movement are right there in the

middle of what we’re watching unfold.  That’s why I began with

this conference which was held up in New York City; Peace Through

Economic Development.  If you go back and you look at the entire

context of what has now become possible because of this idea

which has become actuality, of the New Silk Road and this spirit

of win-win cooperation, this Four Powers agreement among great

powers on this planet; these are the ideas that have, indeed,

shaped history and our responsibility could not be greater than

at this crucial turning point in civilization right now.

So, thank you very much for tuning in, and I’m sure we’re

going to see a lot more occurring over the coming days and weeks.

So, please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

 

 

I historiens løb kan man, om end det er sjældent, undertiden se en meget stærk kraft, som man kunne kalde poetisk retfærdighed, være virksom. I denne uge har vi set, at begivenhederne har udviklet sig på en måde, som meget vel kunne nå op på niveauet for poetisk retfærdighed.

Engelsk udskrift:

SPYGATE: WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND.
THE ERINYES ARE AT WORK!

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon.  It’s May 25, 2018.  My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly Friday
evening broadcast from larouchepac.com.
Sometimes in the course of history, if even rarely, one can
see at work a very powerful force of what could be called poetic
justice.  This week, we’ve seen a turn of events which very well
could be seen as rising to the level of poetic justice.  As the
title of our webcast here today reads, “Spygate: What Goes
Around, Comes Around.  The Erinyes Are at Work!”  Now revelations
have come out that the FBI and other Obama-era intelligence and
law enforcement had colluded with British intelligence to embed
an informant — or a spy as President Trump has characterized it
— inside the Donald Trump for President campaign in 2016.  When
news of this dramatic story first broke last Friday, a week ago
today, President Trump issued the following tweet: “Wow! Word
seems coming out that the Obama FBI spied on the Trump campaign
with an embedded informant, Andrew McCarthy says.  There’s
probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential
informant in the campaign.  If so, this is bigger than
Watergate.”  Then President Trump followed that up with another
tweet the following day, saying “Reports are that there was
indeed at least one FBI representative implanted for political
purposes into my campaign for President.  It took place very
early on and long before the phony Russia hoax became a hot fake
news story.  If true, all time biggest political scandal.”  Now,
in fact, it is now coming out that these reports are, indeed,
true; and that this very well could be, as President Trump
characterized it, one of the biggest political scandals in recent
history, and yes, indeed, even bigger than Watergate.
Earlier this week, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in reviewing this
swiftly developing story, had the following remarks to say.  She
said: “If you look at how this thing has turned, it started as
one thing — Russia-gate — and now, it has become Spygate.  I
think the Erinyes are already at work.”  Now this, of course, is
a reference to the ancient Greek mythological figures also known
as the Furies; famously depicted in the poem by the poet
Friedrich Schiller — “The Cranes of Ibykus” — as the force of
nemesis.  The almost supernatural enforcers of a higher order of
justice.  In his letters, Friedrich Schiller discussed the
figures of the Erinyes, and he described them in this way:
“There is not in the Greek mythology a more terrible, and at the
same time more hideous picture, than the Furies, or the Erinyes;
quitting the infernal regions to throw themselves in the pursuit
of a criminal.  They are shown to us brandishing torches in their
hands, and chasing their prey without peace or truce, from
country to country until at last, the anger of justice being
appeased, they engulf themselves in the abyss of the infernal
regions.”  So Schiller invoked this idea of the Erinyes, this
force of nemesis, this force of poetic justice which is serving a
higher order of justice.  When justice among men is not served,
this higher order of justice intervenes, if you will.  In his
poetry, as in the case of “The Cranes of Ibykus”, Schiller
invoked this mythological figure in order to be the vehicle for
this idea of a higher order of justice.  He did so in a different
way in his play “William Tell”, in which he evoked the American
revolutionary idea of natural law and the inalienable rights of
man; which he said in that play are “as indestructible as the
stars themselves.”
Now, this was the idea which built the American republic.
This is in the blood of the American people.  I think as the
truth of what has occurred in the course of this scandal, that
President Trump has correctly identified as potentially “bigger
than Watergate”; as the truth of this comes out — including the
role of the British, who of course we declared our independence
from during that American Revolution.  This will get into the
blood of the American people, and will get under their skin in a
way where you will see the awakening of this kind of justified
fury, and a call that we must take our Constitution and our
republic back.
In her webcast yesterday, Thursday this week, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche exactly what we’re seeing now.  She brought up this
series of tweets that President Trump has issued and has
continued to issue in the days following, and indeed, said that
this is a scandal which is beyond the magnitude that we’ve seen
in recent years.  She predicted that if this continues in the
direction that it has, we will indeed see the mask falling away,
and the exposure of exactly what kind of criminality has occurred
in the course of this entire Russia-gate hoax.  So, let me play
for you a clip from what Helga LaRouche had to say in her webcast
yesterday.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Yes.  As a matter of fact, if
you look at the recent tweets by President Trump, they are quite
to the point, namely that he said the “Russiagate” turned into
“Spygate,” that there was absolutely no proof of a collusion with
Russia, but that all the people involved in the coup, basically,
that they created a spider web of collusion between the heads of
the intelligence agencies of the Obama administration with
British intelligence, and that there was ongoing effort, even
before any investigation officially started, by British
intelligence figures to connect with all kinds of persons in the
Trump election team, to try to somehow involve them in some kind
of a connection with some Russians.  And all of this is coming
out now.
So there was long before the Trump election victory, or even
the nomination, the clear effort by British intelligence to lay
leads, to create paper trails to manufacture and orchestrate the
situation, whereby the so-called “collusion” with Russia was
supposed to be hung on the Trump campaign, and Trump himself.
And this is all now coming out.
This is now subject to public discussions.  For example, on
Monday, President Trump met with several intelligence heads — I
think it was [FBI head] Wray and Rosenstein from the Department
of Justice in the White House.  And today, as a follow-up of
that, Chief of Staff John Kelly is meeting with the CIA, the FBI,
the Department of Justice, together with congressmen — for
example, Congressman Nunes, Senator Grassley — and they’re now
having access to all the documents, including the memorandum of
Mueller, the memo defining the scope of Mueller’s investigation.
This will all now be made available to the investigative
committees in the Congress.  And obviously, this is all criminal
violations of law and the Constitution, so this is big!
I think Trump may absolutely be right when he says that this
may become the biggest scandal in the history of America. And
what is now clear, is that there was a task force involving an
institutional group of people, who orchestrated all of this, in
an election campaign, and Trump said, what was done against
Bernie Sanders also was done on a much larger scale against him.
When all of this comes out, I think the world will really be
a different place; and I think if President Trump is freed of
this spider web, I think you will see, he will be in a much
better position to carry through with his intentions than you
have seen it so far.

OGDEN:  Now, as Helga mentioned, there have been a number of
meetings over the course of this week with the heads of these
agencies and leaders on these Congressional committees.  This was
initiated by President Trump on Sunday, when he issued a tweet
which read as follows: “I hereby demand, and will do so tomorrow
on Monday, that the Department of Justice look into whether or
not the FBI, DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump campaign for
political purposes.  If any such demands or requests were made by
people within the Obama administration.”  Now, this was
immediately responded to by Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan,
who himself very well may be implicated in this investigation.
So, he issued his own tweet, hysterically demanding that the
Congressional leadership shut down any investigation.  This is
what he said: “Senator McConnell and Senator[sic] Ryan:  If Mr.
Trump continues along this disastrous path, you will bear major
responsibility for the harm done to our democracy.  You do a
great disservice to our nation and Republican Party if you
continue to enable Mr. Trump’s self-serving actions.”  Trump
responded by tweeting a statement by Dan Bongino, who is a former
Secret Service agent and leading political commentator.  This is
what President Trump responded to John Brennan with: “John
Brennan is panicking.  He has disgraced himself.  He has
disgraced the country.  He has disgraced the entire intelligence
community.  He is the one man who is largely responsible for the
destruction of America’s faith in the intelligence community and
in some people at the top of the FBI.  Brennan started this
entire debacle about President Trump.  We know that Brennan had
detailed knowledge of the phony dossier.  He knows about the
dossier, he denies knowledge of the dossier.  He briefs the Gang
of Eight on the Hill about the dossier, which they then use to
start an investigation against Trump.  It is that simple.  This
guy is the genesis of this whole debacle.  This was a political
hit job, this was not an intelligence investigation.  Brennan has
disgraced himself.  He’s worried about staying out of jail.”
So clearly, these are very high stakes.  If you have this
image of the Erinyes, as Friedrich Schiller evoked this in the
famous poem “The Cranes of Ibykus”, the criminals who had
committed a crime, but there were no witnesses except for a flock
of cranes flying overhead, arrived at a festival.  The Furies, or
the Erinyes, came out and started their dance, their eerie dance.
At a certain point in this atmosphere of tension, the very same
cranes who had been the sole witnesses of this crime, fly
overhead; and the criminals themselves are induced to expose
themselves by pointing at the sky and saying to each other
loudly, “See!  See!  It is the cranes of Ibykus!”  That is the
evidence which then brings them to trial; so they implicated
themselves.  The hysteria that we’re seeing from these John
Brennans and others is rising to that poetic level of justice.
So, not only does it potentially go all the way to Brennan,
the very same day, less than an hour later, President Trump
issued the following tweet: “The Wall Street Journal asks ‘Where
in the world was Barack Obama?’ A very good question.”  The next
day, on Tuesday, Trump escalated even further.  He tweeted the
following: “If the person placed very early into my campaign
wasn’t a spy put there by the previous administration for
political purposes, how come such a seemingly massive amount of
money was paid for services rendered?  Many times higher than
normal.  Follow the money,” he said.  “The spy was there early in
the campaign, and yet never reported collusion with Russia
because there was no collusion.  He was only there to spy for
political reasons and help crooked Hillary win.  Just like they
did to Bernie Sanders, who got duped.”  Then on Wednesday, yet
another tweet:  “Look at how things have turned around on the
criminal deep state.  They go after phony collusion with Russia,
a made-up scam, and end up getting caught in a major spy scandal
the likes of which this country may never have seen before.  What
goes around, comes around.”  Then he said, “Spygate could be one
of the biggest political scandals in history.”  Then next, very
simply he tweeted “Witch hunt.”  Finally, yesterday, President
Trump said, “Clapper has now admitted that there was spying in my
campaign.  Large dollars were paid to the spy, far beyond normal.
Starting to look like one of the biggest political scandals in US
history.  Spygate.  A terrible thing.”
So, I think if you look at what Trump said here, “What goes
around, comes around.”  He said, “Look at how things have turned
around on the criminal deep state.  They go after phony collusion
with Russia,… and end up getting caught in a major spy scandal
the likes of which this country may never have seen before.”
This is, indeed, the force of poetic justice.  I think President
Trump’s expression “What goes around, comes around,” could be
taken as a very colloquial version of the expression of this
Erinyes principle, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche has identified it.
Just this morning, not to be outdone, President Trump issued
two more tweets on this subject.  He said, “The Democrats are now
alluding to the concept that having an informant placed in an
opposing party’s campaign is different than having a spy, as
illegal as that may be.  But what about an informant who got paid
a fortune, and who sets up way earlier than the Russia hoax?  Can
anyone even imagine having spies placed in a competing campaign
by the people and party in absolute power for the sole purpose of
political advantage and gain?  And to think that the party in
question, even with the expenditure of far more money, lost.”  I
think this gets right at the root of how huge this scandal
potentially can turn out to be.  And it’s clear that this is a
total showdown, and President Trump is not pulling any punches at
this point.
What’s also becoming ever more clear, is the role that
British intelligence has played in this entire process.  As we’ve
documented over and over again, all roads lead to London in this
story, if you follow every single one of these threads.  We’ve
seen that time and time again.  We’ve reviewed the role on Monday
of Stephan Halper, the alleged informant, or one of the alleged
informants who was placed inside the Trump campaign, and his
connections to MI6 and to Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head
of MI6.  All of which overlaps completely with Christopher
Steele, the other so-called “ex-“British spy who fabricated the
entire “dodgy dossier”.  A number of members of Congress are
pursuing these leads in numerous ways.  Senator Grassley
continues to subpoena information about the role of Christopher
Steele.  The same thing is being done by Congressman Nunes and
others.  Then one in particular, is the actions that Senator Rand
Paul has taken over the last week and a half.  On May15th, in the
context of the hearings around the nomination of Gina Haspel to
be the new head of the CIA, Rand Paul wrote a letter to
then-nominee for the CIA Director, Gina Haspell, asking the
following questions:
“Dear Acting Director Gina Haspel,
“I write to ask you for clarification of some of the
practices of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), particularly
in relation to surveillance during the 2016 Presidential
election.  Please answer each question for each of the following
candidates: Donald Trump; Hillary Clinton; Bernie Sanders; John
Kasich; Ted Cruz; Marco Rubio; Jeb Bush; and Rand Paul.
“1.  Under what circumstances does the CIA trail, monitor,
or otherwise collect information on the communications and
movements of US Presidential candidates both domestically and
while they are travelling outside of the United States?…
“3.  Have you or anyone else at CIA ever cooperated with any
foreign intelligence service to surveil, monitor, or collect
information on candidate Trump during his travels outside the
United States in the preceding five years?  Specifically, was
candidate Trump ever under any surveillance or of interest to the
CIA during his previous visits in Europe?
“4.  Did the CIA or any other US government agency conduct
surveillance on, or engage in the collection of communications or
information about then-candidate Trump during his November 2016
visit to Great Britain?”
Now, Senator Paul knows the answer to those questions, as
numerous news reports have reported, indeed that was the case.
Here’s just an example.  This is an article that was in the
{Guardian} newspaper.  The title is “British Spies Were First to
Spot Trump Team’s Links with Russia”; subtitle “GCHQ is said to
have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in
2015.”  That’s just one of numerous news articles which report
that there are, indeed, multiple links between British
intelligence and the CIA in monitoring candidate Donald Trump.
This was the supposed information that Brennan used to put
together an inter-agency task force that you heard Helga mention
in that webcast clip, to launch a counter intelligence
investigation into Trump.  So-called counter intelligence.  What
Trump has identified as indeed actually just a political hit job.
However, when Senator Paul questioned Gina Haspel on this
question, she categorically denied it.  Rand Paul said in an
interview on Fox immediately after this interaction between
himself and Gina Haspel, “I’m still concerned about the reports
that Trump was surveilled.  She did deny that the CIA had
anything to do with British intelligence, and in the end she
actually said to me, and this is supposed to come in writing, she
says that there was no communication between British intelligence
and John Brennan giving them information about the Trump
campaign.  If that’s true, that contradicts a lot of news reports
that are out there.  I hope it’s true, and I hope she’ll actually
put it in writing.  But today she denied to me that there was
ever a meeting between British intelligence and John Brennan
where information about surveillance of the Trump campaign was
transferred.”  Then here’s a tweet quoting Rand Paul in his
interview on Fox:  “Gina Haspel is categorically denying that the
CIA got information from the British intelligence.  If what I’m
saying today is not her opinion, she needs to speak today and she
needs to say did British intelligence give information to John
Brennan.”  This is in the context of Senator Rand Paul also
pointing out the fact that Gina Haspel, in addition to the very
dark and murky history that she’s had in running black sites and
enhanced interrogation centers, and in defending that kind of
practice in the past, it also is very notable that Gina Haspel
was station chief for the CIA in London overlapping much of the
time that this entire Russia-gate story was developing.  So, the
trail remains very hot.
What I would like to do is just emphasize that all of this
has got to be seen in the context of the ongoing drive to
continue and protect at all costs the regime of geopolitics.
This is exactly what Obama was serving during his administration;
this is exactly what Hillary Clinton was attempting to become the
continuation of.  This is what the stay-behinds in these agencies
and also emphatically inside certain interests in British
intelligence are trying to maintain.  Which is this divide and
conquer regime in which there can be no peaceful dialogue or
collaboration between the great powers — the United States and
Russia, and also incidentally between the United States and
China.  This has been the over-arching geopolitical strategy
which is to drive a wedge between these powers in order to
maintain the power of British imperial interests.  This is
exactly what President Trump made very clear that he was out to
dismantle.  He was going to pursue peaceful dialogue and
collaboration between the United States and Russia, and
subsequently between the United States and China.  This remains
of critical importance, and the touch-and-go situation on the
Korean Peninsula is just an example of how crucial it is that
this process of collaboration and cooperation between the United
States, China, and Russia on cooling off these hot zones, these
conflict zones around the world which are threatening to explode
and be used as the ignition points for World War III.  It is {so}
crucial that this great powers relationship be allowed to
continue.
In her webcast, which we played a clip of earlier in this
broadcast, Helga Zepp-LaRouche also emphasized again the
importance of clearing the air of this entire Russia-gate fraud
and getting it out of the way in order to create the conditions
where this crucial collaboration around resolving some of the
common challenges that are facing mankind, can occur between
these great powers.  As she has repeatedly over the past several
weeks, she emphasized the urgency of summoning a very urgent
summit between President Trump and President Putin.  This was put
on the table weeks ago, but it has been sidelined and it’s
unclear when this face-to-face meeting will be able to take
place.  A petition precisely to that effect has now begun to
circulate on the whitehouse.gov website, where these “We the
People” petitions are placed.  100,000 signatures are required
within 30 days, and then the White House has to officially
respond.  So, here’s the title of the petition: “President Donald
Trump Should Hold Early Summit with Russian President Vladimir
Putin.”  The text reads as follows:
“Ronald Reagan famously said: ‘A nuclear war cannot be won
and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations
possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be
used.’ Unfortunately, today a new Cold War between the US and
Russia again poses an existential threat to the people of both
nations and to the whole world. Therefore, we urge President
Trump to follow in the steps of Ronald Reagan and to start a
direct dialogue with President Putin in search of solid and
verified security arrangements. As President Trump said
repeatedly ‘only haters and fools’ do not understand that good
US-Russia relations are also good for America. By all indications
President Putin feels the same way for his country. A summit
should be arranged as soon as possible.”
So again, that petition is available on this We the People
website at the White House
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/president-donald-
trump-should-hold-early-summit-russian-president-vladimir-putin]
and it’s circulating very widely and is picking up signatures as
we speak.
Now what I’d like to do is just play one more clip from
Helga LaRouche’s webcast yesterday where she addressed this
petition directly and put it in its necessary global strategic
context.  So, here’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Yes:  there is actually a
petition on the website of the White House.  This was initiated
by the President of the American University in Moscow, Professor
Edward Lozansky, and Jim Jatras, and they call for an early
summit between President Trump and President Putin, by making
essentially the same point that we have been making for the last
several months, that, given the fact that President Trump is
still so much up against neo-cons in the Republican Party, he’s
really done a remarkable job under the circumstances, where you
have the entire intelligence apparatus not only of what they call
the “deep state,” which is really an incorrect characterization,
because the role of British intelligence {is} absolutely crucial
to understand what makes this Empire tick.
So, in order to cut through that, and given the fact that
the entire Russiagate operation was aimed to prevent a good
relationship between Russia and the United States, which Trump
all the time said would be a “good thing and not a bad thing,”
and he tries to do it; so the way to cut through this whole thing
would be to have this summit, which they talked about — Trump
and Putin on the telephone a couple of weeks ago, and do this as
quickly as possible.
So there is this petition, and I would call all of you who
are listening, or watching, to sign this petition that such an
early summit would take place.  Because I think it is an
absolutely important initiative, and if this petition has more
than 100,000 by June 30, then the White House will have to
respond to it, and will respond.
Otherwise, naturally, there are many, many things, and I
would again invite you, join us, join the Schiller Institute.
Make sure this webcast becomes more known and is being spread,
because we are in an urgent need for a political discourse: Where
should mankind go?  And how can we organize the world so that
it’s safe and beautiful for everybody to live in?

OGDEN:  Now let me just come back one more time to the
LaRouche PAC 2018 Campaign to Win the Future.  You can find more
information about this on https://action.larouchepac.com.  But of
course, this campaign has three facets.  One of them is to end
this Russia-gate coup against President Trump.  This is of
crucial importance, and as we can see, this is continuing to
develop and is in the process of very swiftly so that the
accusers have now become the accused.  This of course is in the
context of Pledge #2, which is that the United States should join
the New Paradigm which is already sweeping much of the globe.
This would entail joining, embracing the One Belt, One Road
policy that China’s President Xi Jinping has been championing all
around the world.  This great infrastructure and connectivity
development program.  This has emphatically already been joined
by Russia.  So, there you have Russia and China.  We also see
overtures between China and India recently.  So, these three
great powers are part of this emerging New Paradigm on the
planet.  That’s exactly what the United States has to join;
that’s the main reason why we have to end this entire Russia-gate
nonsense.  And third, and absolutely not least, is to immediately
implement Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws.  This is to
impose Glass-Steagall; we see the threat of an impending
financial meltdown which is escalating every single day in the
trans-Atlantic region.  We need preemptive Glass-Steagall in
order to erect a firewall between legitimate commercial banking
interests and this speculative global casino.  Number two, we
need to return to Alexander Hamilton’s national banking model
where you can use trillions of dollars in directed Federal credit
into great projects.  Which you would clearly — and this is the
third aspect of it — know with scientific certainty would
increase the productive powers of labor, the living standards,
and the productivity per square kilometer of the territory of the
United States and its people.  Then, last but not least, the
spear point of this entire thing is a science driver program in
order to immediately catapult the United States into the future.
Leapfrogging into technologies such as controlled nuclear fusion
power, and an expanded manned and unmanned exploration of nearby
space and deep space.
Now, some updates that we’ll have for you on the Monday show
go to some very dramatic developments in this regard that are
occurring in Europe.  We know that the newly-elected government
which has now been formed by the joint cooperation between the
Lega Nord party in Italy and the 5-Star movement party in Italy.
These two parties, which are so-called populist parties, have now
come together to create a government and to put in a prime
minister, but emphatically a finance minister who by all
indications, agrees with the facets that are in both of these
parties’ platforms.  Which are, one, to have a separation of
banking between investment and commercial banking; this would be
a Glass-Steagall type of model; and this is actually very
interestingly in violation of the EU constitution or the EU
agreement, which says that the only banking model which is
allowed by European Union nations is the so-called universal
banking model.  The one-stop shop where you have investment,
commercial, and insurance operations all conglomerated together.
Then the other aspect which was in both of these party
platforms is the idea of some sort of national credit bank in
Italy to be used to issue national investments into rebuilding
the infrastructure and other industrial capabilities inside
Italy.  So, this is a very interesting and developing situation,
and there’s a real showdown which is developing within Europe
around this matter.  That’s something that we’ll have many more
updates on for you on Monday.
But, taking it back to the United States, we should just
remember that President Trump himself, during the campaign,
advocated exactly those two ideas.  Number one, Glass-Steagall;
and number two, trillions in investment in infrastructure.  He
even invoked by name Alexander Hamilton and the American System.
So, that continues to be on the table, and it’s our job to
escalate the fight for Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws and the
entirety of that 2018 Campaign to Win the Future.  So, again,
visit https://action.larouchepac.com; you can become an active
volunteer in whatever means that implies for you.  Whether that
means participating directly in lobbying Congress, lobbying your
state legislator, collecting signatures, calling your local radio
station, being active on social media, getting out on the
streets, organizing house meetings, and so forth and so on.
Becoming part of a network of literature distribution.  All of
these aspects are of crucial significance as we put together this
national base campaign around the LaRouche PAC program.
So, we implore you; get active, and get active soon, because
this situation is developing very rapidly.  And it’s very clear
that, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche has said, we can be optimistic
because we can see that ideas truly can move history, and the
world is in great need of our ideas.
Thank you very much, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

Som I ser, så er titlen på aftenens udsendelse, “Den Nye Silkevej – Den presserende nødvendige modgift mod global krig”. Dette er noget, Helga Zepp-LaRouche har understreget i løbet af de seneste par uger; at den eneste nøgle til krisen, som vi nu ser, konfronterer os over hele planeten, er omgående at gennemføre den Nye Silkevej. Initiativet for ét Bælte, én Vej, som Kina har indledt, og som indkapsler “win-win”-paradigmet, som er modgiften mod  geopolitikker, der kun kan føre til krig. 

Engelsk udskrift: 

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast,  May 18, 2018

THE NEW SILK ROAD: THE URGENT ANTIDOTE TO GLOBAL WAR

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It’s May 18, 2018.  My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our Friday evening
strategic overview from larouchepac.com.  As you can see, the
title of our show here today is “The New Silk Road: The Urgent
Antidote to Global War”.  This is something which Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has been emphasizing over the last several weeks.
That the only key to the crises that we now see facing us across
the planet is by immediately applying the New Silk Road.  The One
Belt, One Road initiative which China has started and which
encapsulates the “win-win” paradigm which is the antidote to
geopolitics, which can only lead to war.
Now, while there are many very positive developments afoot,
in this regard, emphatically the situation on the Korean
Peninsula; we are by no means in safe waters.  We are less than a
month away from the scheduled President Trump/Kim Jong-un summit,
which will be held in Singapore.  But a month is a very long
time, and all sorts of mischief can occur between now and then.
We saw a vivid example just this week, which demonstrates that
even within President Trump’s inner circle, there are individuals
who are still seeking to derail his efforts towards peace.  John
Bolton, one of the leading war-mongers inside this
administration, went on the Sunday talk shows this past weekend,
and said the very last thing that Kim Jong-un would want to hear
if you were Kim Jong-un.  He said that the model to be used in
North Korea for denuclearization is the Libyan model.
Now, we know that in the early 2000s, Libyan leader Muammar
Qaddafi voluntarily negotiated an end to his country’s covert
nuclear weapons program, and other weapons of mass destruction
programs in a bid to “come in from the cold” as they say, and
join the international community of nations.  Well, what did that
get him?  It got him a Western-backed insurgency which overthrew
his government and eventually cost him his life in a very brutal
murder that occurred outside of Sirte.  That is exactly what Kim
Jong-un is afraid of, and his regime has made very clear that
they have viewed their weapons program as the guard, the defense
against that kind of regime-change treatment.  It was only
through promises that there would be no regime change that the
situation has even advanced to this point.
President Trump did come out and contradict John Bolton in a
discussion with reporters yesterday, after a meeting between
himself and NATO Secretary Stoltenburg.  Trump said the Libya
model is not what he has in mind for North Korea; although he did
turn around and use the opportunity to threaten Kim Jong-un again
if he doesn’t make a deal.  Threaten him with Qaddafi treatment
in no less words.  But, this is what he said, and we can read
into it what we will.  What President Trump had to say to
reporters is the following:  “Well, the Libyan model isn’t a
model that we have at all, when we’re thinking of North Korea.
In Libya, we decimated that country.  That country was decimated!
There was no deal to keep Qaddafi.  The Libyan model that was
mentioned was a much different deal.  This would be with Kim
Jong-un something where he’d be there; he’d be in his country.
He’d be running his country.  His country would be very rich; his
people are tremendously industrious.  If you look at South Korea,
this would be really a South Korean model in terms of their
industry, in terms of what they do.  They’re hard-working,
incredible people.
“But the Libyan model was a much different model.  We
decimated that country!  We went in and decimated him, and we did
the same thing with Iraq.  But the model, if you look at that
model with Qaddafi, that was a total decimation.  We went in
there to beat him.  Now, that model would take place, if we don’t
make a deal, most likely.  But if we make a deal, I think Kim
Jong-un is going to be very, very happy.  I believe, I really
believe he’s going to be very happy.”  So, that was President
Trump in remarks to reporters yesterday.
Now the framework for creating prosperity on the Korean
Peninsula as Trump said, “harnessing the industriousness of the
people of North Korea,” and producing something equivalent to the
model of what we’ve seen in terms of the tremendous economic
success in South Korea with their industry.  The framework for
such an economic miracle in South Korea was actually, in effect,
an application of some aspects of the American System of
Alexander Hamilton, translated through the works of Friedrich
List and others.  That’s been discussed elsewhere on this
program, but the framework for applying that sort of economic
miracle to North Korea would be the new economic map for the
Korean Peninsula.  What you see here [Fig. 1] is exactly what
Moon Jae-in gave to Kim Jong-un on a thumb drive during their
recent meeting in the Demilitarized Zone.  As you can see, this
model, this economic map for the Korean Peninsula would really be
connecting the entire Korean Peninsula into the New Silk Road.
It’s this sort of H-shaped configuration where you can see North
Korea connected on the left side to China; and then on the other
side into Russia, connecting North Korea into mainland China in
terms of rail development and also other trade routes.  But also
connecting North Korea into the trans-Siberian railroad in
Russia.  You would see internal development across the Korean
Peninsula, developing the interior of the Korean Peninsula.  Then
you would see connected down, across the 38th parallel there,
into South Korea, on the one hand connected to the Maritime Silk
Road with the ports coming off the southern tip of South Korea.
Then on the other hand, bringing Japan into the entire mix, which
even be an incentive for Japan to develop the long-discussed
Japan-Korea tunnel or bridge.
So, this kind of configuration is an idea of bringing the
entirety of the Korean Peninsula into this New Silk Road.  It
would connect both Russia and China into this region, and it
would act as a bridge.  North Korea would have the opportunity to
act as a crucial bridge connecting South Korea and Japan into the
rest of Eurasia, and acting as a crucial hub for the New Silk
Road.  This is something that the LaRouche movement has discussed
for decades, and it’s something that has been on the table and
now is proving to be the key to actually bringing Kim Jong-un to
the negotiating table and providing the basis for a durable and
sustainable peace in that region.
This is emphatically the model that we need in the so-called
Middle East, Southwest Asia.  These nations where you seem to
have intractable conflict; where there is no solution in terms of
the situation on the ground.  You need to have something which
comes in in a global context and creates this kind of
connectivity in this region, where all the parties have a common
interest in embracing this sort of peace through economic
development.  This would be bringing the New Silk Road into the
Middle East.
Now what we’re seeing in this area of the world is a renewed
danger of war, which is set to explode.  Not just a regional war,
not just a war between different powers in that region, but one
which would very quickly threaten to become a global war.
Dragging parties across the world into this sort of war, exactly
in the way that it was described in the lead-up to World War I;
where all of the alliances would force parties to sort of
sleepwalk into such a global war.  The atrocities that were
committed on Monday, during the protests that occurred in Gaza,
where dozens of people were killed, and almost 2000 people were
wounded; these atrocities have caused widespread outrage across
the world, including here in the United States, notably.  A
statement was released by 13 US Senators — all of whom are
Democrats, including Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth
Warren, Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Ed Markey, and numerous
others — calling for urgent action in addressing the crisis in
the Gaza Strip.  Both the humanitarian crisis, but also the
urgent lack of economic development.  Here’s an image [Fig. 2] of
the letter which they sent to Secretary [of State] Pompeo.  You
can see in this open letter what they say is the following:
“Dear Secretary Pompeo,
“We write to urge the administration to do more to alleviate
the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.  The
territory’s lack of power, clean water, adequate medical care,
and other necessities not only exacerbates the hardships faced by
Gaza’s population, but redounds to the benefit of extremist
groups who use this depravation and despair to incite violence
against Israel.  The United States should also encourage the
easing of restrictions on the movement of people, goods, and
equipment in and out of the territory, especially for materials
and supplies related to critical infrastructure such as water
projects, and health essentials such as medicines and hospital
supplies.  Multiple parties should also be engaged to insure
greater electricity flow into Gaza to meet the territory’s
desperate need for energy.
“The United States should also put its weight behind
proposals to build Gaza’s economy through bold initiatives, such
as the proposed Gaza sea port.  The new port facility could boost
Gaza’s economy by vastly improving the territory’s access to
goods and markets worldwide.  The political and security
challenges in Gaza are formidable, but support for the basic
human rights of its people must not be conditioned on progress on
those fronts.  For the sake of Israelis and Palestinians alike,
the United States must act urgently to help relieve the
humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.”
So, while that statement may be limited in its particulars,
I think it’s very significant that this appeal includes a demand
for economic development as a pathway to alleviating the
humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.  But also, to creating the
basis for real peace; a peace which would benefit the Israelis
and the Palestinians alike.
As Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche have repeatedly
emphasized, nothing can be done locally to secure peace in this
region.  But rather, this region must be understood in a global
context; both in a negative sense as a playground geopolitics in
a new Great Game where geopolitical interests have sought to
divide this region and to keep it at war against itself; but also
from a positive standpoint, where you understand that peace is
only possible through collaboration of the great powers.  A great
powers alliance between the United States, Russia — which plays
a very large role in this region with its allies — and also
China.  China which has the New Silk Road as the key, which would
be the key to developing this region.  If these three great
powers would be able to collaborate to bring the New Silk Road to
this region, it could be transformed from a crucible for war to a
new crossroads of civilization.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed this in detail in her
international webcast this week.  I would like to play just an
excerpt from one of her statements during that webcast, where you
can see that she goes right at the core of the issue.  That the
only way you’re going to resolve this crisis in Southwest Asia,
is by bringing the New Silk Road Spirit to bear and using the
pathway of peace through economic development.  So, here’s what
Helga Zepp-LaRouche had to say.  [Technical difficulties playing
video.]  We apologize for that technical error.  The gist of what
Helga LaRouche got at in this statement, was that you have an
atrocity which was committed, but by no means is this to seen as
limited to the parties in this region.  What you have to
understand is that there is a long history in which this region
has been at war.  There have been several potentials for peace
agreements.  Most significantly was Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal
going back to the 1970s, but very crucially revived in the 1990s
as we reviewed during our show here on Monday afternoon.  This
was the idea of an Oasis Plan for Peace, where you would have all
the parties in this region would be guaranteed their own
security, but also would be guaranteed the benefits of the
economic development which this Oasis Plan would provide.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, during this clip, which unfortunately
we’re not able to play for you, brought up the way that Mr.
LaRouche has always posed the crisis in this region.  That you
have to not have a myopic view of this region, but you have to
zoom out and see this region in the big picture in terms of the
historic crossroads of civilization and the cradle of
civilization going back thousands and thousands of years; but
also currently as this sort of playground for a new Great Game,
where you have British imperial interests and others carving up
the region and playing one ethnic group against another in order
to ensure that this region does not become a positive cradle for
the dialogue between these civilizations and a crossroads between
Europe, Asia, and Africa.  Lyndon LaRouche delivered a speech at
Connecticut State University, which is a state school in
Connecticut, in May of 2009, which he titled “Only Dismantling
the Empire Can Stop the War Today”.  Here, you can see, this is
the cover [Fig. 3] of the {Executive Intelligence Review}
magazine which contained the text of that speech.  But let me
just read you a few excerpts of what Lyndon LaRouche had to say,
and I think you’ll see that he gets directly at this question of
placing this region in a global context.  So, Mr. LaRouche said
the following:

“I shall suggest it is an error to talk a Middle East
policyâ¦. Instead of talking about a conflict in the so-called
Middle East, we should talk about the Middle East as conflict
that is largely globalâ¦. Because the conflict is not determined
by the Israelis or Arabs.  It’s determined by international
forces which look at this region.  How?  As a crossover point
between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, the relationship
of Europe to Asia, the relationship of Europe to East Africa, and
so forth.
“Therefore, what you’re seeing is thatâ¦.
“We get so involved in the issues of the Middle East that we
can never solve them.  The way we’re playing it, we’ll never
solve themâ¦.
“There is a solution, a solution in principle.  And the
solution is, end this blasted imperialist system!…
“But don’t believe that’s there’s some solution for the
Israeli-Arab conflict per se.  There is no solution in that, per
se.  That’s why I said at the beginning here: Don’t look at the
history of the Middle East; look at the Middle East in history.
There, you find the solution.
“Because it’s being played!  The whole region.  It’s being
played like a puppetâ¦.
“So now we’re in a situation where we have to change our
monetary system.  We could reorganize our monetary system and the
world monetary system.  We can cooperate with Russia, with China,
India, and other countriesâ¦.
“So, how do you do this?  Well, we have a system.  We call
it the American System, defined by Hamilton.  We can shift the
world economy from being a monetary economy to being a credit
system, as specified by Alexander Hamiltonâ¦.   “We go to a
credit system: We can organize credit agreements like treaty
agreements with Russia, China, India, and other countriesâ¦.
“We have to move, therefore, from thinking about conflict
among nations and regions, to the alternative to conflict.  By
finding that which unites us through our common purpose as
independent nations rather than seeking resolution of a conflict
we are now enjoying among ourselves.  That’s the only chance we
have.  And when you look at the possibilities for this region,
like Southwest Asia, the only chance will come {not} from inside
Southwest Asia.  We will do, and must do, what we can, for that
area, to try to stop the bloodshed, the agony, to prevent the
war.  But we will not succeed until we change the history, change
the world in which this region is contained.
“And that’s my mission.  Thank you.”

Now, that speech was delivered in 2009, well before Xi
Jinping announced the New Silk Road, the One Belt, One Road
Initiative.  But looking at this idea of changing the world
within which this region is situated, that is the attitude that
Lyndon LaRouche has always had.  That you needed to create a new
international system, a system which he discussed there in credit
terms, monetary terms.  A Hamiltonian credit system, where you
can have credit for infrastructure development, credit agreements
among sovereign nations.  He also discussed it in terms of a
revived treaty of Westphalia; where you don’t try to resolve
conflicts between countries in terms of the conflicts per se.
But you resolve these conflicts by saying what do our nations, as
sovereign nations, have in common, and what can we do to benefit
the other.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche took this question up again in her
webcast this week, and the following clip I believe should
function.  And you’ll hear Helga Zepp-LaRouche discuss the
specific projects which are necessary to connect this region of
Southwest Asia into the movement for great project development
which is now sweeping the globe in the form of the One Belt, One
Road Initiative.  So, here’s what Helga LaRouche had to say:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Now, what you need, is, if you
have a very complex situation like that  — and obviously, the
many things which have happened, the terrorisms, many wars —
emotions are hurt, people have an incredible accumulated rage:
You need something big, and the only way how you could get it, is
if you had all the neighbors, Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt,
the United States, and hopefully European nations all agreeing
that the only way how this can be solved, is, you have to have
the extension of the New Silk Road into the region and develop
every country as part of one, integrated, industrial
infrastructure development program.
There are already the beginnings of that.  When President Xi
Jinping was  three years ago in Iran, he agreed already with
President Rouhani at the time, that the New Silk Road would be
extended into Iran.  You had the Afghanistan President demanding
that the New Silk Road should be applied in Afghanistan.  And at
the recent Wuhan meeting of President Xi Jinping and India’s
Prime Minister Modi, they agreed that China and India would
cooperate in bringing the Silk Road into Afghanistan, by
building, as a first step, a large train connection between
Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, China, and that way
start to connect Afghanistan to the Silk Road.
That same approach must be taken for Iraq, for Syria, for
the situation in Yemen, and naturally Egypt will have to play a
very important role as a bridge between Asia and Africa.  I think
Egypt is absolutely thinking in this direction, already.  And
however, naturally, these are gigantic projects and they cannot
be done by any one country alone; even if China has a special
envoy for Syria, they have said they want to play a leading role
in the reconstruction of Syria.  You have the earlier commitment
of Russia to supply energy, of Iran to help in the industrial
development.  But that needs to be presented as a comprehensive
proposal.
And I’m sure that there are people in Israel, as well, who
will not agree with the present course of Netanyahu — who, by
the way, faces his own problems and may look into not such a
bright future for his own political career.  But there are people
in Israel who agree, that you need to come out of this terrible
paradigm of the present configuration.  And if there would be an
agreement, between Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin, and Modi, and then
other leaders joining with them, to go in this direction, even
this very difficult situation of Southwest Asia could be
approached and a solution could be found.  But it does require an
extraordinary intervention.

OGDEN:  So that kind of extraordinary intervention as Helga
LaRouche just described there, must come in the form of bringing
the Silk Road to bear in this region.  On Monday, we featured an
extensive clip from a LaRouche PAC video which was produced two
years ago, which was called “Operation Phoenix”, which discussed
how to rebuild Syria, but in a broader context, how to bring this
entire region of Southwest Asia into the New Silk Road.  If we
look at this map [Fig. 4] on the screen here, just as we saw the
map of the new economic map of the Korean Peninsula, where you
could see North Korea being connected into China, Russia, the New
Silk Road, and being used as a crucial bridge, a hub in that New
Silk Road route; now we can see the same thing here in Southwest
Asia.  As you can see outline, is coming in from Eurasia, a route
of the New Silk Road which could originate in South Korea and
come up through North Korea and plug into three of the main
channels of the New Silk Road across Eurasia.  But this one would
come in and would arrive in Tehran in Iran.  You see that there
would be extensions going both south and north.  South to the
Gulf region, and then north up to the northern route going up to
the Caucuses and ultimately towards Russia, Scandinavia, and the
Arctic.  But then coming out of Tehran to the east, you would
have two different routes.  One would be the route which continue
on through Turkey and then across the straits into Europe.  But
then the other one would go southeast into Iraq, connecting into
Baghdad; where you would have a connection along the Tigris and
Euphrates Rivers down to the Persian Gulf in the southwest.  But
then proceeding upwards through the devastated regions of Syria
which have been liberated, and then to Aleppo, across to the
Mediterranean Sea at Latakia; and then a route proceeding
southward towards the Red Sea — the famous Med-Red connection —
and then into Egypt and then further into the rest of Africa.
So, with this image in mind, you can see that this region
would be a crucial crossroads of civilization and is the crucial
connection between these three great continents — Europe, Asia,
and Africa.  This is the reason that this region has been
subjected to endless wars in this kind of geopolitical Great
Game, in order to interrupt the potential for this sort of
development.  But this development perspective is the only means
by which you can resolve these conflicts.  Not in the terms of
the conflicts themselves per se, but in terms of creating a new
zone of mutually beneficial cooperation among all the parties
involved.  That kind of economic development can take place if
you have the sort of great powers arrangement among the four
powers — Russia, China, India, and the United States.
This is the core of what we continue to campaign for here in
the United States.  We must defeat this coup against President
Trump.  We are now one year into what President Trump has
characterized as the Mueller witch hunt.  Nothing has been found
so far in terms of collusion.  This attempted to coup to
undermine President Trump is not aimed at Trump personally; it is
rather aimed at Trump’s inclinations towards just such a great
powers relationship.  The second pledge in this Campaign to Win
the Future is that the United States should emphatically,
wholeheartedly endorse and join China’s One Belt, One Road
Initiative.  This is for both the benefit of the planet, this One
Belt, One Road Initiative as we discuss here, is the key towards
unlocking these conflicts around the globe; but it’s also to the
benefit of the United States itself.  Extending this kind of
great projects development perspective into the United States,
with a Hamiltonian principle — what Lyndon LaRouche discusses in
the Four Economic Laws; this is the agenda of LaRouche PAC here
in the United States.
As you can see on the back cover of this pamphlet [Fig. 5],
this is the map of the World Land-Bridge.  One of the crucial
aspects of this map is a new Marshall Plan for a New Silk Road to
rebuild the Middle East.  So, this has to continue to be kept
first and foremost in view, when we’re looking at how to resolve
this crisis and how to prevent just such a regional crisis from
exploding into a global war.  As you can see here, LaRouche PAC’s
“2018 Campaign to Secure the Future” is available on the LaRouche
PAC website if you visit action.larouchepac.com.  We encourage
you to become involved; to volunteer; and to help us circulate
this pamphlet as widely as we can.
Thank you very much for joining us here on larouchepac.com.
The world is moving very quickly, and we encourage you to stay
tuned and to visit larouchepac.com regularly.  Thank you for
tuning in, and please stay tuned.

Engelsk udskrift:

Korea Breakthroughs Are Proof of Principle!
The New Silk Road Is The Path to Peace.

LaRouche PAC International Webcast

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon.  It’s May 11, 2018.  My name
is Matthew Ogden and you’re joining us for our weekly strategic
broadcast from larouchepac.com.
As you can see on the screen here, the title of our show is
“Korea Breakthroughs Are Proof of Principle; New Silk Road Is the
Path to Peace”.  As many of our viewers might remember, in her
New Year’s address on January 1st of this year, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche declared that 2018 must be the year that
geopolitics is overcome; and that a New Paradigm of win-win
relations and win-win cooperation is fully embraced.
In a discussion this afternoon, Helga Zepp-LaRouche called
attention to those remarks that she delivered on New Year’s Day;
and stated that we’re seeing real breakthroughs on this front
globally.  We’re seeing the forging of a new relationship between
China and India with the meetings that have occurred between
President Modi and President Xi Jinping, as we’ve reported
previously.  We’re seeing a realignment underway between China
and Japan, which has been one of the leading geopolitical
rivalries in the Asia-Pacific region.  And of course, we’re
seeing the historic breakthroughs now occurring in Korea, which
clearly China has also played a major role in advancing and in
securing.
All of these developments should show us that the
possibility for achieving the challenge that Helga Zepp-LaRouche
posed in that New Year’s message, is very real; and is very real
within this year — 2018.  No matter how incredulous you may have
been when she first delivered those remarks, look at how far
we’ve come.  If we continue to keep our eye on the big picture
strategically, and to understand what is at stake, we’ll be able
to keep a laser focus on the strategy which she laid out in those
remarks.  Remember, we have two paradigms that are now acting on
this planet which cannot continue to coexist.  Under the old
paradigm of geopolitics in which major powers compete with one
another for dominance and hegemony, war is the inevitable
consequence, as we’ve experienced time and time again.  Not only
in the 20th Century, but really going all the way back to ancient
Greece; that is the so-called Thucydides trap.  But under the New
Paradigm, we recognize that in the age of thermonuclear weapons,
war is no longer a viable option if we wish mankind to survive.
Rather, we must embrace the idea of a community of common
destiny, as President Xi Jinping of China has characterized it;
in which sovereign nations, with mutual respect, cooperate with
each other under the framework of win-win relations and common
benefit in confronting and overcoming the common challenges of
mankind.  That latter New Paradigm is now proving itself, with
the great potential that we see for a breakthrough on the Korean
Peninsula serving as an excellent case in point.  As you’ll see,
the Silk Road, the One Belt, One Road Initiative, is proving to
be the key which is unlocking all of these breakthroughs that
we’re now watching develop in front of our eyes.
Now, I’m sure that many Americans have been following this
news, obviously; including the dramatic developments over just
the past several days with Secretary Pompeo’s secret trip to meet
with Kim Jong-un.  That’s what’s depicted in this picture [Fig.
1] that we have on the screen here.  He negotiated the release of
the final American hostages who were being held by North Korea.
You probably saw the images the previous week, as we have here on
the screen [Fig. 2] of the historic summit between President Kim
Jong-un and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea, which took
place in the Demilitarized Zone.  However, what many Americans
might not be knowledgeable of, is the content of these meetings.
You saw the photographs, but what was discussed?  And how did
this possibility for peace on the Korean Peninsula be advanced as
far as it has been?  The key moment in that meeting between
President Moon and President Kim Jong-un took place when
President Moon of South Korea handed Kim Jong-un a thumb drive.
This thumb drive contained detailed plans for new rail routes,
new power development projects, and other infrastructure projects
for North Korea.  What President Moon called a “new economic map
for the Korean Peninsula.”  So, here’s how that plan was
described in an article that was published on the website
citylab.com under the title “A Genius Plan to Modernize North
Korea’s Trains”.  As you can see here [Fig. 3], the subtitle was
“In Korean Peace Talks, all eyes are on Denuclearization.  But a
plan to link the nations’ railways could be far more
transformative.”  The article discusses in detail what is
contained in this new economic map for the Korean Peninsula.  It
says:
“At the center of Moon’s New Economic Map of the Korean
Peninsula is a railway modernization plan that’s much more than
an infrastructure project. It’s a key piece in the geopolitical
puzzle to connect North Korea to the world — and entice the
regime to keep its promises. When it comes to the Korean
Peninsula, North Korea’s denuclearization always gets top
billing. But the agreement to re-link the railways between the
two countries has the potential to be even more transformative
than the promise of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
“As a first step, the rail project outlined in the
Panmunjom Declaration would connect the railway from Seoul to
Pyongyang, passing through Kaeseong in the North. Ultimately, it
would end in Shinuiju, North Korea, linking up at the border with
Dandong, China. But the ultimate plan drawn up by the South
Korean government is much more ambitious. It envisions an
additional high-speed line from Seoul to Shinuiju via Pyongyang,
along with the modernization of six other railways traversing
North Korea. Currently the rails there are so decrepit that
trains can only average 50 kilometers an hour, and the rails
would break under heavy loads. Retrofitting would allow speeds of
100 kilometers an hour and enable heavier loads.
“Most significantly, the plan would connect North Korea to
China and Russia, allowing North Korea to ultimately become a
crucial connector between East Asia and Europe. The
Shinuiju-Dandong crossing is the hub of North Korea’s commerce
with China; adding a high-speed train line would go a long way
toward facilitating even more trade, in which South Korea could
also participate. The renovated Manpo Line, connecting to Jian,
China, would open another logistical connection between North
Korea and China in addition to Dandong-Shinuiju. The improved
Pyongra Line would connect to Russias Trans-Siberian Railroad,
allowing overland freight transport from South Korea all the way
to Europe, while giving Russia a piece of the action for North
Korea’s economic development.
“Taken together, these new connections raise the stakes that
China and Russia have in North Korea — and that would
incentivize them to ensure that North Korea remains stable and
keeps the trains running. North Korea would share in these
benefits, as its cities on these trade routes likely develop
along the way. The Pyongra Line, for example, would connect South
Koreas two largest cities (Seoul and Busan) to North Koreas third
largest city (Chongjin) and its industrial zone with the highest
GDP per capita (Rajin).
“A version of the inter-Korean railway plan has existed for
a while; the two Koreas even had a test run for the rail link in
May 2007, having two trains cross the demilitarized zone on two
spots.
“[T]here are reasons to be cautiously optimistic this time
around. For starters, both South and North Korea specifically
want this project. Its also consistent with what their
neighboring countries want as well. China is raring to begin the
One Belt One Road Initiative, a massive infrastructure project
that would enhance the physical connection between Europe and
Asia. The inter-Korean railway could serve as the eastern
extension, creating the overland connection between South Korea
and the prosperous Chinese cities across the Yellow Sea from the
Korean Peninsula, including Beijing and Shanghai.
“A stable inter-Korean railway may also motivate Japan to
finally begin working on the Korea-Japan undersea tunnel, a
project that had been under discussion since the 1980s. If built,
it would be the longest undersea tunnel in the world, more than
four times the length of the Channel Tunnel between France and
the United Kingdom.  According to the South Korean government,
the inter-Korean railway plan caught the attention of both the
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Asian Development
Bank — respectively led by China and Japan, with many other
member nations — indicating international support for the
inter-Korean railway plan. As wild as it sounds, we may see
within our lifetime a Trans-Eurasian train ride from Tokyo to
London — with a pit stop in Pyongyang for its delicious cold
noodles.”
That’s by S. Nathan Park, who is an attorney at Georgetown
University here in the Washington DC area.
But that vision, including the delicious cold North Korean
noodles — I’ve never had them, but I’d be interested — that
vision of a rail connection all the way from the tip of South
Korea all the way to Western Europe; that {is} the vision of the
Eurasian Land-Bridge or the New Silk Road as it’s been
characterized going all the way back to the time it was first
proposed by the LaRouche Movement and Helga Zepp-LaRouche in the
early 1980s as a way of connecting the entire Eurasian continent.
Then the tunnel between Japan and South Korea would be an added
element of that connectivity.  So that was what contained in the
thumb drive that Kim Jong-un received from Moon Jae-in.  That is
what a new economic map for the Korean Peninsula entails.  That
article was published last Friday; a week ago.
But what I’d like you to do, is to compare that development
program with all the rail routes and otherwise what was described
in that article, compare that — what was put appropriately into
the context of connecting North and South Korea to China’s Belt
and Road Initiative.  Take what was just described there, and
compare it to the contents of this video which you’re about to
see some excerpts from.  This video, which was produced by
LaRouche PAC, titled “Peace Through Development: The Path to a
Unified Korea.”  This video was published on May 11, 2016 —
exactly two years ago today.  So, listen to the excerpts of this
video that you’re about to see, which again, was published two
years ago today — May 11, 2016.  Compare it to what is being now
proposed in this New Economic Map for the Korean Peninsula as
it’s being called by the President of South Korea, which is the
key to unlocking the potential for peace on the Korean Peninsula.
So, here’s that video:

NARRATOR:  The need for a policy of peace through
development and win-win cooperation is evident across the globe,
but it is particularly stark in certain parts of the world.  The
Koreas are a case in point.  The situation in this area
represents both tremendous potential and imminent danger.  The
71-year division of the Koreas has resulted in a present-day
serious war danger, with an isolated North Korea suffering from
retarded economic growth, engaging in a series of suspected
nuclear weapons and missiles tests; believing nuclear weapons
were the only means of avoiding the fate of Iraq and Libya, who
submitted to Western demands to end their nuclear weapons
programs, and were promptly bombed, their leaders killed, and the
nations left in ruins.
Is there a potential for cooperation there?  Is there a
pathway forward to the unification of Korea which could rather
serve as an example for the rest of the world, showing that we
can achieve peace through development?  As recently as a couple
of years ago, significant steps were being made in a positive,
and they remain a basis for hope.  Around this time, there was
intense deliberation around the first-ever cooperative
Russia-North Korea-South Korea industrial project.  The Rason
Special Economic Zone, centered around the North Korean port of
Rajin.  The development of this port, situated near the mouth of
the Tumen River (itself the boundary of Russia, China, and North
Korea), involved the participation of the major South Korean
steel producer Pasco, the state rail company Korail, and the
shipping company Hyundai Marine; bringing Russian coal through an
upgraded North Korean port to the South Korean steel factory.
Two main transport corridors would feed into the port region from
China, Russia, and Mongolia, connect to the trans-Siberian
railroad at Chita[ph] with the most crucial connections extending
through Korea.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  What we need to have is a mass
movement for development.

NARRATOR:  It is high past time for a New Paradigm.  To move
forward with a peace through development outlook and to shun the
policies of those who would prefer war.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Because China has embarked in the
policy of the New Silk Road, the Maritime Silk Road, the One
Belt, One Road policy, a huge infrastructure project to connect
all the countries of Eurasia through infrastructure development
and high technology investments.

NARRATOR:  China’s stated foreign policy of win-win
cooperation, an active program of creating a New Silk Road
development corridor, is a path forward which both North and
South Korea can contribute to, and benefit from.

PRESIDENT XI JINPING [translated]:  China is firmly
committed to the path of peaceful development.  It is committed
to growing friendship and cooperative relations with all
countries in the world.

NARRATOR:  The historic identity of Korea has its roots in
the Silk Road.  The former capital, Gyeongju, being a major port
city on the ancient Silk Road.  Just this past August, the
inaugural conference of the Silk Road network of universities was
held there.  At the conference, Schiller Institute founder Helga
Zepp-LaRouche spoke of precisely the need for peace through
development and win-win cooperation; while Mike Billington of
{EIR} reiterated the need to move forward with projects like the
Rason port development project, elaborated in more depth in the
recent report, “The Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge”.  It
can be jumping-off point for the bonanza which has been spoken of
in achieving a peaceful unification of North and South.
In addition to this keystone port development project, which
can serve as an economic boon to all countries on the Tumen
River, crucial rail links should be completed which can allow for
the fulfillment of the vision of a Eurasian Land-Bridge extending
from Pusan to Rotterdam.  Rail originating in South Korea can
connect directly to the Chinese New Silk Road Belt through
rebuilding connection across the border.  And connections in the
North can also be directly fed into the trans-Siberian railroad;
integrating roughly 75 million Koreans into a framework of great
economic potential.
South Korea has begun to pave the way for the future of
energy — thermonuclear fusion — with their Kaestar
superconducting tokomak device in Daejong.  With this frontier
potential and an expanded skilled labor force, Korea could
demonstrate in an even more dramatic way the possibilities for
development when the false debate over limited resources is done
away with.  In fact, Korea could help to show mankind what his
future could look like.  Korea can be a mirror to the world of
what a true human culture can look like.  This culture has long
placed great value on the performance of beautiful Classical
music [music in background].  This is not only the performance of
pieces of the great European composers, but Korea has made its
own contribution to a world Classical culture through a genre of
Korean art songs.  A particularly beautiful one — “Longing for
Kum-kang Mountain”.  Rather than being an example of how quickly
the world could devolve into all-out war, a tragedy which our
human species cannot and should not enable, a peace through
development approach leading to the unification of Korea, could
serve as an example to the world of how quickly our human species
can turn on a dime, rejecting the foolish ways of the past, to
usher in a New Paradigm of cooperation and economic development.

OGDEN:  So, again, that was some excerpts from a video which
was published exactly two years ago today, on May 11, 2016, under
the title “Peace Through Development: The Path to a Unified
Korea.”  The link to the full video is available in the
description below.
But indeed, the concluding words of that video, which was
published two years ago, have now proven to be very prescient
indeed.  “[A] peace through development approach leading to the
unification of Korea, could serve as an example to the world of
how quickly our human species can turn on a dime, rejecting the
foolish ways of the past, to usher in a New Paradigm of
cooperation and economic development.”  Those were the words that
concluded that video.  And that’s exactly what we’re seeing
happening today.  The example has been set on the Korean
Peninsula.  It now serves as a model for what could happen around
the world, and how quickly things can change.  But think about
it, two years ago, while we still had President Barack Obama as
President of the United States, and the threat of nuclear war was
hanging over our heads like a Sword of Damocles.  Two years ago,
did anyone imagine that in two years’ time we would be
experiencing the kind of extraordinary breakthroughs that we’re
now watching development between those two Presidents?  The
Presidents of North and South Korea.  Did anybody imagine that in
two years’ time, you could be seeing the cessation of hostilities
on the Korean Peninsula?  The freeing of all the hostages?  The
beginnings of talks to denuclearize the entire peninsula?  And
these warm gestures of friendship between these two Presidents;
moving in the direction of some form of unification of the
economic capabilities of that peninsula?  This new economic map
for the Korean Peninsula?  Did anybody imagine two years ago that
that’s what we would be seeing at this point in time?
Honestly, I produced that video; and even I, at that time,
was somewhat incredulous as to how fast this could actually come
into being.  If someone had asked me at that time, “Do you really
think that this stalemate, which has been in a state of frozen
conflict for twice the amount of time that you have been alive —
over 70 years.  Do you honestly believe that two years from now,
we’ll be watching the Presidents of these two countries shaking
hands and entering into these historic partnerships?”  If
somebody had travelled back in time at that point from the
present, and shown me this tweet from President Donald Trump, I
would have told them that “No, c’mon, you’re pulling my leg!”;
including the fact that Donald Trump would be President of the
United States.  I also would have thought that was a joke.  But
in all seriousness, who would have thought that we’d be reading a
tweet [Fig. 4] like this:  “Donald J Trump. The highly
anticipated meeting between Kim Jong-un and myself will take
place in Singapore on June 12. We will both try to make it a
very, very special moment for world peace.”  But that tweet
really happened, and this meeting is really set.  A few short
hours after greeting the three remaining US hostages who had been
freed from North Korea at Andrews Air Force Base, once the plane
carrying them and Secretary Mike Pompeo touched down on US soil,
President Trump issued that tweet.  That meeting is set to go
forward; a very historic moment.  A meeting between the President
of North Korea and the President of the United States.
But the lesson for all of us should be, we are living in
truly historic times, and the possibility for real, dramatic,
positive change in the direction of world peace, to use President
Trump’s own words, the potential for change in that direction is
very real.  As the video which we just watched made clear, as
well as the article which I cited in the beginning of this
broadcast, the reason that that possibility exists, the key to
unlocking this entire puzzle, is because of China’s New Silk Road
— the Belt and Road Initiative.  When President Xi Jinping
announced the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013, literally
everything changed.  This created the basis for rejecting
geopolitics and the legacy of conflict and war which has made
these types of breakthroughs as we’re now witnessing on the
Korean Peninsula impossible up to that point.  And President Xi
Jinping’s announcement of this One Belt, One Road initiative
created the framework instead for this kind of win-win
cooperation and economic development between countries.  As
President Xi Jinping has called it, “win-win cooperation, a
common destiny for mankind”; which provides not only the
incentives for ending conflict, negating a state of war, but also
creates the basis for a real and durable peace.  That basis, as a
positive form of peace, not just a negation of a state of war, is
this kind of potential for mutually beneficial progress for all
nations involved.  The point is, ideas can truly change the
course of history.  The vision which was contained in that video,
which was produced by LaRouche PAC two years ago, including the
excerpts which were included from a speech that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche gave in which she called for a mass movement of
economic development; that vision is now becoming real.  These
development projects, which are now serving as the vehicle for
peace in Korea, are projects which the LaRouche movement has been
championing for decades.  If you look at this process which is
underway in Korea, together with all of the other development
projects which are now moving forward elsewhere — such as the
Transaqua program in Africa to refill Lake Chad; the Kra Canal
project in Thailand; and countless other projects.  The list goes
on and on.  All of these projects which have been promoted by the
LaRouche movement for decades, all in the context of the idea of
a New Silk Road as the pathway to peace, these are now moving
forward because of that history-changing initiative which
President Xi Jinping took in 2013, when he launched the One Belt,
One Road initiative.
The critical point is that this breakthrough in Korea was
made possible only means of the cooperation which took place
between China, the United States, and Russia; this great powers
cooperation.  As Kim Jong-un’s second visit to China in less than
two months which occurred this week proves, President Xi Jinping
is playing {the} key role in guiding this peace process forward;
as President Trump himself has recognized and has repeatedly
called public attention to.  In tweets, speeches, public
statements, and in press conferences, he has given President Xi
Jinping the credit.
But as we celebrate the anniversary again this week of
Victory in Europe Day, or Victory Day as it’s called, it was
celebrated May 8 in Europe, and May 9 in Russia.  This is the
legacy of the Allies of World War II; the Allies under Franklin
Roosevelt’s guidance, which defeated Hitler and defeated fascism.
But [who], in Franklin Roosevelt’s vision, would go forward to
form a peacetime coalition of great powers which would bring
development to the entire world.  That vision was derailed at the
time that Franklin Roosevelt died and Truman and Churchill
instead guided the world into a Cold War which lasted for the
remainder of the 20th Century.  But now, finally, we have the
opportunity to revive that vision and the breakthrough on the
Korean Peninsula should herald the beginning of a New Paradigm of
this kind of great powers’ relationship which can unlock these
challenges which the world has faced for generations.
So, Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed this during her webcast
yesterday.  She emphasized that this breakthrough is due to the
tireless effort and vision which has been put forward over
decades for these kinds of development projects which the
LaRouche movement has been involved in intimately for connecting
the Korean Peninsula into this more broad New Silk Road, Eurasian
Land-Bridge idea.  So, listen to what Helga Zepp-LaRouche had to
say yesterday:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  when Kim Jong-un and Moon
Jae-in met, President Moon gave his North Korean counterpart a
thumb drive, and on that, there was a whole development plan for
North Korea.  And this involves three economic corridors; railway
lines connecting all the way from South Korea through North Korea
to China, and to the Trans-Siberian Railway.  And there is now a
big discussion, in Moscow in particular, about the Tumen River
project. This is fantastic, because this is an economic
development plan which involves Russia, China and North Korea,
and it would make this region, which is now very little
developed, into one of the big transport hubs for all of Asia.
If this program goes ahead well, and the fact that Pompeo
was just again in North Korea, preparing the summit between Trump
and Kim, means, as of now, it’s still on a very good track —
that if these development projects would be implemented, you
could have a complete economic miracle between the two Koreas,
and this would really make the way for a peaceful unification,
and integration into the Belt and Road Initiative, and transform
this area of the world from a crisis spot, into one of the most
prosperous regions.
Now, for me, this development shows that if there is a good
will on the side of the political leaders, you can take any
crisis — {any} crisis —  and solve it exactly the way this was
solved, through back-channel discussions involving Russia, China,
and the United States.  And you know, it is an example that with
good will, you can turn the worst crisis into its opposite and
make it a hopeful perspective.  So, one would really hope that
this lesson is being learned, and that same method is being
applied to the Middle East right now, using the fact that the New
Silk Road is already the most dynamic development on the planet,
that all the people can be brought to see the benefit of
cooperating and joining into this development.

OGDEN:  So again, the Korea breakthroughs are a model.  This
is a proof of principle, and this is a lesson that has to be
learned and applied across the world, as Helga LaRouche said;
including, emphatically, in the Middle East.  So, while these
extremely positive developments are taking place in Asia, not
only the developments on the Korean Peninsula, but also as we
mentioned, the realignment of China and Japan, the opening up of
new relations between China and India.  While all of these very
positive developments in the direction of this New Paradigm are
taking place, on the other hand, a very dangerous situation is
developing on the other side of the world in the Middle East.
Specifically in Syria and Iran, as well as in Yemen.  The strikes
that have been launched just over the past few days by Israel
into Syria, are clearly intended to inflame this region and to
inflame a conflict with Iran; and are part of an array of other
provocations.  If you put this together with President Trump’s
announcement that he is abandoning the Iran nuclear deal, we have
a very dangerous situation developing in that region.  Helga
Zepp-LaRouche warned that she is quite worried that this
decision, under the influence of certain advisors in the Trump
administration, to abandon the Iran nuclear deal, could have a
negative impact on the Korea process.  She said later in that
same webcast that the solution in Iran, the solution in Syria,
the solution in the entirety of the Middle East, is to apply the
Silk Road model in exactly the same way that it’s being applied
in the Korean Peninsula.  Emphatically with the kind of great
powers cooperation between Russia, China, and the United States
that we’ve seen taking place in Korea.  So, listen to what Helga
Zepp-LaRouche had to say further in that webcast from yesterday:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  [A]ny peace plan, or any
security architecture has to take into account the security
interests of all participating countries.
Obviously, given the condition of the entire Middle East,
after the destructive wars in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, it
is very clear that the only thing which will really solve the
problems of this region would be what I have said many times
before:  You need the extension of the New Silk Road into the
entire region, from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, from the
Caucasus to the Persian Gulf, and have a development plan for all
of these countries as an integrated one.  And this could only
work if Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, the United States, and
hopefully European countries, are all agreeing that this region
must be economically built up. And the only way you can have
peace in a region, and really get rid of terrorism, is if you
have a perspective for the hope for the future.
So I would really hope that if President Trump says he has
an alternative plan, a more comprehensive plan, that it should
absolutely include joint ventures of the United States, Russia,
China, India in the development of this region.  A beginning was
made between President Xi Jinping and India’s Prime Minister Modi
when they met in Wuhan a week ago, where India and China said
they would start joint development projects in Afghanistan,
building a railroad from Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Iran, China, and that would be the beginning of many other
projects to follow.  You need a comprehensive development plan
for it to work. And so, I would really hope that President Trump
would think in that direction, because I think that’s the only
way it could be stabilized.
And I can only say, there must be a complete change in the
attitude, because geopolitics is the stuff of which two world
wars were made, and due to the fact that we have today May 9, we
should really make a solemn commitment, “Never Again!”  We cannot
have world wars again!  And this kind of destabilization has the
potential of spinning out of control:  If there would be a
military conflict between Israel and Iran, which is not to be
excluded at this point, it could spin out of control and lead to
the extinction of civilization, so this is not stuff to be played
with.

OGDEN:  So again, as Helga LaRouche declared on January 1st
of this year, 2018 must be the year that we end geopolitics.
We’re seeing a lot of very positive indications in that
direction, but we’re also seeing the danger that the reaction
against that is leading to a desperation which would be the
impetus towards re-igniting these conflict zones and using them
to start a world war-type of situation.  So, we have to have a
very clear and urgent sense of necessity when we look at what
Helga Zepp-LaRouche called for in her New Year’s address January
1st of this year.
We should be encouraged by the breakthroughs that are taking
place.  We should apply these lessons, and we should recognize
that the Silk Road — this vision of a new common destiny for
mankind and peace through economic development — this has been
the key which has allowed us to unlock this seemingly intractable
situation on the Korean Peninsula.  It could be applied
elsewhere.  President Trump clearly understands that to a certain
extent; praising the role that President Xi Jinping has played
and working very closely together with President Xi in the
situation in Korea.  But this must be extended to his view of the
entire world, and understanding that this great powers
relationship is necessary to solve these conflicts worldwide.
So, this is the reason why we’ve now reprinted an updated
form of this mass circulation pamphlet which LaRouche PAC is now
circulating.  This is “LaRouche’s Four Laws: The LaRouche 2018
Campaign to Win the Future; A New Paradigm for Mankind”.
Obviously, the three pledges which comprise the LaRouche PAC 2018
campaign program are:
1. Stop this kind of Russia-gate coup attempt to undermine
the Trump Presidency. [Which is not personally against Trump, but
this is a strategy to undermine the possibility for the great
powers relationship that Trump is inclined towards between the
United States and Russia, targetted specifically; but also
between the United States and China.]
2. President Trump must reciprocate China’s offer to join
the New Silk Road; and that the United States must fully come
onboard with the Belt and Road Initiative on this idea of
securing the common aims of mankind.
3. The United States must fully adopt Lyndon LaRouche’s Four
Laws for Economic Recovery, which are the pathway towards the
United States fully embracing this New Paradigm of great project
development which is now beginning to sweep the globe [and must
be applied not just in these regions around the world, but also
must be brought right here to the United States for the economic
development vision which Lyndon LaRouche has championed here in
the United States for decades].
This would a return to the American System of Alexander
Hamilton with the kind of national bank credit creation
capabilities that our Federal government was endowed with under
our Constitution, and the use of that to have a crash program for
the development of fusion power.  It would be done in conjunction
with Korea, as was mentioned in that video.  And also the
aggressive re-assertion of an expanded manned exploration of
space.
So, that’s what’s contained in this LaRouche PAC 2018
Campaign to Win the Future.  As I said, it’s now been printed;
it’s in circulation.  You can get your hands either on a print
copy, or it’s accessible at the link that’s in the description to
this video — lpac.co/yt2018.  We encourage you; get your hands
on that copy.  Visit the action center, and become an active
volunteer with the LaRouche PAC 2018 Campaign to Win the Future.
There are a lot of positive developments which should give
you optimism.  That ideas truly can change the course of history.
But you should also feel a real sense of urgency that this is
truly a race against time to secure the New Paradigm for the
benefit of the entire globe.
Thank you very much for joining us today.  Please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com, as I’m sure dramatic developments are yet to
come.

Lyndon LaRouche: Opgaven, som jeg har defineret den, er: Hvis Rusland og USA, og Kina og Indien, som en gruppe af lande aftaler at initiere og gennemtvinge en reorganisering af det globale finans- og kreditsystem, under disse betingelser med langfristede aftaler af samme type, som Franklin Roosevelt havde ytret før sin død i 1944, indgået mellem hovednationer, kunne Roosevelts plan være blevet realiseret alle disse år senere, og vi kan gøre det i dag. Det er vores chance. Enten gør vi dette, eller også går vi under. Jeg kan forsikre jer for, at, hvis I tror, der findes nogen mulighed for, at det nuværende system kunne fortsætte ind i det forestående år, som et system, man kan arbejde med, og at der ikke vil være en fortsat generel krise, der forværres, på nuværende tidspunkt, vil der ikke komme nogen økonomisk genrejsning i nogen del af planeten, under de nuværende betingelser.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Vært Matthew Ogden: Som I ser her på skærmen, er titlen på aftenens udsendelse »Storbritanniens forbrydelser er afsløret!«. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche forudsagde for et par uger siden, så er, med hele litaniet af svindelnumre, der nu er afsløret som totale løgne, fra det ubekræftede og slibrige Christopher Steele-dossier, som er så centralt for Russiagate-operationen her i USA, til den angivelige Skripal-forgiftning i England og frem til Assads såkaldte angreb på sit eget syriske folk med »kemiske våben«, briterne kommet i front og centrum. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, »briterne er gået for vidt, og maskerne vil snart falde«. Det var, hvad hun forudsagde. Hun forudsagde, at bagslaget fra disse operationer ville være så stort, at Det britiske Imperiums perfiditet snart ville stå afsløret, for hele verden at beskue.

Vi er nu her i dag, og vi har nu nået dette punkt. Husk, at, på præcis den samme aften for Donald Trumps ukloge beslutning om at foretage luftangrebene, de missilangreb, han lancerede mod de syriske militære installationer, skrev det Russiske Udenrigsministerium kæmpe avisoverskrifter. Dette var for en uge siden sidste fredag. De hævdede offentligt, at de var i besiddelse af beviser, som viste, at det angivelige angreb med kemiske våben mod den syriske civilbefolkning fandt sted under falsk flag; at det var iscenesat og styret af britisk efterretning via deres frontorganisation, kendt som de Hvide Hjelme. Her ser vi hovedoverskriften i New York Post: »Rusland hævder, Storbritannien iscenesatte kemisk angreb i Syrien«. De gik virkelig i detaljer og hævdede, at britisk efterretning havde beordret – lagt pres på – de Hvide Hjelme til at iscenesætte disse videos og bruge dem som provokation for, som det lød, »at få Donald Trump til at gå i musefælden og gå ind i en krig i Syrien«.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

Then, a week prior to that, the Russian Foreign Ministry had
issued a statement calling into question whether British
intelligence had actually been responsible for orchestrating the
nerve agent attack on the Skripals — the father and his daughter
— as a provocation to attempt to start a war with Russia.
Here’s what Sergey Lavrov had to say.  He said, “There are other
explanations besides those that were put forward by our Western
colleagues, who declare that it can only be the Russians who are
responsible.”  He said, “Experts say that it would be highly
advantageous to the British security services as well, who are
well known for their capacity to act with a ‘license to kill’.
It could also be advantageous to the British government, who
clearly find themselves in a difficult situation, having failed
to fulfill their promises to voters over Brexit.  In the times of
the Cold War, there were some rules.  But now, Britain and the
United States have dropped all propriety.”  Then the Russian
Foreign Ministry put out a statement demanding that the burden of
proof lay on the British, not the Russians, to prove that they,
in fact, were not responsible for poisoning the Skripals.  What
the Russian Foreign Minister said is that they demanded that
London prove that British secret intelligence agents weren’t
responsible for poisoning the Skripals.  Here’s the text of a
statement [Fig. 2] that was put out by the Russian Foreign
Ministry.  They said:
“An analysis of all the circumstances, leads us to think of
the possible involvement in the Skripal poisoning by the British
intelligence services.  If convincing evidence to the contrary is
not presented to the Russian side, we will consider that we are
dealing with an attempt on the lives of our citizens as a result
of a massive political provocation.”
So, that was March 28th.  It’s clear.  The Russians are not
pulling any punches when it comes to calling out the British and
identifying the methods that British intelligence is notorious
for using to stage provocations; what they called “massive
political provocations” intended to pull the world into a World
War.  And it has to be understood as such; there is nothing short
of that as the intended goal.  As Theresa May herself declared,
her ambition is to re-establish the British as what she called “a
global Britain”; to re-establish the global power of the British
Empire.
It’s clear that the Russians have made a decision at the
very highest levels of their government, to openly go after the
British Empire by name.  It doesn’t seem that they intend to
retreat from that strategy.
A major development occurred yesterday afternoon, where, in
an extensive press briefing, the spokeswoman for the Russian
Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, waged a full frontal attack on
the British Empire by name, and its record of genocide, coups
d’état around the world, and targeted political assassinations.
She presented a 17-page dossier that went through a litany of
British crimes and British killing.  It was a no-holds barred
presentation.  Now, because you’re guaranteed not to see coverage
of this presentation on your local cable news network, or in the
Washington Post or the New York Times, we’re going to share
with you an extensive selection from this press briefing.  Not
everything, because we definitely would not have time.  But I
just want to give you a taste of what Foreign Ministry
spokeswoman Maria Zakharova when through in this press briefing.
Under the subhead “Political Crimes Committed by the UK”,
this is what she had to say:
“And now I am asking everyone to fasten their belts. During
a briefing on the OPCW report held for the international
diplomatic community on April 13, UK Ambassador to Russia Laurie
Bristow said that ‘the Russian state has a record in
state-sponsored assassinations including in the UK.’ It is not
the first Russophobic statement made by a UK official, or, for
that matter, not the first UK statement that is an offense to
law, standards of decency or any morals. But it’s not the main
point. Let’s put aside morals and the law and talk about something
different. Maybe the UK Ambassador does not know his own country’s
history, role and involvement in processes that took place in
other countries over the past centuries. I don’t think Mr. Bristow
is to blame for absence of law in the UK. He probably just doesn’t
know his country’s history. I think now is the time to fill this
cognitive vacuum and tell the world something about Britain’s
history and its international activities and their consequences.
Let us talk about state contracts, assassinations and Britain’s
reputation.
“Let’s start with modern history. It is not a common subject,
but Britain was one of the most ruthless metropolises in terms of
the repressive actions it took in its colonies and dependent
territories. On November 22, 2017, British journalist and writer
Afua Hirsch wrote in the Guardian that ‘from the Norman
conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, the English began
imagining themselves as the new Romans, persuading themselves
they were as duty-bound to civilize “backward” tribes as they
were destined to exploit their resources, land and labour.’
“This accepted view of Britain’s history completely
overshadows some inconvenient facts. If the motive is what
matters most of all, nobody wants to know the details. But today
we will be speaking about details. The establishment of
concentration camps in the Boer War that later inspired the Nazis
death camps, the cultural annihilation of kingdoms and palaces
from Ashanti to Beijing, British army massacres in Ireland and
the devastation of Bengal, the industrial-scale exploitation of
natural resources and the slave trade. These are only the most
glaring facts.
“The impact of colonial rule in India was extremely
devastating. In 1930, American historian Will Durant published a
book about the history and life in India, The Case for India.
His study of India brought him to the following conclusion: ‘The
more I read the more I was filled with astonishment and
indignation at the apparently conscious and deliberate bleeding
of India by England throughout a hundred and fifty years. I began
to feel that I had come upon the greatest crime in all history.’
“Britain has left fault lines across the globe, which is
most acutely felt in the South Asian subcontinent, where a single
nation was forcibly split into two in 1947. Today each of these
parts is overcoming the consequences of the British colonial
‘legacy’ on its own. Member of Parliament, former UN
Under-Secretary General Shashi Tharoor, an astute statesman who
once ran for UN Secretary-General and deservedly enjoys respect
the world over has repeatedly stated that the British authorities
suffer from ‘historical amnesia’ as regards their imperial
atrocities. One has to agree.  Speaking at Oxford on July 22,
2015, he said: ‘India’s share of the world economy when Britain
arrived on its shores was 23%. By the time the British left it
was down to below 4%. Why? Simply, because India had been governed
for the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for 200 years was
financed by its depredations in India.’  According to Dr.
Tharoor, in fact, Britain’s industrial revolution was actually
premised upon the de-industrialization of India. Britain
repeatedly provoked famine in India, which killed between 15
million and 29 million people. The best known famine was that in
Bengal in 1943, when four million Indians died. You could think
this to be just journalistic speculations. But no. Addressing the
Speakers Research Initiative on July 24, 2015, Indian Prime
Minister Narendra Modi stressed that the discourse by Dr. Shashi
Tharoor met the aspirations of his country’s citizens. I am saying
this to you, Mr. Bristow.
“In his book Inglorious Empire released in 2017, Dr.
Tharoor cited the atrocities of the British Empire, stating that
the former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, should be
regarded as one of the cruelest dictators of the 20th century.
This is what Churchill said in a conversation with Secretary of
State for India and Burma Leopold Amery: ‘I hate Indians. They
are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was
their own fault for breeding like rabbits.’ This is not what we
are saying, nor are these our inventions. It’s a fact.
“The Russian artist Vasily Vereshchagin has a famous
picture, ‘The Devils Wind.’ This is not a symbolic comparison.
The canvas shows a type of execution invented by the British to
crush the 19th Century Sepoy Mutiny in India (1884) … A victim was tied
to a gun with his back to the muzzle and blown to pieces by a
gunshot. This was one of the most barbaric punishments in the
history of civilizations; aimed not so much at physical
extermination, but intimidation. Even without it, the British had
so many infernal instruments of torture and execution that this
option doesn’t seem so original and, honestly, was rather costly
for the Brits. But from the religious and caste point of view,
this method of putting to death is absolutely unacceptable for
Indians. Their bodies were blown to pieces and the dead were
buried together regardless of caste, which is radically at
variance with the Indian tradition.
“Yet another episode of the same kind occurred in Amritsar,
Punjab, on April 13, 1919, when 50 British troops under
Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer fired their rifles without
warning at pilgrims celebrating Baishakhi, the Punjabi harvest
and New Year festival, at the centrally located Jallianwala Bagh
public garden. The gathering was mostly made up of women and
children. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that
these British subjects were acting on direct orders of the
British authorities. According to the British government, 379
people were killed and over 1,000 wounded. The Indian National
Congress said 1,000 people were killed and 1,500 wounded.
Regrettably, millions of Indians were to fall victim to the acts
committed by the British authorities, including mass executions
by a firing squad, during at least several decades after these
sad events.
“Africa has also suffered its share of British abuses. Some
13 million Africans have been removed from the continent as
slaves. The number of Africans who died in that period is three
or four times larger than the number of those who were removed
from the continent. In other words, the overall number of victims
runs into tens of millions of people. It is notable that English
philosopher John Locke, who advanced the theory of civil society
and whose works influenced those who wrote the US Constitution,
was a major investor in Britain’s slave trade. It is a fact.
“The number of Africans who died in that period is three or
four times larger than the number of those who were removed from
the continent. In other words, the overall number of victims runs
into tens of millions of people. It is notable that English
philosopher John Locke, who advanced the theory of civil society
and whose works influenced those who wrote the US Constitution,
was a major investor in Britain’s slave trade. It is a fact.
“The British were among the first to invent concentration
camps for civilians in the Boer War of 1899-1902. These camps
were created for the civilians who were suspected of sympathizing
with the rebels or who could help them. The British torched their
farms and fields and slaughtered their cattle. Women and children
were separated from men. All this happened long before World War
II. The men were taken to outlying regions or Britain’s other
colonies, such as India or Ceylon.
“When the world learned about this horrible invention of
British military commander, Lord Kitchener, the British
government published an official statement saying that the camps
had been created to keep the peaceful population of the Boer
Republics safe from harm’s way, and the camps were renamed
‘refugee camps.’ This is remindful of the story of the White
Helmets: take militants, extremists and terrorists, put white
helmets on them with ‘Peace’ written on these helmets, and then
use them to stage provocations and present mobile phone footage
of their crimes as evidence of the plight of the civilians who
must be saved. Centuries have passed, yet nothing has changed.
Overall, 200,000 people or half of the white Boer population was
herded into the British camps, where about 30,000 of them died
from disease and hunger.
“Historians believe that Britain is the world’s leader when
it comes to genocide, given the millions of innocent civilians
that have been killed in British colonies.
“According to different estimates, between 90% and 95% of
aborigines were exterminated during the colonization of
Australia. Indigenous Australians were not only killed but also
used for experiments. The British deliberately infected them with
various diseases, primarily pox.
“Remembering the notorious Opium Wars would not come amiss.
London was poisoning Chinese people with drugs for decades.
Britain organized a supply of opium to China making fabulous
profits. The operation also pursued the military-strategic aim of
demoralizing the Chinese army and people, and depriving them of
the will to resist. In a bid to save his country, the Chinese
Emperor in 1839 launched a massive operation to confiscate and
destroy opium stocks in Canton. London retaliated by unleashing
the Opium Wars. China was defeated and had to sign a crippling
peace with Britain.
“|’As long as China remains a nation of opium-smokers there
is not the least reason to fear that she will become a military
power of any importance, as the habit saps the energies and
vitality of the nation.’ This was how Richard Hurst, the British
Consul in China, ended his speech to the Royal Opium Commission
in 1895.   It was not until 1905 that the Chinese authorities
managed to adopt and start implementing a program to gradually
ban opium.
“One more interesting fact: According to the British
national archives declassified in 2014, the British authorities
made wide use of chemical weapons to put down the Arab rebellion
in Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) in the spring of 1920. Winston
Churchill as Britain’s Secretary of State for War supported ‘the
use of gas against uncivilized tribes.’ According to archives,
Churchill ordered the use of thousands of mustard gas shells
against the rebels. The anti-British rebellion in Iraq claimed
between 6,000 and 10,000 lives, according to various sources, a
negligible number from London’s point of view compared to other
regions.
“Now let’s move on to espionage operations and pinpoint
sabotage and subversive acts. From time immemorial,
representatives of Great Britain have been avid fans of various
kinds of covert operations and targeted subversive acts against
specific individuals as a way to secure political benefits for
Great Britain. This predisposition is richly represented in their
art, things like the James Bond gold collection. This may sound
ridiculous unless you know that the author of the series, Ian
Fleming, had searched through the archives, so Agent 007 in fact
has real prototypes. This anthology of crime, artfully described
by writer and part-time naval intelligence officer Fleming is a
light version for those who are not interested in historiography
“Indeed, the Bondiana is a very symptomatic example of the
British government’s love of such things. Fleming died in 1964,
but what he described lives and thrives. New James Bond episodes
are regularly released, as everyone is used to the superhero.
Times change, the actors and sets change, but the idea remains
unchanged — a British agent, in the service of the Kingdom, gets
nothing less than license to kill. Once again I repeat, this is
not a fictional invention, but a result of work with archival
materials. What we see in the Bondiana is actually taking place
under the cover of MI5 and MI6.
“Thanks to the films, people have a basic understanding of
the license to kill concept — a term denoting the permission
granted by the official government or a state agency to a secret
agent who serves this authority to independently make a decision
on the necessity and expediency of murder to achieve a certain
goal. Once the mission is completed, the agent always returns to
the base.
“It is a pity that in normal life, things are not so
beautiful and dignified.
“And now getting back to reality. The following historical
episodes are not fiction; they are facts. Some of them are
proven, whereas others are highly likely hypotheses put forward
by historians.
“Scotland Yard historians also maintained the British
authorities’ complicity in the murder of Grigory Rasputin.
” [T]here are similar versions regarding the murder of
Russian Emperor Paul I
“Historians also write about the so-called Lockhart
Conspiracy organized in 1918 by the heads of the diplomatic
missions of Britain, France and the USA to Soviet Russia in order
to overthrow the Bolsheviks.
“In 2013, information was made public indicating that the
MI6 intelligence service was the mastermind of the assassination
of Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected prime
minister of Congo.
“As time went by, official London and its diplomatic
missions continued to actively meddle in the domestic affairs of
other states and to influence their political regimes. Suffice it
to recall 20th Century events when British secret services ‘took
part’ in staging a coup d’état in Iran in 1953.
“British diplomats working in Moscow are probably listening
and recording all this. They will have to send their report to
London today. I have done my best, and this statement is 17 pages
long. I have one question: Are you proud of your history? Then
you need to make a choice: either you advocate human rights,
international law and democracy, or you are proud of what you did
in the past and continue to do today.
“In August 1953, the CIA and the British Secret Intelligence
Service staged their joint Operation Ajax to overthrow the
government of Mossadegh.
“Although we were members of the Anti-Hitler Coalition, the
UKs behavior during World War II can also hardly be called
equivocal, due to a number of factors. Some historical episodes
give rise to major questions about the essence of the UKs
policies on the international scene. This includes, for example,
Rudolf Hess mysterious flight to the UK on the eve of the German
invasion of the Soviet Union. The history of every country has
some unpleasant facts, for which future generations will have to
pay the price and assume moral responsibility. But the British
secret services have classified all the documents on this case
for 100 years, and this deadline is being extended.
“Another example of subversive operations can be found in
Kim Philby’s book My Silent War, which contains some interesting
evidence. In April 1951, London hosted a meeting of
representatives of the British and US intelligence services
regarding both countries use of Ukrainian nationalist
organizations. Again, everything ties up.  By that time, the
secret services had supported Stepan Bandera’s Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) for many years and used them to
recruit agents and obtain intelligence on the USSR. Cooperation
between OUN and the Intelligence Service grew steadily. In 1949
and 1950, several OUN saboteur squads were para-dropped to
Ukraine. In the early hours of May 15, 1951, British secret
services para-dropped three reconnaissance-saboteur squads.
Everyone knows about the atrocities committed by Banderas
supporters, including mass executions of civilians, hundreds of
thousands of men and women, old people and children, Russians,
Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jews, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and
Yugoslavs, the Volhynia massacre, the murder of Polish
professors, the Katyn tragedy, punitive operations in Slovakia,
Warsaw, and Prague.
“The British authorities actively recruited professional
criminals during their subversive operations. Remember, they told
us that Russia is a criminal state with which there should be no
cooperation? But the British authorities cooperate nicely with
criminals. We are not even talking about White Helmets and people
recruited into this organization who are supported all the same.
Lets talk about ‘mundane’ things. In 1973, Her Majesty’s
Government officially admitted that Kenneth Littlejohn and his
brother Keith had robbed banks in the Republic of Ireland for
over 12 months in order to discredit the Official Irish
Republican Army (IRA). This amounts to classic tactics. Kenneth
Littlejohn claims that he was instructed to kill Sean Mac
Stíofáin, the former chief of staff of the IRA.
“And here is another example: Howard Marx, an Oxford
graduate who became a drug dealer, was recruited for the purpose
of obtaining information about the IRAs weapons supply chain. In
return, the authorities promised not to prosecute him for
drug-related crimes. These are isolated examples.
“By the way, the British government is known to have created
comfortable conditions in the UK for criminals from other
countries. According to the UK Home Offices information for a
period between 2005 and 2012, there were over 700 war crime
perpetrators living in Britain.
“The British authorities also like to use prohibited methods
for treating prisoners, especially when they need to get
information from them. And, of course, nobody has called off the
license to kill.
“We also remember how Qaddafi was removed and that London
applauded the execution of the head of a sovereign state.
“God knows in how many other such cases the UK government is
involved.
“In conclusion, I will provide the ‘deadly list’ of the
prominent and talented people who died a strange death in the UK
in the early 21st Century.”
And among many others, she includes the following case:
“July 2003: a UK authority on biological warfare, David
Kelly, was found dead in Oxfordshire. The inquiry concluded that
he had committed suicide. I would like to remind you that David
Kelly criticized the Tony Blair government and claimed that the
invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on falsified data. A decade
later, the UK government admitted that the data was indeed
falsified.”
So, in the immortal words of Hans Christian Andersen: “The
Emperor, indeed, has no clothes.”  The crimes of Britain stand
exposed, and, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, they have completely
over-extended themselves.  Now, it is up to us to just rip the
mask away, and let the truth stand on its own.  I guarantee you,
just as the American people have never forgiven Tony Blair and
George W Bush for dragging us into war in Iraq on the basis of
damned British lies and a British intelligence hoax, future
civilization will never forgive us for allowing ourselves to be
duped again; this time into starting World War III on the basis
of these same British lies.  It’s time for all of us to, once and
for all, reject the agenda of the failed British Empire, and to
instead embrace the vision of a New Paradigm of great powers’
relationship for the planet, built as Franklin Roosevelt
intended, following the defeat of Hitler in World War II; that
this partnership would be built on the pillars of a relationship
of the United States, Russia, and China.  That this partnership,
this alliance of great powers, would have the power to end the
reign of the British Empire once and for all, by bringing peace
through economic development, and great projects such as the New
Silk Road to the entire planet.
This is the subject of this pamphlet [holds up Four Laws
pamphlet]; this has been in circulation now for almost a year.
This is “America’s Future on the New Silk Road”.  It goes
extensively into the physical economic principles which could be
applied to bring about this kind of great projects, international
development perspective and finally end the legacy of British
colonialism, enforced backwardness, and genocide. This pamphlet
is now going into a second updated printing.  It is incumbent
upon all of us to use this window of opportunity to go into a
mobilization like we never have before.  It’s clear that there is
still a war waging for the soul of this Presidency in the United
States.  Indications are very clear that President Trump himself
is very reluctant to abandon his inclination towards just such a
great powers relationship; a relationship between the United
States and Russia, and the United States and China, to create a
new strategic economic order for the planet.  Despite the
ill-advised attacks under the influence of war-mongers and
neo-cons and British intelligence fellow travelers inside his own
administration, since then he has made it very clear — despite
Nikki Haley’s declaration that there will be another round of
sanctions on Russia.  Trump has contradicted that, and despite
Nikki Haley’s declaration that no, in fact, we will not be
withdrawing our troops from Syria; Trump has contradicted that,
and accused Nikki Haley of being “confused”.
There is a war waging for the soul of this Presidency, and
the stakes could never be higher.  It is our role here in the
United States to make very clear what the positive vision of the
future can be, now that these British lies stand exposed.
What I would like, is to conclude with a clip from a webcast
which Helga Zepp-LaRouche broadcast yesterday, where she
documents exactly this exposure of British crimes, British
hoaxes, and British lies.  She says that now is the time to act
to usher in a New Paradigm for civilization.  So, here’s Helga
Zepp-LaRouche:

  HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, there is right now, in
certain European political layers, a big debate:  Has the “deep
state” in the United States won already, or is there still some
options that Trump could stick to his announced policies?
Well, obviously the “deep state” is, or what people call the
“deep state,” which is this what President Eisenhower already
pointed to as the “military industrial complex” combined with the
intelligence services belonging to the British Empire faction —
obviously, they’re still very strong.
But on the other side, I think they have never been so
exposed, and at a time when ordinary people have the feeling that
everything is falling apart, — the trust in government is
collapsing, pensions are not seen as secure, there is fear of a
new financial crisis much worse than 2008 — people have a sense
that there really is no institution, I mean, in the West, people
have the sense there is no place they can turn to in terms of
trust.  And in such a moment, when people realize who are the
war-mongers, and that they’re pushing war against Russia using
lies, I think this can completely backfire and once these lies
are being dismantled and ostracized; and the people pushing the
lies are being ostracized, I think there can be a real return to
an international relation among nations, not only reviving the UN
Charter, reviving international law.  But also, I think sometimes
you need a shock like this present experience, to move to a New
Paradigm of international relations.  And I think that is
absolutely something on the horizon.
I mean, you see a dynamic where more and more countries are
not going along any more.  The East European countries, the
Central European countries, the Balkans, the South European
countries, Switzerland, Austria — they all want to have a
different kind of relation, and the more countries have that kind
of determination, and the more countries which are not yet there,
like Germany, France, Great Britain, the more people mobilize and
speak out to stick to the truth — you know, there are many
people in motion right now, there are many appeals being
circulated among people who say “we have to return to reason”; we
have to have to have a good relationship with Russia and China.
Without these two countries, no problem on this planet can be
solved.
And the more people start to engage in such a discourse and
get active; I’m in one sense a Leibnizian, believing that a great
evil always generates the potential for an even greater good,
because that’s the laws of the universe.  I think the universe is
made in such a way that there is this tremendous ability to
improve, to become better; to have higher forms of existence.
And it does require the individual action — it’s not a
dialectical materialism, or historical materialism, which goes by
itself. But there is such a thing as the combination of
objective conditions and subjective intervention. And the
objective conditions do exist.  They exist in the form of a New
Paradigm promoted by all the countries participating in the Belt
and Road Initiative; and if you add to that the subjective
factor, which is the courage of the world-historical individual
acting on the basis of his or her knowledge, I think there is all
the chances that we can move humanity into a more safe historical
period.
So therefore, I can only appeal to you:  Join us.  That’s
the best thing you can do.

  OGDEN:  So, as Helga LaRouche said, with these British
crimes now exposed for the world to see, now is the time to move
decisively into a New Paradigm for civilization.  So, with that
call to action, we conclude tonight’s broadcast.  Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com; the world is changing rapidly, and we
have a lot of work to do.  Thank you very much.    

 

Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er 13. april. Som seere af vores webside vil vide, og som LaRouchePAC-aktivister vil vide, så gik verden i mandags ind i et alarmberedskab, svarende til Rød Alarm. LaRouchePAC og LaRouche-organisationen gik ind i en generel mobilisering for at stoppe det, det ville være en katastrofal, ødelæggende og meget farlig beslutning om at lancere et angreb mod Syrien. Et angreb, der meget vel omgående kunne kaste os ud i begyndelsen til Tredje Verdenskrig. Denne mobilisering har haft en enorm effekt. LaRouchePAC gik omgående i offensiven og udgav et flyveblad, som I ser her på skærmen. Flyvebladet kan downloades via linket, I ser her.  (Dansk: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=24629)

Dette flyveblad omdeles nu overalt og er også blevet omdelt til hvert eneste kontor i Repræsentanternes Hus og USA’s Senat.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af webcastet:

Let me just read you a little bit from this leaflet.  This
is not all of it, but these are some relevant excerpts.  It
begins by saying the following:
“We, the United States, are about to launch an attack on
Syria and, possibly, the Russian troops therein, based on
perfidious British lies; based on what may turn out to be
history’s final and blackest intelligence hoax, the one that
eliminated the human race. At the same time, President Trump’s
personal lawyer’s office was raided today, April 9, 2018, based
on a referral from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. These two
outrageous events are completely related. Unless you rise up with
us right now to stop it, this country is in grave, graver peril.
The outright attempt to blackmail this President into the war he
was elected to stop has been escalated beyond anyone’s
imagination.
“In 2016, millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump
because he said he would end useless, perpetual wars on behalf of
an intellectually dead and financially bankrupt Anglo-American
system, the imperium which dates to the immediate aftermath of
World War II. Donald Trump sought better relations with China,
now emerging as the world’s most powerful economy, and Putin’s
Russia. Trump’s determination to establish decent relations with
Russia and China and that determination alone, set into motion
the hellish coup against the President, led by the British and
those many useful idiots in our elites who are in their thrall.
“That coup, whose manifesto was the fake “dirty dossier” on
Donald Trump authored by MI6’s Christopher Steele and paid for by
Hillary Clinton, was on its last legs when Britain began its
present offensive. Senators Charles Grassley and Lindsay Graham
had referred Christopher Steele to the United States Department
of Justice for criminal prosecution and patriots in Congress were
pursuing a genuine effort to identify and prosecute those
responsible for the coup against our President. Then, on March 4,
2018, a Russian who spied for Britain, Sergei Skripal, and his
daughter were allegedly poisoned in Salisbury, England. Skripal
runs in the same British espionage circles associated with
Christopher Steele. Prime Minister Teresa May immediately
pronounced to the world that Russia was behind the attack but has
never ever produced any proof for any of her bellicose
statements. President Trump was bum rushed by his traitorous
advisors, including H.R. McMaster, who throughout his military
career was a captive of Britain’s International Institute of
Strategic Affairs, into supporting Britain’s completely unfounded
claims. The message to the President from our traitors is clear,
join us in the march to war and maybe, maybe, we will let up with
the coup.
“Ultimately, Britain’s own chemical weapons experts at
Porton Downs refused to say that the agent used on the Skripals
was manufactured in Russia, despite the evidence-free claims of
Teresa May and her insane Foreign Minister, Boris Johnson”.
“Despite voicing support for Teresa May, Donald Trump still
sought to make good on his promise to the American people. He
congratulated Putin on his election and invited him to the White
House for early talks, citing the escalating and dangerous arms
race between the United States and Russia. The British and their
American friends completely lost it in response. A hammer needed
to be dropped on this President who now was even talking of
pulling American troops out of Syria and rebuilding the United
States.
“Enter a second British authored poisoning hoax, this one in
Syria. The Russians, Iranians, and Syrians not only assisted in
the defeat of ISIS, but were mopping up the last remnants of
remaining jihadis, such as Jayish Al Islam, a rebranded Salafist
Jihadi group controlled by the Saudis, and the Al Nusra front or
Al-Qaeda. The final military operations consolidating victory
were concluded in the last days in Gouta, a suburb of Damascus.
Having achieved victory, under the narrative our war mongering
media would have us believe, Assad launched a chemical weapons
attack to celebrate that victory, knowing he would bring down
holy hell upon himself from the West.
“The pictures of dying children which President Trump
reacted to so emotionally a year ago, when he launched missile
strikes on Syria, have been presented to him again. There is
every reason to believe they are fake. Russia and Syria had been
warning about just such a false flag attack involving chlorine
gas for over a month as they closed in on victory in Gouta. The
only information claiming such an attack occurred is coming from
the White Helmets, an aid organization founded by the British,
implicated as being militarily involved with Al-Qaeda, and deeply
implicated in past hoaxes concerning Assad’s alleged use of
chemical weapons.
“The White Helmets are jointly funded by British and
American intelligence components dedicated to regime change in
Syria. They have received millions upon millions of dollars for
this purpose. They are critical components of the interventionist
and regime change foreign policy Donald Trump was elected to
eradicate.
“In 2013, when Obama threatened war with Russia over
Syria, the American people intervened, raised the roof of
Congress, and stopped it. This is what is needed now. Russia sees
an unrelenting information warfare offensive coming from the
British and their dupes in the U.S.  They correctly see this as
the first steps toward war. We need to reverse this starting right
now. Call your Congressional Representative or Senator, tell them
to stop the drive to War and Shut Down Robert Mueller, Now.
“[The] Capitol Switchboard is (202)224- 3121. Raise the
roof! Call the White House and tell the President not to step in
a British trap.  [And the White House switchboard number is]
(202)456-1111.”
Now, that leaflet is available in the description of this
video.  As we’ve received reports, calls have been inundating
Congress, and we’ve received word that the White House
switchboard has also been overwhelmed with calls over the last
several days from American citizens responding to this call.  The
call, that LaRouche PAC issued to immediately go into an all-out
mobilization to stop this war.  As I mentioned, this leaflet is
being circulated around the country.  Rallies are being held in
cities around the country by members and activists with the
LaRouche Political Action Committee.  Here, I’m going to show you
a couple of pictures.  This is a picture from the streets of
Manhattan, and that graphic there — “No Strike on Syria” —
which had listed the White House phone number and the
Congressional phone number.  The next there, you see “Chemical
Weapons Hoax Is another British Lie”.  There is somebody signing
up, leaving their information to become a volunteer and an
activist with LaRouche PAC.  The next one here, you see a banner
“Fire Mueller, Not Missiles! Poison Gas, My Ass!  Stop World War
III! larouchepac.com“. Here you can see a similar banner which
was being deployed in the streets of Houston, Texas.  This one,
you can see, was accompanied by Kesha Rogers, who is an
independent candidate for US Congress there in Texas.  This one:
“Syrian Chemical Weapons Hoax!  British False-Flag for Nuclear
War!”  And then one more, here you can see Kesha Rogers herself,
“Poison Gas My Ass!  It’s All British Lies!”
This is being similarly alluded to by experts here in the
United States and abroad who are very clear that there have been
previous instances of false-flag types of attacks being staged in
Syria to try to provoke US involvement and to try to provoke
these US strikes against the Syrian government.  In fact,
spokesmen for the Russian Foreign Ministry are tracing this
directly back to the British, and are naming the British by name.
So, as we said on Monday, the mask is now falling away, and the
British have over-extended themselves and are now being
identified as the perfidious actors that they are.  Including in
an interview that Will Wertz of Executive Intelligence Review
conducted on behalf of LaRouche PAC on Wednesday of this week,
with Senator Richard Black.  Richard Black is a very vocal
Senator here in the Virginia State Senate.  This video has
already gained over 23,000 views as of just a few minutes ago,
last time I checked.  In that interview, what Senator Black does
is, he spares no words in warning that any strike on Syria with
Russian troops present on the ground, could lead directly to a
thermonuclear war which would threaten the existence of human
civilization itself.  Let me play you a clip from that video, and
I should just note that the full video is available.  The link is
available in the description below this video in YouTube
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTtAm0OHW24].
So, here’s a clip from this interview with Senator Richard
Black.

SEN. RICHARD BLACK

:  we have maneuvered ourselves to
a point, where the degree of risk I think is as high as it was
when the Archduke of Austria was assassinated, causing an
explosion into the First World War — enormous bloodshed,
suffering, destruction.  And the First World War, of course, was
sort of just a prelude and laid the groundwork for the Second
World War, and the vast destruction that took place.
Now: what makes this worse than the First World War
situation, is that while Russia — you know, we outspend Russia
11:1; our defense budget is so big, that it equals the combined
total of the next 14 largest nations in terms of defense
spending: Russia, China, Germany, Korea, France; it just goes on
and on.  We have a {gargantuan} defense budget, and so we are
more than a match for the Russians.  The Russians, while they
have a fine army, and fine military, it’s much smaller.  It just
can’t compare.
However, where we do have equality is with nuclear power.
Both sides apparently have roughly 1,500 nuclear weapons that are
set to go, like that. There are roughly 7,000 on either side,
which are capable of being used in short order.  That is enough
probably to destroys two-thirds of humanity. And certainly the
Western world as we know it, would be practically annihilated:
All of our major cities.  Right here in Virginia, Norfolk, the
biggest naval base on Earth, would simply be gone.  This Loudoun
County which has huge internet traffic would be gone.  The
Pentagon would be gone.  New York City totally gone!  It would
totally be erased from the Earth!
And we have people like John Bolton, who are sufficiently
reckless, to where, for their self-interest, they are willing to
risk the death of perhaps 2 billion people, to just simply
purging them from the face of the Earth. And it is incumbent on
the President to recognize the extraordinary danger that we face.
We have been building up to this, and many of us elected
Donald Trump on a promise that he was going to sort of normalize
our relations with Russia; he was going to stop trying to
overthrow President Assad, and work with the Syrians; he was
going to downgrade the importance of NATO, and he was going to
give up regime change.  Now, Trump has done a lot of the things
he promised to do, but he has not done one thing that he
promised to do in foreign affairs — well, you could take the
exception — he was always very hostile towards the Iranian deal
and so he was honest about that.  That’s probably the one thing
that he’s focused on most.  But you know, when Gen. Michael
Flynn was planned to be the National Security Advisor, Michael
Flynn would have been a godsend for this nation.  He knew where
the skeletons buried, he understood what was going on, and I
think he recognized the importance of drawing back from nuclear
war.
And so, we have come to a point, probably more dangerous
than any time in my lifetime — and I’m counting the time, when
as kids we used to have air raid drills, and we’d get under
desks, and they tell you, you cover your eyes, so you won’t be
blinded by the blast, and the back of your neck, so something
won’t hit you and break your neck.  And people understood nuclear
war, because we had dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, and they
understood what it could do.  Today, it’s sort of vague, it’s
very distant.
But the nuclear weapons that we have today, make the ones we
used on Japan look like firecrackers.  They’re nothing!  So we
are at a fantastically perilous juncture in our history, and
someone needs to take control of it, and say, let’s pull back
from the precipice.

OGDEN:  So, a very clear call.  Somebody needs to take
control of this situation and say, “We’re pulling back from the
precipice.”  And as Senator Richard Black said there, he sees
that we’re in a more perilous and more dangerous time than at any
point in his lifetime; including at the height of the Cold War
during the so-called “duck and cover” drills.  Now, Senator Black
immediately after delivering this interview to LaRouche PAC,
travelled to Richmond, to the State House in Virginia, and used
his privilege as a leading State Senator to stand up, claim the
floor, and deliver an extraordinary speech to the entire General
Assembly, which followed very heavily along the same lines as
what he went through in this interview that you just saw an
excerpt from.  This speech had such an impact that even the
Washington Post was compelled to give it thorough coverage.
Here’s some of the coverage that was included in the Washington
Post.  Let me just read you the beginning of their article.
They said:
“A state legislator who once flew to Damascus for a two-hour
sit-down with Bashar al-Assad took to the floor of the Virginia
Senate this week to say the Syrian president might have been
framed with a suspected chemical attack — if the attack happened
at all.
“|’It is not entirely clear that there was an attack,’ Sen.
Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun) said in a 20-minute speech on the
floor of Virginia Senate on Wednesday. ‘There was a doctor, from
the hospital â from the main hospital in Douma â who has said,
“We haven’t received any casualties. Nobody has been sent in.”|’
“The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
[the OCPW], a global watchdog, has sent inspectors to Syria to
try to confirm whether it was a chemical attack that killed
dozens in Damascus on Saturday.”
Then it went on to say, “As nearly two hours of strictly
perfunctory, procedural business wrapped up, Black asked to
address the body.
“He expressed concern that President Trump — whom Black
largely supports — will launch a military strike against Assad
‘regardless of whether there was an actual attack and without
regard to who may have staged it.’
“He went on to say the United States has been at war in the
Middle East for 17 years with no end in sight. That former Rep.
Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) had been right when he said that
without a military draft, Americans are more careless about
sending troops into battle. That national leaders who make the
call, such as former Vice President and Defense Secretary Richard
B. Cheney, never went to war themselves.”
Now, the article went on to report that, while there were
several Democrats who were quite flabbergasted that Senator Black
would have the gall and the guts to stand up and say what he said
there on the floor of the Virginia State Senate, there were
several of his colleagues who stood behind him 100%.  And knowing
his background as a military veteran with medals of valor that he
has received from going into combat, receiving wounds, and also
his history as a JAG [Judge Advocate General] and very high-level
prosecutor associated with the US Army, they know that these
words from Senator Richard Black are not words that he delivers
lightly.
Another elected official who, like Senator Black has
travelled to Syria in order to see what actually the conditions
are on the ground, and to get the truth of the matter and to get
the facts for herself, is US Representative Tulsi Gabbard,
Congresswoman from Hawaii — a Democrat.  This week, Tulsi
Gabbard, like many other members of the US Congress — Democrats
and Republicans included — went into an all-out mobilization.
Several of her colleagues have been calling on President Trump to
at least come to Congress and follow the US Constitution and the
War Powers Act.  But Tulsi Gabbard went much further, and she
issued a very strong series of tweets, which I would just like to
go through for you here.  She said:  “Our unfortunate and brutal
history of waging regime-change wars has failed.  Interventions
in Iraq and Libya caused death, destruction, and human suffering.
We have neglected our own communities.  Military action should be
the last resort, not our first.  The people of Syria want peace
more than anything in the world.  Dropping bombs on Syria will
not bring their war-torn country any closer to peace.  It will
escalate and prolong the war, resulting in more senseless death,
destruction, suffering, and refugees.”  She says, “By launching a
US military attack against Syria, terrorist groups like al-Qaeda,
ISIS, Jayish al-Islam, etc. will be reinvigorated and resurrected
in their quest to topple the government and establish a
caliphate.  This creates a greater threat to America and Hell for
the Syrian people.”  She says, “Bottom line: If our desire is for
peace and stability in Syria so that refugees can return home and
they can begin to rebuild their homes and lives, then we should
work for peace rather than expanding and escalating the war
through a US military attack against Syria. #peace for Syria.  As
a soldier, I know that the most basic requirement before taking
military action is that you must have a clear achievable
objective, and a strategy to achieve it.  You must analyze the
situation, know what the risks are, and what the cost and
consequences of your actions will be.  Our actions in Syria must
be based on strategy which is based on what our mission actually
is.  What are we trying to achieve?  The neo-cons and
neo-liberals calling on Trump to attack Syria either don’t know
what the mission is, or are pursuing a mission that is contrary
to US interests.  Actions that weaken or cripple the Syrian
military result in greater instability, more suffering of the
Syrian people, and strengthen terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and
ISIS, Army of Islam, etc. who are trying to topple the
government.  Is that our mission?  Does this help Syrian or
American people?”  Then, she concludes, “US military action in
Syria could escalate into a war with Russia and Iran.  Russia has
already stated that they will respond to any US military attack
against Syria.  Is this our mission?  How does going to war with
Russia over Syria serve the interests of the American people?”
That final tweet goes directly to the point.  Any attack on
Syria would risk wounding or killing a Russian service member or
Russian military assets which are deployed heavily in that
region.  Any attack on a Russian military asset or a Russian
soldier, would result in a direct response from Russia, which
means World War III.  So, those warnings are very clear.  Now,
Tulsi Gabbard also confronted US Defense Secretary James Mattis
during a hearing that was held in the US House of Representatives
just yesterday.  She begins by bringing up the War Powers Act and
the Constitutional right of Congress to declare war, not the
President; but then she pursued a similar line of questioning as
what she covered in that series of tweets.  You’ll hear Jim
Mattis say, “We haven’t yet actually decided whether there will
be a military strike against Syria,” although President Trump in
the beginning of the week has set himself a 24-48-hour time line
on that.  There are questions surrounding what is actually the
discussion and the push-back inside the White House, and what is
Jim Mattis’ role on this, and an acknowledgement that, at least
if a military attack were launched, what is the strategy to
follow up on that?  And then an acknowledgement that any military
attack would precipitate a much higher escalation in the
conflict, and could lead to a war with Russia.  So, you’ll see
Tulsi Gabbard say that explicitly.  So, here’s this video clip
from the Congressional hearing yesterday.

REP. TULSI GABBARD

:  Thank you, gentlemen, for your
service.  The President indicated recently his intention to
launch US military attacks against Syria.  Article I of the
Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
Congress has not done so against the Syrian government.  Syria
has not declared war against the US, or threatened the US.  The
launch of 59 missiles against Syria by Trump last year was
illegal and did not meet any of those criteria in the War Powers
Resolution.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, which
was signed into law by President Trump, states that none of the
funds made available by this Act may be used with respect to
Syria in contravention of the War Powers Resolution; including
for the introduction of US armed military forces into hostilities
in Syria.
My question is:  Will the President uphold the Constitution,
the War Powers Resolution, and comply with the law that he
signed, by obtaining authorization from Congress before launching
US military attacks against Syria?

DEFENSE SECRETARY JAMES MATTIS:  Congresswoman, we have not
yet made any decision to launch military attacks into Syria.

GABBARD:  It is simple, however, what the Constitution
requires, so while you are correct in saying the President has
not yet made a decision, my question is:  Will he abide by the
Constitution and comply with the law?

MATTIS:  I believe that the President will carry out his
duties under the Constitution to protect the country.

GABBARD:  What would the objective of an attack on Syria be,
and how does that serve the interests of the American people?

MATTIS:  I don’t want to talk about a specific attack that
is not yet in the offing, knowing that this would be
pre-decisional.  Again, the President has not made that decision.
However, looking at the Chemical Warfare Convention, I think it’s
by far in the best interests of civilization, certainly the best
interests of America, that that Convention be obeyed by the
nations that have signed it.  What has happened in Salisbury,
England and now has happened in Syria again, shows that this is
not an idle concern.

GABBARD:  So, if the decision is made, as you have stated
publicly, you are laying out all the options on the table for the
President.  If the decision is made to launch a military attack
against Syria, Russia has already responded that they would
respond to our US strike.  As this action is considered, can you
justify for the American people how going to war with Russia over
Syria serves the interests of the American people?

MATTIS:  No, Congresswoman, I can’t answer that question.
I’m not ready to speculate that that would happen.

GABBARD:  Would you not say that it is a highly likely
occurrence, given what Russia has stated directly that they will
respond?

MATTIS:  No, Congresswoman, I would not.  There’s a lot of
ways to respond to the violation of the Chemical Weapons
Convention diplomatically, economically, militarily, that taken
in total would represent I think what we have to do in this world
if

in accordance with international norms and
international law.

OGDEN:  So, as I said, numerous members of Congress are
insisting that the War Powers Act and Article I of the
Constitution — the Constitutional privilege of the US Congress
to declare war and not the President; that this be observed.
Both Democrats and Republicans.  This is also being brought up in
the UK by Jeremy Corbyn, saying Theresa May cannot be allowed to
just launch a unilateral attack on Syria without coming to the
Parliament first.  So, there is huge push back; but I would
insist that this comes, this was catalyzed by the mobilization
that LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche organization internationally
launched at the beginning of this week.  The actions by activists
such as you who are viewing this webcast, and other people who
have been mobilizing in an all-out mobilization over the course
of this week, has had a very significant impact, and may be the
reason why we are not at war in Syria already, and have not
escalated this into some sort of an attack, a missile launch in
Syria at this point.  Now, we remain in the danger zone.  By no
means is anything decided.  We have to continue this mobilization
in a way which goes beyond even what has been done thus far this
week.
What I would like to do, just to conclude this broadcast, is
to bring you an excerpt of a webcast that Helga Zepp-LaRouche
delivered just yesterday.  Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been receiving
a lot of traction in what she’s been saying.  A webcast which was
delivered last week, which she delivered in German on a website
in Germany, has already received over 60,000 views.  This is
really catalyzing a major interest in the leadership that the
LaRouche movement is providing on this issue.  So, you’ll hear
Helga Zepp-LaRouche say here in this webcast is that we are in a
very dangerous situation that could get out of control in no
time.  This is, indeed, a British trap that President Trump is
walking right into, and we have to prevent him from walking into
this kind of British intelligence trap.  So, here’s what Helga
Zepp-LaRouche had to say:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Yeah, we are indeed in a very
dangerous situation, which could get out of control in no time.
And just to underline that point, this tweet by President Trump
which made the headlines internationally everywhere, namely,
Russia, the missiles are coming.  That turns out to be a reaction
to a fake news! The background of this story is that about a week
ago, the Russian ambassador to Lebanon, gave an interview where
he supposedly said that any attack on Syria would be answered by
a full military reaction by Russia.
Now, it turns out that that interview which appeared on
Hezbollah TV [Al Manar] and was translated into Arabic was
mistranslated, and obviously referred to an earlier remark which
General Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of Staff of the Russian
military had made, where he said, that if there is an attack on a
Russian soldier in Syria, that Russia would react.  So, it was
not that any attack on Syria would be met with a Russian
retaliation, but if the lives of Russian soldiers would be
attacked, which is a huge difference.
But obviously, that was the trigger point for Trump to send
out this tweet.  But it also shows you that in this environment
of complete orchestration of fake news, false flag attacks,
secret service manipulation of all kinds, how easy it is to stage
an incident and how things can get out of control.
We are right now not off the war danger.  It’s still unclear
what will happen.  Yesterday at the White House briefing,
apparently it was said that “all options are on the table.”
Theresa May meets with her cabinet  — supposedly according to
media reports, which are not very reliable, but it’s the only
source we have on that  — to decide if the British would
participate in a US military attack.  Now, the US warship USS
Donald Cook is 100 km from Tartus, which is the Russian military
port in Syria, and another US warship has left Norfolk, and is on
the way already since several days.
Now, since Russia has full air control over Syria, and Syria
has also extremely effective missile defense systems, if there is
a US missile attack on Syria, it could be right in a
confrontation between the two nuclear powers, the United States
and Russia.  So I can only urge you, all of you who are watching
this program, you should join our mobilization.  In every
parliament in the world where you are, get your congressman, get
your deputy to intervene and make sure the respective governments
are completely distancing themselves, that there is a public
debate and investigation.  And we must really have a total
mobilization against this war danger.

OGDEN:  So, that is a call to action from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche.  We remain in a red alert.  We need a total
mobilization against this war danger; not only here in the United
States, but across the entire planet.  The resistance to this
must be vocal, loud, clear, and it must be made clear that this
is exactly the kind of provocation which could directly lead to
World War III.  So, don’t let President Trump walk into a trap.
That’s the subject of the leaflet that we are circulating —
“Enough!  Call Congress and Your Senator and Tell Them To Shut
Down Robert Mueller and Stop the British Drive to War”.  So, we
implore you:  If you haven’t yet, do this; do it again.  Get all
of your friends and neighbors to inundate Congress with these
calls.  And to call the White House switchboard as well.  We must
continue in this all-out mobilization and respond to the call to
action that you just heard Helga Zepp-LaRouche deliver.
So, thank you very much for viewing this webcast here today.
Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Vært Matthew Ogden: God eftermiddag. Det er den 30. marts, 2018; Langfredag.

Hvis man ser på begivenhederne i verden i løbet af de seneste to uger, kunne man sige, at, på den ene hånd, er vi meget tæt på krig; at truslen om krig er alvorligt forøget. Men på den anden side kan man også sige, at muligheden for en reel, permanent, holdbar fred er meget tæt på. I realiteten er begge disse udsagn sande. Jeg mener, at denne kendsgerning viser os sandheden omkring, hvor, vi står i historiens forløb. Vi er usikkert anbragt på en knivspids og balancerer mellem to, modsatrettede paradigmer, som ikke kan sameksistere. Der er paradigmet for geopolitik og krig, og som desperat forsøger atter at gøre sig gældende på den transatlantiske scene netop nu; men så har vi også det modsatte paradigme for win-win-samarbejde og fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Det er det Nye Paradigme, der vokser frem og fejer hen over planeten. Det er præcis dette Nye Paradigmes succes, der har sat den geopolitiske gruppering her i det transatlantiske område i alarmtilstand. Det viser os også, at det er absolut nødvendigt, at folk af god vilje, inkl. LaRouche-bevægelsen her i USA og internationalt, intervenerer for fred, og for det Nye Paradigme.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

 

On the one hand, you have this incredible provocation from
Mad Theresa May, or as she’s being called “Theresa Mayhem”; a
very appropriate nickname.  She’s trying to rally an
international war coalition.  She’s going from a very weak
government that was on the verge of collapse three weeks ago, to
now; she’s probably casting herself in the image of Margaret
Thatcher, or even her image of Winston Churchill.  However, while
an unprecedented number of countries have fallen into lockstep
behind the UK in expelling these Russian agents, the more
interesting thing is how many countries did not do so.  Including
nearly a dozen European countries, which include Austria, which
sees itself as a bridge between Europe and Russia; Belgium, the
seat of the EU government interesting; Bulgaria; Cypress; Greece;
Luxembourg; Malta; Portugal; Slovakia; Slovenia.  Then on top of
that, you have Japan — a major US-UK ally; but also under the
recent years under Abe’s government, an ever-increasingly close
relationship with Russia. Then, even New Zealand, which is the
most fascinating of them all.  New Zealand is a member of the
so-called Five Eyes, which is the intelligence sharing group
comprised of the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand.  There was an article in the {Guardian} saying this
was a huge surprise that New Zealand, which they characterize as
Lilliputian, would go against the diktat that came from Theresa
May in London.
So, you can see that this is a very precarious and dangerous
situation, and that continues to play out.  But on the other
hand, take a look at the extremely promising developments towards
actual peace and towards averting nuclear war which are now
occurring on the Korean peninsula.  While the geo-politicians
would have you believe that second only to Russia, China is the
biggest global threat that we have to face right now; or perhaps
even more so.  The reality is that China has played a key role
in bringing Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table.  This is closer
to a real peaceful settlement of this crisis than we’ve seen in
many years.  The crucial factor in this has been the close
personal relationship that was forged between President Xi
Jinping of China and President Donald Trump here in the United
States.  So, in an absolutely surprising development which caught
the entire intelligence community here in the United States —
for one — by surprise, Chairman Kim Jong-un made a personal trip
to China; travelling by special train to Beijing on March 25th.
He stayed in the official government guest house, and had a
series of meetings stretching over the course of three and a half
days from March 25th to March 28th, meeting with Chinese
President Xi Jinping in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People.  They
engaged in very serious talks.  According to reports, this is the
first time in his seven years as President of North Korea that
Kim travelled outside of the country.  Now, what President Xi
Jinping said, as was reported in Chinese media about this meeting
during the summit that he had with Kim Jong-un, he said, “The
basics of the traditional friendship between China and North
Korea were founded and nurtured by the elder generations of
leaders of both countries.  This is our invaluable heritage.”
Then, Kim Jong-un, who is slated to meet face-to-face with
President Trump of the United States within the coming weeks in
the next month or so, said that he is ready to conduct this
high-level dialogue with the United States.  He said, “The issue
of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula can be resolved, if
South Korea and the United States respond to our efforts with
goodwill.  It will create an atmosphere of peace and stability,
while taking progressive and synchronous measures for the
realization of peace.  It is our consistent stand to be committed
to denuclearization on the peninsula, in accordance of the will
of late President Kim Il-Sung and late General Secretary Kim
Jong-Il.
According to reports, Kim also told Xi Jinping that North
Korea is ready to make some pretty reforms to its domestic
economic policy.  He’s ready to further open up to a market
economy, along the lines of what China has done over the past
couple of decades, going back to Deng Xiao-ping; what is called
“socialism with Chinese characteristics”.  Also, the reports are
that China, coming out of this meeting, agreed to invest in and
expand North Korea’s two major ocean ports; one on the west coast
of North Korea in Nan Pao, and one on the east coast in Wonsan.
What President Trump had to say following this summit
between Kim Jong-un and President Xi Jinping, he posted on
twitter.  He said, “Received a message last night from Xi Jinping
of China that his meeting with Kim Jong-un went very well and
that Kim looks forward to his meeting with me.  In the meantime
and unfortunately, maximum sanctions and pressure must be
maintained at all costs.”  But I think this shows you very
clearly that this is a joint project between President Trump and
President Xi Jinping personally.  This is an example of the kinds
of benefits that the world can gain if major nations such as the
United States and China work together towards these common ends.
Now, let me play you a clip from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
international webcast from yesterday, where she addressed the
very positive outcome that is developing there on the Korean
peninsula.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Oh, I think this is the
absolute overwhelming event, happening this past week.  Because
the Western mainstream media are again so ridiculous.  They were
saying, “oh, these two dictators meeting…” and so forth, but
this is very, very good, because obviously, both Xi Jinping and
Kim Jong-un recalled the long friendship between the two
countries, North Korea and China, and Kim Jong-un, in particular,
promised to carry on policy in the tradition of his father and
other relatives in the past.  He basically promised that he wants
to work towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,
provided that this offer is being met in an atmosphere of peace
and constructive attitude.  Obviously, North Korea will need
security guarantees; without that, he probably will not give up
the nuclear weapons.  But the fact that he first went to China,
and then is going to meet with President Moon Jae-in from South
Korea, at the end of April, and then, in all likelihood, with
President Trump in May, that means that one of the most dangerous
possible points for a World War III scenario could be peacefully
resolved.
And, you know, the fact that, as contacts were telling us in
South Korea, this whole thing had an economic dimension to it.
China  — according to these sources — is going to build ports
in North Korea on the east coast and the west coast, and also
obviously, the whole question of the extension of the Belt and
Road Initiative, involving South Korea, North Korea, Russia, and
China, — that is the framework within which one can get a really
stable development.
So Trump immediately made a tweet, where he said he got a
phone call from President Xi Jinping, who told him that the
meeting went very well, and that he is extremely optimistic,
looking forward; that unfortunately the sanctions [against North
Korea] have to be maintained until the problem is resolved, but
that he is absolutely looking forward towards this coming summit.
So I think this is {really} good, and it shows you that if
you have back-channels and in this case, you had everybody
involved, — Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin, but also Abe from Japan —
so this really shows that if you have this kind of diplomacy and
negotiation, there is no problem on this planet which cannot
solved by people who have a good will. And I think everybody
should be very happy about this development.
OGDEN:  So, exactly as I said, that is a testament that
there are major crises on the planet which cannot be resolved
unilaterally, but if we have this kind of great powers
relationship, these kinds of crises can be confronted, and can be
resolved.  Crises that have hung over our heads for decades.
This relationship between China and the United States through
this close personal relationship between Xi Jinping and President
Trump is already paying dividends, as you can see in the case of
this Korean peninsula here, and the possibility of not just
positive effects abroad, but very positive effects here at home
is also very real if we continue to cultivate this special great
powers relationship between China and the United States.
Now, despite all the talk of trade war, etc., there are very
interesting openings for joint Chinese-US investments and
cooperation in development projects right here in the United
States.  This, of course, is right along the lines of exactly
what LaRouche PAC has been campaigning for in terms of the United
States joining this New Paradigm, joining the New Silk Road, and
also exactly what Lyndon LaRouche has addressed in his Four
Economic Laws for drastically upgrading the productive powers of
the US labor force and lifting the United States to a much higher
platform of high-technology development.  This can be done with
this kind of US-Chinese relationship.  So, some of the very
interesting US to China, China to US relationships, some news on
that front over just the last few days.  Some US Republican
Senators — Senator Danes from Montana, Senator Grassley from
Iowa, Senator Johnson from Wisconsin, Purdue from Georgia, and
Senator Sass from Nebraska — all were in Beijing just a few days
ago this week on March 27th, where they had a meeting with
Premier Li Keqiang.  The Senators called the United States-China
relationship “one of the most important bilateral relationships
in the world.”  So, this is very interesting, especially coming
from Republicans in the US Senate who have been taking a very
anti-China line up to this point.  Of course we see contrary
voices, such as Marco Rubio, who is accusing every Chinese
student in the United States of being a secret Chinese spy.  But
this trip is interesting, and it comes from Senators who are
mainly from the so-called Farm Belt.  I think the involvement of
Senator Grassley is interesting, because of Terry Branstad’s
roots in Iowa.  Terry Branstad, former Governor of Iowa; now the
ambassador to China.
Also, we had news of the mayor of Miami-Dade County in
Florida, Mayor Carlos Jimenez, who just returned from a visit to
China, where he led a delegation of 50 elected officials and
business leaders from Florida.  He met with the mayor of
Shanghai, who stated to Mayor Jimenez, “The bilateral
relationship between China and the United States is the most
important.  It will affect the well-being of the people from both
countries and the world’s peace and prosperity as well.”  So,
interestingly, exactly the same wordings that came out of that
communiqué from the five US Senators, that the China-US
bilateral relationship is one of the most important bilateral
relationships in the world.  The mayor of Shanghai also made the
point very correctly that this is a win-win; the well-being of
the people of both countries — the United States and China —
can benefit out of this kind of bilateral relationship; but also,
the world’s peace and prosperity as well.  So, this is exactly
along the lines that Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been making and has
continued to make this week, as we will see.
Also — this is very interesting — the Governor of Alaska,
Governor Bill Walker, has announced that he will lead a trade
delegation to China in May; which interestingly, he first
proposed during his January 2018 State of the State address.
This is has been subsequently worked out, so this is another
state along the lines of what Governor Jim Justice in West
Virginia has been discussing.  Jim Justice, in his State of the
State, obviously discussed the importance of these $80 billion
Chinese investments into the state of West Virginia.  Now, you
have Governor Bill Walker from Alaska.  This does come in the
wake of Governor Walker personally hosting President Xi Jinping
last April in Anchorage when President Xi was flying back from
Florida, where he had his meeting with President Trump at
Mar-a-Lago on his way back to China; where he took a brief
opportunity to visit Governor Walker in Anchorage, Alaska.  Then
on November 8, 2017, Governor Walker was the only governor to
accompany President Trump on his delegation for the so-called
“state visit plus” to Beijing, where one of the deals that was
signed out of the $300 billion of deals and memoranda of
understanding, one of the deals that was signed was a $43 billion
China investment and purchase deal for an 800-mile Alaska gas
pipeline.  Also, there were important commitments made for
liquefied natural gas sales.  But this pipeline project which is
now being very much emphasized by Governor Walker, is being
characterized by the CEO of the Alaska Gas Line Development
Corporation — one of the parties in this memorandum of
understanding — is being characterized as having the potential
of “turbo-charging” the Alaskan economy.
So, these are states that have been on the margins and are
some of the poorer states.  West Virginia for sure, Alaska very
isolated, who are now developing these relationships with China
and are becoming gateways for the Silk Road spirit to enter into
the United States.  This is exactly what we’ve been discussing in
terms of the crucial importance of the role that China can play;
these mutual investments and joint projects that China is willing
to assist in building here in the United States.  And just the
idea of the United States joining this wave of mega-projects
which is sweeping the globe and upgrading our infrastructure from
the point that it’s now reached, which is a very sorry state of
disrepair and deterioration that has come from decades and
decades of disinvestment.
President Trump was in Ohio just yesterday, where he was
speaking to a room full of union members and building trades
workers.  The point of his trip was to address his so-called
infrastructure plan.  We know that there are many deficits when
it comes to the actual content of what Trump has proposed, but
Trump in this speech made it clear that he is still very clear in
terms of what the urgency of the problem here in the United
States is when it comes to infrastructure.  And also the image of
the United States as a nation of builders, and reclaiming the
legacy that we had over centuries that we were the premier
building nation in the world.  Our infrastructure was second to
none, and other nations were coming to the United States to try
to emulate what we had accomplished.  So, I’d like to just play a
couple of excerpts from President Trump’s address in Ohio
yesterday, and you’ll see that this infrastructure debate is
still very much on the front burner.  It desperately needs the
kind of input that the LaRouche movement is uniquely positioned
to make.
PRESIDENT TRUMP

:  We will breathe new life into your
very run-down highways, railways, and waterways.  We’ll transform
our roads and bridges from a source of endless frustration into a
source of absolutely incredible pride.  And we’re going to do it
all under budget and ahead of schedule.  You ever hear those
words in the public world?  Under budget and ahead of schedule.
We have other things.  Nearly 40% of our bridges were built
before — think of this — before the first Moon landing.  You go
to some countries, they’re building bridges all over the place;
all over you have bridges going up.  One particular country, I
won’t use it because they’re friendly to me, they weren’t
friendly to us as a nation, but now they’re friendly; they’re
building 29 bridges.  We don’t build bridges like that very much
anymore.  A little bit, every once in a while.  But our roads are
clogged, we have average drivers spend 42 hours every year stuck
in traffic, costing us at least $160 billion annually.  Our mass
transit systems are a mess; they’re dilapidated and they’re
decayed.  Nationwide, we average 300 power outages per year;
compared to just five per year in the 1980s.  A total mess.
In recent years, Americans have watched as Washington spent
trillions and trillions of dollars building up foreign countries
while allowing our own country’s infrastructure to fall into a
state of total disrepair.  We spent — and I was against it from
the beginning — they try and say “Well, maybe not ⦔  I was
against it from the beginning.  And by the way, we’re knocking
the hell out of ISIS; we’ll be coming out of Syria like very
soon.  Let the other people take care of it now.  Very soon, very
soon we’re coming out.  We’re going to have 100% of the Caliphate
as they call it, sometimes referred to as land; we’re taking it
all back, quickly, quickly.  But we’re going to be coming out of
there real soon; we’re going to get back to our country where we
belong, where we want to be.
But think of it.  We spent, as of three months ago, $7
trillion — not billion, not million — $7 trillion with a “t”;
nobody every heard of the word trillion until ten years ago.  We
spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.  We build a school, they
blow it up; we build it again, they blow it up.  We build it
again, it hasn’t been blown up yet, but it will be.  But if we
want a school in Ohio to fix the windows, you can’t get the
money.  If you want a school in Pennsylvania or Iowa to get
Federal money, you can’t get the money.  We spent $7 trillion in
the Middle East.  And you know what we have for it?  Nothing.
Stupid!  Stupid!  But we spent $7 trillion, but we barely have
money for the infrastructure.  For most of our history, American
infrastructure was the envy of the world — true.  Go back 30,
40, 50 years.  They would look at us like — now, we are like in
many places a Third World country.  It’s an embarrassment!  And
we’re the ones that had the imagination and the drive to get it
done, but we’ve got that again.  Other nations marveled as we
connected our shores with transcontinental railroads and brought
power to our cities that lit up the sky like no other place on
Earth, and build mile after mile of internet capabilities and
interstate highways to carry American products all across the
country and around the globe.  Nobody did it like us!  We dug out
the Panama Canal; think of that!  Thousands of lives were lost to
the mosquito, to the mosquito — malaria.  We dug out the Panama
Canal.  We transformed our skylines with towering works of
concrete and steel, and laid the foundation for the modern
economy.  To rebuild this nation, we must reclaim that proud
heritage — have to reclaim it.  And we’re on our way.
We must recapture the excitement of creation, the spirit of
innovation, and the spark of invention.  We’re starting!  You saw
the rocket the other day, you see what’s going on with cars.  You
see what’s going on with so much.  NASA, space agency, all of
sudden it’s back, you notice?  It was dormant for many, many
years.  Now it’s back, and they’re doing a great job.  America is
a nation like you, of builders.  It’s a nation of pioneers, a
nation that accepts no limits, no hardship, and never ever gives
up.  We don’t give up!  We don’t give up.  Anything we can dream,
you can build.  You will create the new highways, the new dams
and skyscrapers that will become lasting monuments to American
strength and continued greatness.  You will forge new American
steel into the spine of our country.  You will cement the
foundation of a glorious American future, and you will do it all
with those beautiful American hands.  Powerful hands, powerful
heart, and powerful American pride, right?  Powerful American
pride.
But you’re the ones who are truly making America great
again.  We’re going to work together.  We’re going to work with
the state of Ohio, we’re going to work with everybody.  And we’re
going to bring our country to a level of success and prominence
and pride like it has never ever seen before.  Thank you, and God
bless America.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.
OGDEN:  So you can see, the commitment truly is there.  This
is obviously what got President Trump elected in the first place.
He’s back in Ohio, back in the industrial heartland.  That
commitment to the reindustrialization of the United States, the
reclaiming of the legacy of the great manufacturing power and
returning to that image of the United States as the envy of the
world in terms of builders.  He cited the transcontinental
railroad connecting the sea to the sea, ocean to ocean,
stretching across the United States.  The Moon landing, so many
other things that the United States accomplished.  Now, in his
words, there are parts of the United States that literally have
come to resemble a Third World country.  So, the commitment is
there.
The program is exactly what LaRouche PAC has issued.  This
is the Four Laws economic program, and that’s why it’s so
indispensable that this pamphlet is circulated across the
country, and that this is studied by people in the United States
everywhere.  This should be the material which is being used by
these trade delegations that are travelling to China.  Alaska,
Miami-Dade County, West Virginia; all of these states, all of
these local government officials, all of these governors, all of
these Senators and Congressmen.  If they really want to figure
out what is the policy that the United States should be
discussing, this is the source material.  This is what they
should be studying.  You are the ones who play the critical role
in getting it into their hands and communicating the ideas that
are contained in this pamphlet.
The way that this is going to happen, and this is exactly
what Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have been addressing from the
standpoint of the New Silk Road becoming the World Land-Bridge
and the United States becoming part of this New Paradigm of
development and mega-projects.  One very interesting development,
which is really just a continuation of what has been discussed by
numerous officials coming out of China, and really was originated
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the LaRouche movement when she went to
the Belt and Road Initiative forum last Spring, along the lines
of China actually converting their US Treasury bonds that they
hold into equity in a national infrastructure bank here in the
United States and putting that money in terms of credit into
allowing the United States to capitalize such an infrastructure
fund; and to build these great projects that you heard President
Trump discussing.
So, let me just say, this week, as publicized by CGTN, which
is the China Daily global television network, an organization
called the Center for China and Globalization has reiterated the
idea that the only pathway towards stability in terms of US-China
trade relations, and evening out this so-called trade deficit,
the only pathway should be based on joint economic initiatives
and joint investments.  Instead of tit-for-tat tariff retaliation
this way and that way, the Center for China and Globalization —
according to CGTN — said that China should continue ten measures
that it should take to foster US-China trade ties.  They
recommend, in addition to adjustments that should be made in
areas such as lifting excessive limits on high technology exports
to China, and various other aspects.  The two most important
steps that they propose here are the following:  1. “Consider the
establishment of an investment fund to help the United States
upgrade its infrastructure, capitalizing on China’s advanced
technology and expertise in the field.”  2.  “Enlist the
participation of American companies in Belt and Road projects as
third party partners.”  So again, the establishment of an
investment fund where China can invest in the upgrading of US
infrastructure, and also contribute its significant expertise
that it has developed in terms of the projects that China has
built over the last 10-15 years.  Then, two, enlist American
companies in Belt and Road projects as third party partners.
So, in other words, the United States and US companies
actually join China as third party partners in some of these
development projects in other countries.  Why could the United
States not be participating as joint investors and joint partners
in some of these fantastic rail projects that China has been
building in Africa, for example?  Or some of the water projects,
or some of the power projects?  And this kind of win-win
relationship between the United States and China could then
benefit both China and the United States, but also benefit the
world.  So, in this way, China can continue to adhere to their
professed goal of long-term stable economic and trade relations
between the two nations, but also third party partners can also
benefit.
So, that’s what was proposed by this organization — the
Center for China and Globalization.  And emphatically, this is
not a new idea.  In fact, this idea comes directly from what the
LaRouche movement has been discussing in terms of America’s
future on the New Silk Road.  So, this is a very significant
opportunity, and despite the fact that everything you’re hearing
right now is trade war, tariffs, tit-for-tat, and so forth,
President Trump even in that speech in Ohio that you just heard,
praised what China has been able to accomplish in terms of these
marvels of infrastructure.  Bridge building, so forth and so on,
over the recent years.  It’s exactly that spirit, the spirit of
the New Silk Road that the United States must emulate right now.
We see some very interesting potentials around that sort of
development.  Again, as I said, these are the dividends of the
close personal relationship that President Trump and President Xi
Jinping have forged.  And it’s our job to continue to develop
things along that path.
So, let me conclude here by playing another clip from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s webcast from yesterday, where she addresses this
proposal for the United States joining the Belt and Road
Initiative as a third party partner in development projects
abroad, and also this idea of Chinese investment through an
infrastructure bank or similar investment fund in infrastructure
projects here in the United States.  So, here’s this clip from
Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Well, there is actually a very
interesting response from China, where the Prime Minister Li
Keqiang made a proposal:  He said, rather than reducing the trade
deficit by imposing tariffs, which would end up in a trade war,
and nobody would be the winner in the end, he said, the other way
to  resolve the trade deficit would be to increase the volume of
trade, and that way you could have also joint ventures between
the United States and China and third countries. And that is
obviously the approach which we have been proposing for a very
long time.
There was also an extremely productive approach being
discussed on CGTN, the China Global Television Network, where
they said that the United States and China should start a
dialogue about infrastructure, and that Chinese investors could
invest in the development of infrastructure in the United States,
through a fund.  Now, this is a proposal which we have been
pushing from way back, saying that China has these very large US
Treasury reserves, which if they just sit there, don’t do
anything good.  But if they would be invested in the
infrastructure inside the United States, through an
infrastructure bank or some other mechanism, it could help to
solve the financing problem which President Trump clearly has;
given the fact that presently what is available in terms of
funding, is very far from the $1 trillion he had mentioned during
the election campaign.  And the American Society of Civil
Engineers had said what is needed is not $1 trillion but actually
$4.5 trillion; and some experts have even said, in order to get
modern infrastructure in the United States, you need $8 trillion
in investment.
So, I think there is a situation where you could get rid of
the trade imbalance by really using the Chinese expertise in
high-speed train systems and other infrastructure. And what we
have shaping up from the Schiller Institute was this idea to do
exactly in the United States what China has been doing and will
complete by 2025, or even 2020, to connect all its major cities
through fast train systems.  Now, obviously the infrastructure in
the United States is in terrible shape and needs urgent repair,
most of it is almost 100 years old or even older.  So this would
be an approach to really resolve this on a higher level.
I think many people should discuss this, and there are
already many forces in the United States who have opened channels
with their Chinese counterparts.  The governor of West Virginia,
the mayor of Houston, Texas, the governor of Alaska. Naturally
people in Iowa are very tuned in, because the former Iowa Gov.
Terry Branstad is U.S. Ambassador in Beijing.  So there are
actually other alternatives than going into a trade war, which
nobody would really benefit from.
[T]he world has reached a point where we {have} to
overcome geopolitics.  Because if, at this point, the United
States, or the West in general, would go into the Thucydides
Trap, take the rise of China as a reason to go into war and
confrontation,  this could very easily be the end of all of
humanity, so we have to find a different way.  And China has said
many times, they do not want to surpass the United States and
replace with a unipolar world order, but they want to be in a new
alliance of sovereign countries, and have the idea of the one
humanity first.
And I think this is a new concept of foreign policy, and
people should study it and relate to it, rather than going for
the rather uninformed opinions of such people as Marco Rubio, who
is on a rampage against anything Chinese. But it really is not
going to work, because the rest of the world is very happy with
what China is doing, and I think it would be for the absolute
benefit of humanity if the United States and China could find a
way to cooperate in their mutual interest.
OGDEN:  So there, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, it would be
of the absolute benefit of the people of the United States and of
China and the benefit of all humanity, if these two countries can
find a pathway towards cooperation in their mutual interest.  In
fact, that’s the reality with all countries.  This is the point
of the idea of a great powers relationship.  Russia, China,
India, the United States; and that really is the foundation of
exactly what this idea of a new win-win paradigm of relations
between nations is.  There are problems to be overcome; there are
disagreements that will invariably occur; there are conflicts
that different nations must resolve.  But all of these can be
resolved by elevating the dialogue to a higher level, and to look
at what the common challenges are and what are the avenues of the
common benefit that all nations can work together towards this
idea of a common destiny for mankind.
So, we’re out of time right now.  As I said in the
beginning, if you looked at in one way, you would say the
possibility of war is very near at hand.  But if you look at it
in another way, you say the possibility of a New Paradigm of
peace and mutual development is also very close at hand, and is
right there for the taking.  It is all that much more necessary
that those of us who have this perspective and understand that
the big picture — events on the ground are being dictated and
are being driven by this fight; by this struggle between two
mutually opposing paradigms.  The geopolitical paradigm, that has
brought us to the threshold of this kind of war situation; but
also, this New Paradigm of economic development and
mega-projects.  And the offer, that we will assist you, not
expecting something in return, not trying to impose our will on
you; but just from the standpoint that this kind of cooperation
is in our mutual benefit.  It’s up to us and it’s up to the
elected leadership here in the United States on all levels, to
gain that perspective and to look for those avenues of mutually
beneficial cooperation and win-win relationships that can build
the bridge from now into this future in which the New Paradigm is
dominant.
So, as I said, we have the material which you need, which is
in the contents of this Four Laws pamphlet.  This is “Lyndon
LaRouche’s Four Laws; The Physical Economic Principles for the
Recovery of the United States:  America’s Future on the New Silk
Road.”  This was originally printed many months ago, but it
remains highly relevant and a very timely intervention that we
can use to educate our fellow Americans according to this
potential for the dividends of the New Paradigm of win-win
cooperation and economic development.  With that perspective in
mind, we wish you a Happy Easter, and we thank you for tuning to
larouchepac.com.  Please stay tuned, and we’ll see you on Monday.

Vi befinder os nu i en situation, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche tidligere i dag beskrev som »ildevarslende«; det var det ord, hun brugte. Hun sagde, »Dette kan kun forstås som et miljø med førkrigs-propaganda«. Hun sagde, at den respons, vi har set fra Vesten, fra flere lande i Europa og inkl. her i USA, til den bizarre sag med forgiftningen i Salisbury, Storbritannien, af en russisk eksspion, der blev britisk spion, ved anvendelse af en angivelig nervegift; hun sagde, at dette nu har skabt det, der kun kan betegnes som en ekstremt farlig situation, som meget let kunne eskalere hurtigt og føre til krig. Hun sagde, »Man må stille sig selv det indlysende spørgsmål: Hvor fører alt dette hen?«

Nøglefaktoren her, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche har understreget, er timing. Denne begivenhed, og alt det, der efterfølgende har udviklet sig med den, kom direkte i hælene på: 1) præsident Putins annoncering i sin tale for den føderale forsamling den 1. marts af denne nye generation strategiske våben, der totalt har ændret den internationale, geopolitiske struktur; og 2) annonceringen fra Husets Efterretningskomite, der præsideres af kongresmedlem Devin Nunes, nogle få dage senere af, at de havde afsluttet deres efterforskning og konkluderet, at der absolut ikke fandt noget ’aftalt spil’ sted mellem Trump-kampagnen og russerne. Dette var absolut hele grundlaget for Christopher Steeles Russiagate-narrativ.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

 

Vært Matthew Ogden: I takt med, at Muellers anklageskrift mod 13 såkaldte russiske ’trolde’ fortsat dominerer overskrifterne hen over weekenden, er amerikanerne i stigende grad begyndt at fatte det iboende hykleri i hele denne Russiagate-narrativ. Fra tidligere CIA-direktør James Woolsey, der af Laura Ingraham på Fox News bliver spurgt, om USA nogen sinde har blandet sig i et andet lands valg – til hvilken han måtte rømme sig og hoste og sige, »Jamen, det har vi sandsynligvis, og vil sandsynligvis fortsætte med«; og til en række blogindlæg i denne uge på tidligere forsvarsefterretningsofficer Pat Langs webside, »Sic Semper Tyrannis«. Man ser her [Fig. 1] titlen på et af de seneste indlæg: »Robert Muellers Amerika – En farce pakket ind i hykleri«. Dette blev postet den 20. feb., og her er et kort uddrag af hans blogindlæg, hvor han siger:

Under overskriften »Robert Muellers Amerika – En Farce pakket ind i hykleri«, fremfører Tacitus, at anklageskriftet er »intet mindre end en køreplan for despotiske regeringer, der ville ønske at behandle enhver, der vover at udlægge afvigende materiale på internettet, som en kriminel.« I virkeligheden »er det ikke andet end en gang harsk butterdej. Det prætenderer at have et bjerg af beviser på russernes misgerninger. Men, hvis man begynder simpelt hen at stille kritiske spørgsmål om det underliggende bevis for disse misgerninger, opdager man hurtigt, at dette dokument er et stykke politisk teater snarere end en faktisk opremsning af kriminelle gerninger.«

»Der er ikke et eneste stykke solidt bevis i hele dokumentet, der underbygger« påstanden om Internet Research Agency (IRA), det russiske selskab, der angiveligt skulle have haft tilsyn med den beskidte propagandakrig mod intetanende amerikanske vælgere. »Det er blot en konstatering af en overbevisning. Det er ikke sådan, man skriver et anklageskrift, der beskylder en for kriminelle handlinger.«

»Denne sag er således meget langt fra at være en ’slam dunk’ for Mueller-teamet. Skulle det nogen sinde komme for retten, er der signifikante huller og sårbarheder i anklageskriftet, som en kompetent forsvarsadvokat kunne splitte ad. Niks. Det her handler ikke om at straffe folk, der overtræder loven. Dette er et politisk teater, der er designet til at nære memet for at promovere antirussisk hysteri.« Tacitus understreger, at enhver objektiv efterforskning af angivelig »indblanding« fra IRA kun ville kunne konkludere, at »IRA’s aktiviteter er på grænsen til irrelevante og uden indvirkning«. Ingen stor afsløring her: Rusland har gennemført efterretningsoperationer i USA i 80 år. Men USA har gennemført lignende operationer »i og imod Rusland / USSR og har været involveret i hemmelige indblandinger i valg i hele verden. Dét er det hykleriske. Vi har et hysterisk anfald over latterlige internet-narrestreger, udført af en lille gruppe russere, der var dårligt finansieret og genererede liden aktivitet samtidig med, at vi ignorerer vores egen historie, hvor vi rent faktisk har væltet andre lovligt valgte regeringer. Der har vi det. Farce og hykleri.«

Hør så dette næste indlæg, publiceret i dag, den 23. feb., med titlen »Amerika blander sig i Ukraine« [Fig. 2]. Han siger:

»Historikere vil bemærke den enorme ironi, der ligger i USA’s engagement i undergravende virksomhed og indblanding i valget i Ukraine, som overgår alt, Rusland har forsøgt.

De ideologiske spaltninger, der vokser i USA, begynder at ligne de krigsførende lejre, der karakteriserer den politiske verden i Ukraine. Splittelsen i Ukraine sætter grupper, der beskrives som »højrefløj«, og mange er ideologiske efterkommere af ægte nazister og nazi-sympatisører, op imod grupper med et stærkt tilhørsforhold til Rusland.

Hvem støtter USA’s regering og medierne? Nazisterne. Du tror, jeg laver grin!«

Han fortsætter dernæst med at fremlægge OUN’s historie [Organisationen af Ukrainske Nationalister] og Stephan banderas støtte til Hitler og fortsættelsen af denne arv med Sektor Højre i dag. Dernæst fortsætter han:

»Regn mig med blandt de mennesker, der er oprørt over det hykleri og den stupiditet, der nu kommer frem i USA.

Der foregår helt tydeligt indblanding i det det amerikanske politiske landskab. Men det er altså ikke den russiske regering. Nej. Der er fremmede og hjemlige kræfter i alliance, som er ivrige efter at portrættere Rusland som en trussel mod verdensordenen, og som må modgås med højere forsvarsudgifter og hårdere sanktioner. Det er den propaganda, der dominerer medierne i USA i disse dage. Og det er i sandhed farligt for vores nations sikkerhed og frihed.«

Det står klart, som Pat Lang pointerer her i dette blogindlæg, og ligeledes, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche pointerede i sin internationale webcast i går, at hele denne Russiagate-historie, og desuden hele Kina-hysteriet, der i stigende grad nu oppiskes; at dette forkyndes med det formål at portrættere disse lande som en dødbringende trussel mod den herskende verdensorden, og som må tilintetgøres. Som Helga LaRouche sagde i dette klip, vi nu skal se, så man se dette som intet mindre end førkrigs-propaganda. Her er, hvad Helga havde at sige:

(her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet.)

(Hele Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast fra 22. feb. kan læses på dansk, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23890)

Henvisninger i den engelske tekst:

Nyt Paradigme undervisningsserie, Indtegning, program: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23703

Helga Zepp-LaRouches introduktion 10. feb. (dansk): http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23855

Harley Schlanger, lektion 2 17. feb., video, (engelsk): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy87_gzTTTU

“The Mueller Dossier Revisited: How the British
and Obama Diddled the United States”, https://larouchepac.com/20180220/mueller-dossier-revisited-how-british-and-obama-diddled-united-states

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  This is a case which will never go
to trial, because these are people living in Russia. It’s an old
case, it was already discussed in 2014, and since there is no
extradition treaty between the United States and Russia, the
trial will never take place; and therefore Mueller does not have
to provide any evidence for any of his accusations.  So it’s a
very convenient way to keep beating the drums in an anti-Russian
hysteria and it’s a big, big “nothing-burger” as people have been
pointing out.  But it is actually a fraud against the population,
because if you keep building this kind of enemy image, such as
against Russia and China — and people should understand, this
has nothing to do with Russian hacking, or Russian collusion; as
a matter of fact, there were several people, but one of them was
a leading member of the Russian Duma who said that there are 102
very well documented  cases for the United States meddling in the
internal affairs of other countries, and it’s fairly well known
how many coups and regime-change operations. So obviously, at
minimum, you could say is that both sides are doing it, but the
United States has a very long record of having tried to intervene
in the internal affairs of other countries in multiple ways.
So, this should be understood as pre-war propaganda, and
people easily fall for things which are in the mainstream media,
and rather, they should think twice.  What Russia is doing and
what China is doing, is they are building a completely different
model of international relationships, explicitly modeled on
noninterference, and respect for the social system of the other
country.  And therefore, this propaganda is just a terribly
dangerous scenario of lies which actually is serving as a
preparation for war, and that is what people really must get
straight.

OGDEN:  So the stakes are very high, and in the same
broadcast yesterday, Helga LaRouche made the point that there are
ongoing investigations coming out of the House Intelligence
Committee under Devin Nunes, and also the Senate Intelligence
Committee under Chuck Grassley, into the role of Christopher
Steele as a central figure in this entire Russiagate narrative.
As she said, this leads directly to the role of British
intelligence.  So, here’s a second clip from yesterday’s
broadcast.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Yes, it is directly British
intelligence.  It’s not “former” MI6 agent, but it is an MI6
operation, and it involves the Foreign Office of Great Britain
itself, as we saw in a case which was launched by one of the
Russians who were accused of hacking, who took the Steele case to
court, and then the Foreign Office intervened directly to block
any revelations coming from the Steele operative of theirs.
Now, that it is an incredible story:  It means the British
have intervened, not only in the coup against the Yanukovych
government, but also in the case of the coup against President
Trump.  That whole Russiagate as some people funnily say is a big
“regurgitated nothing-burger” — there is absolutely no substance
to it.  And we should just note the fact that the continuous
investigations coming from the two Houses of Congress, under the
leadership of Nunes and Grassley, they are still pointing
absolutely to the coup-plotters who were involved with the
British in this coup.
In the recent developments, [House Intelligence Chair]
Congressman Nunes has sent out 10 or 11 other letters to
officials of the existing or former government, where they have
to answer very pointed question — when did you know first about
the Steele dossier?  Did you discuss it with anybody else? Did
Obama know it?  When did he know it?  And these individuals have
to answers these questions by March 2nd, so it’s not a long-term
investigation, but it’s something extremely hot.  And it’s not
yet decided how this coup will go:  If the Congress has the
courage to go after those Obama intelligence officials who
colluded with Great Britain, but if they do, a lot of people
could not only lose their position, but actually end up in jail,
as some judges are now already demanding.

OGDEN:  So, as Helga said, this investigation continues and
it continues to escalate.  This is the question of the role of
the British and their fellow-travellers in the American
intelligence community in actually meddling in the US electoral
process.  Chairman Devin Nunes is scheduled to appear at the CPAC
[Conservative Political Action Conference] conference today; he’s
scheduled to be the closing speaker.  We’ll see what he has to
say there, but as Helga mentioned, Nunes has continued to march
forward with Phase Two of his investigation into this entire
Christopher Steele matter.  He issued a series of questions; this
is letter that was just published yesterday which was sent to the
FBI and officials within the State Department.  The letter is
asking for questions regarding information contained in the
Steele dossier, which was funded by the DNC [Democratic National
Committee] and the Clinton campaign, and used in a FISA [Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act] application targetting Carter
Page.  He notified them, as Helga mentioned, that if their
responses are not received by March 2nd, which is a week from
today, then subpoenas will be issued.  He said, “If you do not
provide timely answers on a voluntary basis, the Committee will
initiate compulsory process.”
So, included in these questions is one which directly asks
what did Obama know and when did he know it?  So, here are a few
of the questions that are asked by Chairman Nunes [Fig. 3]:

“1. When and how did you first become aware of any of the
information contained in the Steele dossier?
“2. In what form(s) was the information in the Steele
dossier presented to you? By whom? …
“3. Who did you share this information with? When? …
“6. When did you first learn or come to believe that the
Steele dossier was funded by a Democrat-aligned entity?
“9. Was President Obama briefed on any information contained
in the dossier prior to January 5, 2017?
“10. Did you discuss the information contained in the Steele
dossier with any reporters or other representatives of the media?
If so, who and when?”

So clearly it is very significant that this investigation is
going all the way to the top, with Obama himself being
implicated.  Now recall that Chairman Grassley of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, has also been asking questions about what
Obama knew and when did he know it.  Take the example of the very
bizarre email that was sent by Susan Rice to herself on
Inauguration Day at 12:15pm on the day that President Trump was
inaugurated; literally right before she walked out of the doors
of the White House for the last time to attend this inauguration.
The email describes a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting between
President Obama, former FBI James Comey, former Deputy Attorney
General Sally Yates, as well as Vice President Joe Biden and Rice
herself.  The email that Susan Rice sent to herself obviously has
been publicized by Chairman Grassley, and in this letter [Fig. 4]
that you’re looking at, he published the relevant excerpt from
this email.  Again, this is Susan Rice, addressed to Susan Rice;
12:15pm, January 20, 2017.  This is what she says:
“On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on
Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President
Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim
Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office.
[She mentions that Biden and herself were also present.]
“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his
continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue
is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities
‘by the book’.  The President stressed that he is not asking
about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement
perspective.  He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs
to proceed as it normally would by the book.
“From a national security perspective, however, President
Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the
incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason
that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russiaâ¦.
“The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes
in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified
information with the incoming team.  Comey said he would.”
Now, what Senator Grassley asks in his open letter to Susan
Rice is the following:
“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the
final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you
would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email
purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama
and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia
investigation.  In addition, despite your claim that President
Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’
substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the
FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State
Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book.’…

“4. Did anyone instruct, request, suggest, or imply that you
should send yourself the aforementioned Inauguration Day email
memorializing President Obama’s meeting with Mr. Comey about the
Trump/Russia investigation?  If so, who and why?
“12. Did President Obama have any other meetings with Mr.
Comey, Ms. Yates, or other government officials about the FBI’s
investigation of allegations of collusion between Trump
associates and Russia?  If so, when did these occur, who
participated, and what was discussed?”

So, these questions and these investigations are beginning
to hit very close to home.  Remember, Susan Rice was also caught
and has admitted to requesting the unmasking of several
individuals associated with the Trump campaign; Americans whose
communications were collected under NSA wiretaps and
surveillance.  Susan Rice and other officials have now been
caught on repeated occasions requesting the unmasking of these
American officials; raising many questions as to what the motives
were.
Now Chairman Nunes has been appearing on several talk shows
and media interviews over the last several weeks.  Obviously,
since the publication of his memo.  But he appeared last weekend
on “The Full Measure” show with host Sharyl Atkinson.  In that
interview, he continued to keep a laser focus.  Let me just read
you a few excerpts of what Chairman Nunes had to say in that
interview.
“We have a Russian Investigation going on whether or not
there was collusion between any campaign and the Russians. That’s
coming to a close. We’ve never had any evidence of collusion
between the Trump campaign and the Russians¦. There’s nothing
there”¦.
“[I]n that investigation, we’ve unearthed things that are
very concerning. We know that there are un-maskings that occurred
and probably were leaked to the media”¦. [W] hat we found was
happening is, in the last administration, they were unmasking
hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of American’s names. They
were unmasking people for what I would say, for lack of a better
definition, were for political purposes”¦. [N]ames were unmasked.
And those names ended up in the newspaper.
“[I]t’s like political dirt to create a narrative and a spin
with the mainstream media”¦. [T]here were unmaskings that we
unearthed, then there are the FISA abuse that we’ve discovered.
[T]his is where the FBI and the Justice Department — because
they’re involved in this FISA Abuse, because they’re the ones who
“ go before the secret court to get the warrants, they’re all
involved, they’re all implicated in this”¦.
“It really boils down to this. You had a campaign. The
Hillary Campaign and the Democratic Party went out and paid for
dirt”¦. Then they used that dirt and funneled it into the FBI.
The FBI then used that dirt to get a warrant on a US citizen who
was part of the other campaign”¦. [T]o do that, it’s wrong.
“¦… As it relates to Department of Justice and the FBI, if
they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial. The
reason that Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we
created. DOJ and FBI are not above the law. Congress created
them, we oversee them, and we fund them. And if they’re
committing abuse for a secret court, getting warrants on American
citizens, you’re darn right that we’re going to put them on
trial.
“I think people are just starting to learn now what really
happened. Because as we peel more and more of this back, I think
more and more Americans get educated. And I think that they’re
gonna demand that changes are made.”
Remember that this entire line of investigation is exactly
what was suggested in the original LaRouche PAC special report.
Obviously, this special report on Mueller was published now over
six months ago.  But this continues to be very timely and very
relevant.  An update to that report will be forthcoming, but we
have a preview now available on the website of what will be
contained in that updated dossier.  That preview is available
under the title “The Mueller Dossier Revisited: How the British
and Obama Diddled the United States”.  There you can see a screen
shot [Fig. 5] from that updated preview.  This is obviously
available in full on the LaRouche PAC website, and we would
encourage you to read it in its fullest extent.  It’s a fairly
long update.  But what I’d like to do is just read you from the
beginning of how this report is set up, a little bit of a
retrospective on the effect that this Mueller dossier has had
over its six-month circulation; but also the context in which you
have to understand always the big strategic picture behind the
events that are now unfolding on a day-to-day basis.  So, this is
what this updated report has to say:
“On September 29, 2017, LaRouchePAC published the original
version of the dossier ‘Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal
Assassin: He Will do His Job If You Let Him”. To date, that
dossier, now being circulated nation-wide by LaRouchePAC,
represents the most thorough and the most accurate assessment as
to the character of Robert Mueller, as well as the utterly
fraudulent nature of the ongoing treasonous effort to bring down
the Trump Presidency.
“This present report is an update to that dossier, with the
emphasis on the dramatic significance of two documents which were
released in the first days of February. The first is the House
Intelligence document known as the ‘Nunes Memo’, and the second
is the — by far more substantive — un-redacted document
authored by Senators Grassley and Graham.
“We shall examine the importance of these two documents in
depth, as well as significant other developments which flow from
the impact of their release. Before doing so, however, it is of
critical importance that a matter of primary overriding concern
be re-stated here, at the beginning of this update.

“The British Origin of the Coup

“Nothing of any truth about the current assault on President
Trump can be understood, unless one addresses the question of
why all of this is occurring, along with the subsumed question
of “cui bono?” This requires transcending the world of partisan
politics and inside-the-beltway gossip, and the necessity for
examining the strategic setting and implications surrounding
the coup plot.
“Everything that is now transpiring must be viewed within
that truthful strategic context. During the eight years of the
Obama Presidency, and the prior Administration of George W. Bush,
a profound shift in U.S. strategic policy took place. Obama,
working closely with — and often under the direction of — the
British, committed the United States to enforcing a global policy
of Anglo-American hegemonism, what is sometimes referred to as a
‘uni-polar world’. This took the form of escalating provocations
against Russia, and more recently the targeting of China.
Currently, this imperial Anglo-American faction is determined to
thwart China’s gigantic Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure
development of Eurasia, Africa, Southwest Asia (the Middle East),
and nations in Central and South America. This largest
infrastructure development project in human history now involves
more than 68 countries.
“For the British, such geo-political designs are nothing
new. British strategic policy since before World War I has been
based on geopolitics. Under the theories of Lord Halford
Mackinder, completely embraced by today’s Anglo-American foreign
policy establishment, control of Eurasia dictates strategic
mastery of the world. China is now establishing vast
transportation and other infrastructure throughout Eurasia, a
region which Anglo-American policy up until now had reserved as a
primitive looting ground.
“Unable to break from imperial axioms and join China’s offer
of win-win cooperation, let alone offer a viable alternative
model which promotes the general welfare, Barack Obama and the
British adopted a strategy of geopolitical containment and
provocation, a New Cold War policy. It began with the
Anglo-American coup in Ukraine in 2014, pushing NATO right up to
Russia’s borders, and involves hostile encirclement strategies
against both Russia and China, employing color revolutions,
economic sanctions, overt economic, cyber, and information
warfare, provocative military maneuvers, development of new
nuclear and other warfare capacities, and military support of
insurgents and terrorists in states friendly and/or trading with
Russia or China, such as Iran and Syria. All of this, of course,
threatens the extinction of the human race.”
Now, the final aspect of that memo which is now available
goes through the fact that with Trump’s election, this entire
agenda was derailed.  As it says:
“In November 2016, it was the intention of Obama and the
British that Hillary Clinton would continue this dangerous
geo-political gambit. Donald Trump’s victory in that election
stopped this mad drive to war just as it was turning very hot.
“As we detailed in our original Mueller dossier,
‘Russiagate,’ — which has roiled our nation since Summer 2016,
has driven most members of Congress into a McCarthyite insanity
so severe that you can literally picture them braying at the Moon
at night, and has critically undermined Donald Trump’s Presidency
— has absolutely nothing to do with any hostile action by Russia
against the United States. Its origins are to be found in the
desperation of the British and American establishments, among
individuals and interests who are frantic to re-impose the
strategic outlook of the Obama Administration.”
I would strongly encourage you to read the entirety of this
report, which is available on the LaRouche PAC website now.  It’s
crucial, but let me just pick up on that picture, which was just
laid out in that prefatory section.  As is very apparent from
developments in the recent week and a half, these frantic
attempts to impose the re-impose the strategic outlook of the
Obama administration, which the Hillary Clinton administration
clearly would have continued full-bore; this attempt to re-impose
that track is now in full swing.  One only has to look at the
escalations that have occurred in Ukraine, the escalations which
have occurred in Syria, the calls for a response to that, and
absolutely the very heated rhetoric and hysterical speeches which
were delivered at the so-called Munich Security Conference which
just occurred this week.  We saw just raid anti-Russia,
anti-China speeches, one after another after another, attacking
the One Belt, One Road policy as an imperialistic scheme; trying
to identify a full spectrum intelligence operation that’s being
allegedly run by the Chinese against every nation in the West,
and so forth and so on.
In contrast to that, the spokesperson from China at the
Munich Security Conference, very calmly and very undefensively
laid out the picture of what the New Paradigm of win-win
relations that China is offering to the world really entails.
That was originally elaborated by Xi Jinping at his speech at the
United Nations General Assembly several years ago, but it
involves non-confrontation, non-meddling in foreign countries’
affairs, an understanding of differences in approach and
differences in political and cultural systems.  But overall, not
an attempt to impose one nation or one system’s view of the world
on other nations in a sort of unipolar or hegemonic way; but a
way to say, “Let’s take our differences and use them to our
collective advantage.  Let’s put together a system of shared,
mutual benefit under a vision of common destiny for mankind.”
Which is the way the Chinese have put it.  But this is
characterized as a win-win approach, as opposed to the Cold War
mentality of winner take all, zero-sum game type of geopolitics.
So, Helga LaRouche in her broadcast yesterday strongly
encouraged people to actually read the text of the speeches from
the Munich Security Conference, both the anti-China, anti-Russia
war-mongering speeches so you can see for yourself just how rabid
and hysterical this prewar propaganda actually is.  But also, go
and read that speech from the representative of the Chinese
Foreign Ministry, and you can see how the Chinese are responding.
This is the time where we desperately need a New Paradigm of
international relations; and it comes under the form of that
win-win relationship.  The way that you can see that playing out
on the ground, not from 300,000 feet with rhetoric; but really
look at the reality on the ground, in places such as Africa,
Central and South America, countries in Eurasia.  These countries
are already benefitting from the infrastructure, the modern
technology and the infrastructure which is being brought to those
countries by China and the One Belt, One Road initiative.  It’s
high time that the United States and other countries in Western
Europe come to the table and say what China is doing is very
good.  This is for the benefit of these countries, and instead of
trying to shut this down and beat the drums of war, we should
finally reciprocate what China is doing.  We should come to the
table with intentions of good will, and we should join together
and as a community of nations, build this future which will be
for the common benefit of all.
So, the LaRouche PAC class series, which we’ve been
promoting now for several weeks, and is already ongoing, could
not be more timely and more urgent.  This is titled, “The End of
Geopolitics; What Is the New Paradigm?”  You can register, if you
haven’t already, at discover.larouchepac.com or at the link that
you see here on the screen — http://lpac.co/np2018.  Again,
there are public classes which have been available on YouTube;
two so far.  The first inaugural speech by Helga Zepp-LaRouche,
and then the second follow-up by Harley Schlanger last Saturday;
which was “What Is Geopolitics? Part I, the History”.  That was
very informative and very in-depth.  But there are also aspects
of this class series that you cannot access unless you are a
registered participant; such as the discussion period which will
occur tomorrow, which will only be open to those who are
registered for this class series.  So, we strongly encourage you,
if you haven’t yet, to register.  Also, to encourage other people
that you know to register for this class series at that link
that’s on the screen and to become active participants in this
entire series.
The time has come.  We must take very seriously what’s at
stake here in this current unfolding battle over the soul of the
United States and the soul of the US Presidency.  The ugly nature
of this operation and this apparatus continues to come to light,
but we have to continue — as the LaRouche PAC dossier does very
well — to put it into its proper strategic context and to
understand cui bono? and what is the strategic context for this
unprecedented assault on the US democratic system and the US
Presidency that we now see ongoing.
So, thank you very much for joining me here today.  Please
stay tuned to larouchepac.com; we have a lot of work to do.

 

 

 

Gæst Paul Gallagher.

Vært Matthew Ogden: Titlen på vores show i dag er »Genopbyg Amerikas infrastruktur: Optrap kampagnen for LaRouche-planen«. Jeg har inviteret Paul Gallagher, økonomiredaktør for Executive Intelligence Review, på showet i dag, og vi er glade for at du tager dig tid til at komme, Paul. Vi har nu mulighed for at få en meget seriøs og nøgtern diskussion om LaRouches økonomiske program: De »Fire Love«, og lige nu er dørene vidt åbne.

Med udgivelsen af den såkaldte »Udkast til Lovgivning for Genopbygning af Amerikas Infrastruktur« – Dette er programmet fra Trumps Hvide Hus, som blev sendt over til Kongressen. Det blev udgivet mandag. Alt imens indholdet af denne rapport er, for at sige det mildt, uheldigt – det har Wall Streets fingeraftryk over det hele, alene det, at dette forslag er kommet frem; men det er rent ud sagt en total taber, der har galvaniseret diskussionen nationalt, og det er virkelig begyndt at katalysere kongresmedlemmer på begge sider midtergangen til at begynde at tænke over spørgsmålet på en meget mere seriøs måde: Hvordan finansierer man infrastruktur?  Hvis vi taler om $1,5 billion, hvor skal de komme fra?

(Her følger engelsk udskrift):

And this includes, frankly, Trump himself.  As President
Trump said in the Letter of Transmission, that was sent over as
the opening to this legislative proposal, he said: “Our nation’s
infrastructure is in an unacceptable state of disrepair, which
damages our country’s competitiveness and our citizens’ quality
of life.  For too long, lawmakers have invested in infrastructure
inefficiently, ignored critical needs, and allowed it to
deteriorate.  As a result, the United States has fallen further
and further behind other countries.  It is time to give Americans
the working, modern infrastructure they deserve…. My
administration is committed to working with the Congress to enact
a law that will enable America’s builders to construct the new,
modern, and efficient infrastructure throughout our beautiful
land.”
Now, on Tuesday, President Trump held an open, televised
roundtable with different Senators and Representatives, both
Democrats and Republicans, and this was ostensibly to discuss the
aluminum, steel industries and trade policy around that, but
during that roundtable, which was televised, the discussion of
the infrastructure program came up.  And I’d like to just play a
short clip from that roundtable; this is an exchange between
President Trump and Sen. Sherrod Brown [D] from Ohio, and then
Senator Blumenthal [D-CT] also gets in on this.  And what you
hear is that President Trump says, look, I want to have a
bipartisan plan.  Come back to me with a counterproposal.  What
we put out was an opening bid, but I really want a bipartisan
plan.  I’m ready, willing and able.
So, here’s a clip from that roundtable:

[start video]
PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I actually think that we can go bipartisan
on infrastructure, maybe even more so, than we can on DACA. …
On infrastructure which is the purpose of what we’re doing
tonight, come back with a proposal.  We put in our bid — come
back with a proposal. We have a lot of people that are great
Republicans that want something to happen.  We have to rebuild
our country.  I said yesterday, we’ve spent {$7 trillion} — when
I say “spent,” and I mean wasted — not to mention all of the
lives, most importantly and everything else — but we’ve spent $7
trillion as of about two months ago, in the Middle East — $7
trillion.  And if you want to borrow two dollars to build a road
someplace, including your state, the great state of Ohio, if you
want to build a road, if you want to build a tunnel, or a bridge,
or fix a bridge because so many of them are in bad shape, you
can’t do it.  And yet, we spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.
Explain that one. [crosstalk]

SEN. SHERROD BROWN: I’ve love a bipartisan — we have a
bipartisan proposal.  We can [crosstalk] dollars on it in
infrastructure.  We’re glad to work together on a real
infrastructure bill with real dollars, plus what you can leverage
in the communities and private sector.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Do a combination.

SENATOR BROWN:  It needs real dollars.

President Trump:  I would love to have you get back to us
quickly, ’cause we can do this quickly and we have to rebuild our
country.  We have to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our
tunnels, so the faster you get back, the faster we can move.
Focus on document this week, if you don’t mind, right?  But the
faster you get back, the faster we move.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL:  I come back to Senator Brown’s
point, I think there’s a opportunity for real bipartisanship
here, in these two areas.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I agree, and I’d like you to come back
with a suggestion on infrastructure in the plan, and I think
that’s a bipartisan plan.  I really would like to see you come
back with a counterproposal on the infrastructure.  I think we’re
going to get that done.  I really believe that’s  — we’re going
to get a lot of Democrats, we’re going to get a lot of
Republicans. We’re going to get it done.  It’s something we
should do.  We have to fix our country:  We have to fix our roads
and our tunnels and bridges and everything, so, if you can work
together on that, and I am ready, willing and able, on
infrastructure — that is such a natural for us to get done.  And
I think we could probably do it.
Thank you all very much.  [End video]

OGDEN:  So as you can see, asking them to come back with a
counterproposal, he said, this is our opening bid, but the point
is clear:  Now is the time for us to mobilize like never before,
to put the LaRouche plan on the table.  {This} is the
counterproposal.
Let me put on the screen here:  first we’ve got our Campaign
To Win the Future.  This is obviously the national statement of
intent for the elections in 2018.  LaRouche PAC is mobilizing a
national movement and galvanizing discussion around this program.
And then the content of that campaign can be seen on the next
slide, this is “The Four Laws To Save the United States:  The
Economics Principles Necessary for a Recovery — Why the United
States Must Join the New Silk Road” and this contains full
elaboration of Lyndon LaRouche’s four economic laws.
So, I know that Paul is very short on time, and I would just
like to ask you: Please address what the situation is now in
Washington.  What’s coming out of this release of this so-called
legislative proposal? And what actually has to be done?

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Thanks, Matt.  My first reaction, when the
White House plan was released — I call it the “White House
plan,” not the Trump plan, but the White House plan — when it
was released, was that closed a certain door of people in elected
offices around the country and in Washington, constantly saying
“what is the White House going to come up with?  what is the
White House going to come up with?  what are they going to give
us in the way of what they can get started towards infrastructure
investments? because we desperately need it?”   And when it
finally came out, and it was very, very, very lacking — as you
said, a Wall Street plan — that closed a certain door, and
immediately, thus, opened another one.
OK, now they have come out with that.  Now, we have to come
out with something.  It’s up to the rest of us, particularly
those in elected office, but all of us who are active in fighting
for this:  It’s up to us now to shape the alternative, because
this one just isn’t going to work.  And it’s good to see that
that definitely includes the President — that view.  He, on
another occasion, immediately after the plan was rolled out on
Monday, he said that compared to the tax legislation and the
military spending increases and so forth, that this
infrastructure plan that the White House has put out, was really
quite unimportant.  A rather surprising thing for him to say.
But it indicated, when it was followed the very next day by the
comment you just saw, “give me an alternative,” and then the very
day after that, in another meeting with members of Congress,
when, as soon as he was prompted in any way by any of them, he
came out very strongly for increasing the Federal gasoline tax by
25 cents a gallon, and applying that through the Highway Trust
Fund, to infrastructure investment — not at all something which
is part of the White House plan, so-called; and not part of the
Republican leadership’s plan at all.
But when he was asked, he went with that.  He hasn’t said
this publicly, but a number of senators and representatives who
were at that second meeting, have reported it publicly in the
same way.  It’s clear that he did say that he was for that
increase in the gas tax, and as he said, he would take the
political heat for backing it as President, if they would go
forward with it.
So you’ve had, in rapid succession,  a number of indications
that this plan, as poor as it was that came out from the White
House, is not in fact the President’s plan, and it simply closes
the door on all this waiting, and now says, where are the
alternatives?
And that is very definitely what is in the LaRouche Four
Laws, is the one alternative to this that will work.
Let me get into this in another way, unless you want to
break it up, Matt.  And if you have questions, please, interrupt.
But I wanted to read a piece that was written just two days
ago by a Chinese scholar John Gong; he’s a very prominent
professor University of International Business and Economics in
Beijing; and he’s a former executive editor of the {Journal of
Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies}.

OGDEN:  We actually have a slide with the title of that
article which was written for China Global Television Network
(CGTN), “Make America Great Again — With Chinese Money.”   And I
can read some of the quotes that people can see on the screen,
and then maybe you can address what the content is.
This is what he had to say:  “Trump is absolutely right that
Americas crippled bridges, potholed highways, and crooked
railways cannot wait any longer. America needs to be great again.
The only question is, where is the money coming from?”  And then
later in the article he said, “I have a great idea. Bank of China
and other major banks from China are now flush with dollar cash
and other dollar-denominated liquid assets, totaling over $3
trillion, mostly in the form of holdings in U.S. Treasury bills
and bonds. This money can be readily used for Chinese investors
to participate in America’s infrastructure boom. By that I mean
Chinese investors can participate in those infrastructure
projects as active equity investors, and maybe contractors or
suppliers at the same time.
“Call it the Belt and Road. Call it
America-belt-America-road. I don’t care, as long as Chinas current
account trade surplus can be somehow transformed into a capital
account stock, in the form of money invested in America as
permanent equity shareholders, and more importantly permanent
stakeholders of a stable and prosperous Sino-U.S. economic
relationship. This could be a win-win mode for both countries.”
[https://news.cgtn.com/news/79596a4d33677a6333566d54/
share_p.html]
So that’s Dr. John Gong.

GALLAGHER:  Now, that’s very important, in the way it is
formulated, in the precision of it.  He’s talking about Treasury
holdings, — he’s not the first Chinese official to do this.  In
fact, a year ago, in late January of 2017, Ding Xuedong, the
then-chairman of the Chinese Investment Corp., which is one of
their two big sovereign wealth funds, made essentially the same
proposal.  He said, we have such and such a volume of long-term
U.S. Treasury holdings, they’re not earners, their interest rates
are very low, their return is very low; we would like to trade
them for a long-term investment in a U.S. infrastructure bill, as
he put it. And he, at the time, estimated that really, the need
for investment in the United States for new infrastructure, was
{$8 trillion}, a figure which may seem impossibly large to many,
but actually isn’t.
[http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2017/170116_chinese_invest.html]
Nonetheless, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has written in articles
which have been published in the Chinese press, she’s frequently
interviewed and quoted there, — she has written exactly this
proposal in articles which have been published there.  I have
presented exactly this idea to Chinese officials in Washington.
This is part of LaRouche’s Four Laws.
But to start with, the first action implied by his four
actions that have to be taken legislatively and from an executive
standpoint, is the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act and the
breakup of the Wall Street banks and the hiving off of all of the
casino speculative investment vehicles, special purpose vehicles
and all of that, in order to protect and use the commercial
banking system for investments.
You cannot get to real, major infrastructure renewal without
doing that, and you could see this in the meeting that you played
the clip from. There was at least one representative from
Missouri, who brought up the issue, when the discussion was about
trade, and specifically whether there might be tariffs against
aluminum imports from China, he brought up the fact that there is
a grave lack of capacity to produce sufficient aluminum for
industry in the United States, and where is that lack coming
from?  The lack of power supplies.  So that, this is an
infrastructure question, although if you ask the simple question,
“Is there an apparent sufficient amount of kilowatt-hours per
year per capita in the United States?”  Yes, there is. But is
there sufficient, reliable electrical power supply — constantly
online, reliable, electrical power supply — for an expansion of
industry?  The answer would in many cases be, “no.” And that was
what he was bringing up, in particular with respect to more
aluminum plants in the United States.  You have a grave inability
to produce enough power, particularly since the fiasco of
electricity deregulation out on the West Coast 15 years ago: That
deprived the aluminum industry and shut down a very significant
amount of it.
Now, if there’s going to be that kind of investment in
infrastructure across the country, it’s not going to be one, or
two, or three, or four, very famous big projects, like the
renovation of the whole Northeast rail corridor of Amtrak, and
the bridges and the tunnels in New York and so forth.  It’s not
going to be simply those things.  It’s going to be, at many, many
levels around the country, the production of enough clean water
supplies, the production of enough electrical power supplies; the
replacement and renovation — mostly replacement — of the river
navigation systems, locks and dams, and many of these things.
And for those, the commercial banks have to be ready to lend,
because it takes a lot of employment, a lot of contracting, a lot
of local borrowing:  The banks have to be ready to lend and if
you allow them to stay the big commercial banks, and the mid-size
regional banks — if you allow them to stay in the Wall Street
casino, that’s where they’ll stay.  If you say, “no, your
business as a commercial bank is lending,” then you have a credit
channel through the banking system through which national credit
can flow, and cooperate in this kind of thing.
So it starts with restoring bank separation under
Glass-Steagall.  We’re going to have a group of elected officials
from Italy in a couple of months come over and help us organize
in Washington on this, because they’re fighting for it in Italy
at the national and also the local level.
Then, the specific second law of LaRouche, a national credit
institution, which is able to produce large volumes of productive
credit for productive employment of the people, and for increased
productivity.  And that is where not only the White House plan,
but many other plans that have been put forward, are really
completely inadequate, where we do have to talk about several
trillions of dollars at least of investment,  and the way to do
that, is exactly the way that was reflected in that comment by
Dr. Gong: That is, there is a lot of long-term Treasury debt held
out there; three major holders of this long-term Treasury debt,
which totals $7.5-$8 trillion, are the commercial banks of the
United States, again, which hold it in their reserves and all
their excess reserves which are very large right now;  second,
Japan, which holds more than $1 trillion in primarily long-term
U.S. Treasury debt; thirdly, China, which actually holds now
somewhat more than Japan; about $1.2 trillion of the same kind of
debt.  Those are potential shareholders, equity holders,
subscribers of that Treasury debt into a new bank created by
Congress for the purpose of generating this kind of credit.
That is exactly how we have proposed and circulated and
organized that this is the way to form — without a tremendous
amount of new borrowing — to form a sufficiently large national
bank for infrastructure; essentially by swapping existing
long-term Treasury debt holdings for equity in such a new
national bank created by Congress with a guarantee from the
Treasury for the payment of the dividends on that equity.  And
with taxes — this is not free; it’s never free, — but with
taxes assigned to make sure that those dividends can be paid.
That’s where the increase in the Federal gasoline tax and
potentially the use of other what you would call infrastructure
excise taxes, like the port excise tax and the navigation tax on
the locks and dams, that’s where these would come in.  Because if
you simply go and raise the gas tax by 25 cents and spend the
money for infrastructure projects, it will not produce nearly,
nearly enough.  But if you use it in this way as leverage to
guarantee the equity in a new national bank in exactly the way
that we’re seeing reflected in that proposal, that article from
Dr. Gong, then it’ll work.  As I said, he’s not the only person,
not only among leading Chinese thinkers about this, but also from
Japan, there’s the same kind of positive view of this idea.
Potentially, there you have it — an infrastructure bank.
Then you have to go on and what are you going to use that
credit for?  It can’t be used simply to repair roads and repair
bridges.  There are entirely new areas of technological and
scientific breakthroughs which will raise productivity in the
economy to a far greater extent.  One of them that we identify is
that a crash program is necessary to develop not only
thermonuclear fusion electric energy, but the plasma technologies
of infrastructure, which will probably come from such a crash
program even before commercial nuclear fusion electricity
arrives.  We will have plasma technologies being spun off from
that crash program, which will address themselves exactly to the
production of the kinds of capacities that have died out in
deindustrialization in the United States.  But they’ll do it at a
higher level of technology.  Those kinds of investments, are one
of the Four Laws that LaRouche has called for.  Also, a big
increase in NASA’s capabilities, going back to the Apollo Project
level of effort by NASA to really go back to the Moon;
industrialize, develop the Moon, develop the raw materials there,
including for fusion energy production.  And from there, go
deeper into the Solar System and ultimately into the galaxy.
This is the kind of science driver which leads up-shifts in
productivity in industry.  And infrastructure is really the way
that these up-shifts get introduced to the economy.  For example,
in a high-speed rail system of cars using magnetic levitation and
similar technologies, this is the way it gets introduced.
So, that opening from the President is very important.
Yesterday you had comments which I think are very significant
from the two leaders of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee — the Republican chairman William
Shuster of Pennsylvania, the Democratic ranking member Peter
DeFazio — they are normally quite a bit at odds.  But in
interviews yesterday which were reported today, they were
reporting that they are already jointly working on a legislative
alternative to exactly what you saw the President asking for
there.  A legislative alternative again, with real Federal
dollars; the language which Senator Brown used — actually it was
Senator Wyden was the other Senator — real Federal dollars.  An
alternative to present which the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee is where legislation along these lines
will have to start.  So, you’re seeing that; you’re seeing the
gas tax being discussed very widely, including by those same two
leaders of that committee.  You’re already seeing an
infrastructure bank act in the House — HR547 — of
Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat from Connecticut, which has
the backing of fully half of the Democratic Caucus in the House
and is not a national infrastructure bank which would operate in
the way that we’ve described and therefore would not be as large
or as capable.  But nonetheless, it’s legislation which in my
view is quite similar to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation
which operated under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration
and did so much to recover the country and then to lead the
mobilization for the war and through the war in the 1940s.  So
that is also something definitely within the purview of
LaRouche’s Four Laws.

OGDEN:  The idea of national banking is, I think, really the
critical idea; and it takes us obviously directly back to
Alexander Hamilton.  If you look at Hamilton’s view on
infrastructure, the idea of public infrastructure is very much an
American idea, and is a major pillar of the American System.
Hamilton’s emphasis on the necessity for the rapid upgrading of
the national infrastructure, the ports and dredging the harbors
and things like this, what was called “internal improvements.”
But this idea of public infrastructure has an American idea to
it.  In fact, it was written directly into the Constitution in
the form of the General Welfare.  There were huge fights,
including Hamilton’s defense of the Constitutionality of a
national bank against Thomas Jefferson around this idea of the
General Welfare.  I know you have to go, so maybe one more aspect
that you can address before you leave, and then I can conclude
the remaining portions of the show on my own.  But just on this
subject of the idea of the public good, the United States used to
be the world’s gold standard, in great modern infrastructure,
public infrastructure.  You can see that obviously by what
Franklin Roosevelt did during the New Deal.  Nations around the
world were banging on our door to try to imitate what we
accomplished with the Tennessee Valley Authority and so forth and
so on.  But now, the gold standard is swiftly being set by China
and what China has done in an unparalleled way.  Create this
amazing public infrastructure in a very rapid and swift manner.
Two things I think maybe could be addressed in what we need to
now learn from China or relearn in terms of what we used to be
committed to, is: 1) the policy approach that has made this
possible in China; but also, 2) the philosophy that China is
clearly committed to when it comes to this idea of the public
good, the common good, or what we call in American Constitutional
language, the General Welfare.  Maybe you can address that just
briefly before you leave, Paul.

GALLAGHER:  There was, in the 19th Century, the American
Whig and then Republican leaders were all very conscious
Hamiltonians.  They realized that they were attempting to develop
the country, and they were doing it — at least a lot of the time
— extraordinarily successfully with a commitment to the
“internal improvements” what we call infrastructure, but the
internal improvements, the national credit provision, the
protection of industry; which came from Alexander Hamilton.
But his overriding premise was actually none of those
particular policies, but rather his stating against the tide of
opinion in the 1790s when he was Treasury Secretary and the
decade before and after.  He definitely took on the tide of
opinion that the United States was going to be an agricultural
country, a country of yeoman farmers with all of their well-known
virtues and so on and so forth.  He said that the wealth of a
country is found in the inventive qualities of its people, and in
the freedom and opportunity that they have to turn their
inventive qualities into enterprise.  And he really was
responsible for the emergence of the first banks of the United
States; not only the First Bank of the United States, the first
national bank, but also the first private banks of the United
States, of which there were very few at that time.  He saw the
creation of a national bank as essentially the necessary link or
liaison between the actions of the government to assist the
economy and the actions of the private banks; that this was the
necessary way, in which they should be related.  But his principle
was that the mind of the individual and the freedom of the
individual and opportunity to make that into enterprise, that
that was what defined the ability to produce the wealth of a
country and that the wealth of a country was produced within it;
it was not gained by trading with other countries — fairly,
freely or otherwise.  It was gained primarily by producing the
wealth which the inventiveness of the people and the resources of
the country made possible.  And that was the function of
protection when it was used, but of course, Hamilton favored more
what we would call industrial subsidies than he did what we call
tariffs.  So that, right through Abraham Lincoln, was the creed
of the great leaders of the United States in the 19th Century and
considerably thereafter.  We became the greatest industrial
nation on Earth that way.
Franklin Roosevelt revived that general outlook, although he
did so without the creation of a national bank, really because of
what he was working with in Congress.  Otherwise, he might have
preferred to do that.  But he did it through such institutions as
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the TVA, which became
wonders of the world.  We have not really improved on that much
in the 70-80 years since.  But that idea, Hamilton’s ideas spread
very rapidly through Friedrich List, who spent a lot of time in
the United States and was a leading Hamiltonian in the 1820s and
1830s, and then was in the middle of the unification of Germany
for the first time in the Customs Union of Germany in the middle
of the 19th Century.  This spread through Bismarck’s policies,
who knew that he was a Hamiltonian, later in the 19th Century.
They spread through the Japanese adopting and learning a lot of
the works of Hamilton; late in the 19th Century inviting
Hamiltonian economists from the United States to come over and
advise them.  This kept being repeated in Korea again.  China has
taken this far beyond, because as you said, they’re not only
applying those policies, but they’re also as they always say
doing them with Chinese characteristics.  Particularly now with
Xi Jinping as the President of China, he has really defined and
enshrined in their Constitution the principle of what a country’s
leadership is judged for is its ability to strive for the common
welfare, the common aims of the population; what we call in the
Constitution, the General Welfare.  That has really had a very
distinctive effect on Chinese policy in the country and also on
the policy of the Belt and Road Initiative which Xi Jinping
launched, but was really already underway before he made the
formal speech three and a half years ago.  Already the
investments by big Chinese commercial banks outside China, in
these projects of energy, mining, but also a lot of
infrastructure projects.  These big investments were already
underway in 2011, 2012; then he made the announcement in 2013,
which was so very close to the policy of the World Land-Bridge
which had been promoted by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche since the
later 1980s.  And since that time, that has really been
recognized in China; they call Helga the Silk Road Lady.  This
policy of the common welfare is clearly one reflected in the way
that they’ve eliminated almost entirely down to the last few tens
of millions of people, they’ve almost entirely eradicated extreme
poverty in China.  I just heard the World Bank chairman the day
before yesterday praising that to the skies and saying it’s the
one model for the world.  He said the World Bank has been trying
to do this for so many decades, to eradicate poverty, without
making too much progress.  China has done it, and now they are
seeking to help do it in Africa and other places.  They want to
invest in the Middle East in reconstruction.  But this is really
the test that you are acting for the general good, for the common
welfare, which is what our Constitution commits us to.
So, in that sense, they’ve gone beyond, and in the process,
really developed a lot of technological breakthroughs in
infrastructure; and that’s where you find them.  That’s where
Roosevelt found them.  The projects of the 1930s, which many
people think of as just creating a lot of work for people, and
building a lot of airports and roads and bridges and things like
that; those projects — especially the hydro-electric projects
and especially the Tennessee Valley Authority — were
technological breakthroughs at the time.  They built dams,
navigation systems, hydropower systems technologically in ways
which not only hadn’t been done, but had been denied that they
could be done even right up to that time.  John F Kennedy spoke
about this later, that experts were saying that you couldn’t
build dams that were simultaneously for water management, for
navigation, and for hydropower.  The TVA did 57 such dams.  So,
they completely transformed an area of the country.  These
breakthroughs were made in all of this infrastructure building in
such a way, that the productivity of the U.S. economy leaped up in
the 1930s at the fastest rate of the last 150 years.  A close
second was the 1940s, including the war mobilization.
So that’s what China is experiencing now, as they make these
kinds of investments; and they’re doing it with a very common
welfare orientation.

OGDEN:  Wonderful!  So, thank you very much, Paul.  I’m
going to let you go before we finish the remainder of our show.
But I think you’ve made it very clear that we are uniquely
positioned to inform and ultimately shape this counterproposal
and what must ultimately become the infrastructure and general
economic policy of this Presidency.  So, I know we have a lot of
work to do.  Thank you for joining us, Paul.

GALLAGHER:  Thank you.  I’m sure you’ll talk about the
necessity to bring this up from the bottom as well; from the
local elected officials, from the state legislatures in
particular and apply it to the election campaign.  I think it’s
probably true what Chairman Shuster said, which is that work on
this legislation will be going on until the summer.  I think
that’s definitely true.  It will become a part of the election
campaign, no question.  If we can get candidates out there and
local elected officials out there who are for the Four Laws,
we’re going to shape this.  So, thanks for the opportunity and
having me on, and have a good time.

OGDEN:  Thank you, and we’ll talk to you again soon.  What
Paul said is absolutely correct.  This is the ultimate principle
or thought behind the campaign to win the future.  This is the
LaRouche PAC election mobilization in 2018.  We’ve already had a
number of state legislators endorse this campaign.  We’re really
on the ground in various places, including in West Virginia;
doing some very significant meetings with people who are involved
in the China-West Virginia deals.  We’ve also mobilized in a very
big way in the Midwest, which was key to the Trump election
victory.  We know that these former industrial states really are
the most significant in swinging these elections and creating the
constituency blocs around this idea of the LaRouche Four Economic
Laws and everything that you just heard Paul go through.  This is
the urgent necessity as we mobilize around this kind of program.
I think everything that you just heard from Paul, makes it very
clear that we are uniquely well-positioned to shape this entire
discussion.  I think the opportunity is even greater now than it
was previously.
Now, let me just go over a few things that I think will make
it very clear to you that there is an opportunity for a moment of
awakening, you could say, among people who have recognized that
everything that we’ve been committed to for the last several
decades up to this point has completely failed.  There were two
very informative or entertaining articles over the last week and
a half, which point to exactly this; indicate exactly this
opportunity for people to perhaps open their minds and begin a
more sober and serious discussion around the true principles of
economics.  One of these is an article which appeared in
Bloomberg, this was {Bloomberg Business Week} I believe.  The
title of this article was “What if China Is Exempt from the Laws
of Economics?”  This is by a fellow named Michael Schuman, but
the subtitle is “Beijing’s policymakers seem to be doing a lot of
things right — and that may upend much of basic economic
thinking, especially our faith in the power of free markets.”
So, here are a couple of excerpts from that article.  He
says:
“Over my two decades of writing about economics, I’ve
devised a list of simple maxims that I’ve found generally hold
true….
“But recently, my faith in this corpus of collected wisdom
has been badly shaken. By China.
“The more I apply my rules of economics to China, the more
they seem to go awry. China should be mired in meager growth,
even gripped by financial crisis, according to my maxims. But
obviously it’s not. In fact, much of what’s going on right now in
that country runs counter to what we know — or think we know —
about economics. Simply, if Beijing’s policymakers are right,
then a lot of basic economic thinking is wrong — especially our
certainty in the power of free markets, our ingrained bias
against state intervention, and our ideas about fostering
innovation and entrepreneurship.
“On the surface, that probably sounds ridiculous. How could
one country possibly defy the laws that have governed economies
everywhere else?…
“Yet as China marches forward, we can no longer dismiss the
possibility that it’s rewriting the rulebook. Beijing’s
policymakers are just plain ignoring what most economists would
recommend at this point in its development. And, so far, they’re
getting away with it….
“… Perhaps China really is refashioning capitalism.
“Perhaps. I, for one, am still clinging to my maxims….
“… Maybe my rules of economics will hold firm after all.
But thanks to China, I’m prepared to edit them.”
Now, it’s not that China is rewriting the rule book.  I
think that what you just heard from Paul is that it’s the West,
it’s the United States under the influence of British free market
ideology; this free-market school economics.  It’s the United
States and the West which have been playing by the wrong rulebook
for decades, if not generations.  We’ve neglected the rulebook
that we originally wrote.  It was Alexander Hamilton, it was our
first Treasury Secretary; that’s why it’s called the American
System of economics.  Other countries have applied these
principles of Hamiltonian economics and experienced the same
phenomenal growth that we experienced under the influence of
Hamiltonian policy.  That is exactly what China is experiencing
right now.  It’s leaving these economists scratching their heads,
but perhaps they merely have to open a few history books.
I think as you can tell from that Bloomberg article, it’s
beginning to dawn on people.  “Gee!  Maybe we’ve been wrong.
Maybe we’ve been duped by this British free trade, free market
ideology.  Perhaps that’s why our economies are in shambles right
now.”
Here’s another article.  This is in the {New York Times
Magazine}.  It came out earlier this week.  This one is very
interesting and goes through a lot of the history you just heard
Paul elaborate on.  This is called “The Rise of China and the
Fall of the ‘Free Trade’ Myth.”  The subhead is “China’s economic
success lays bare an uncomfortable historical truth.  No one who
preaches free trade really practices it.”  So, here’s an excerpt
from the article:
“[T]o grasp China’s economic achievement, and its
ramifications, it is imperative to ask: Why has a market economy
directed by a Communist state become the world’s second-largest?
Or, to rephrase the question: Why shouldn’t it have? Why
shouldn’t China’s rise have happened the way it did, with
state-led economic planning, industrial subsidies and little or
no regard for the rules of ‘free trade’?…
“Indeed, economic history reveals that great economic powers
have always become great because of activist states. Regardless
of the mystical properties claimed for it, the invisible hand of
self-interest depends on the visible and often heavy hand of
government. To take only one instance, British gunboats helped
impose free trade on 19th-century China — a lesson not lost on
the Chinese…. The philosophical father of economic
protectionism is, in fact, Alexander Hamilton, the founder of the
American financial system, whose pupils included the Germans, the
Japanese and, indirectly, the Chinese.”
After some history, he lays out the case of Germany, and
this one is interesting to focus on.  He says:
“… Unified in 1871, Germany was scrambling to catch up
with industrialized Britain. To do so, it borrowed from recipes
of national development proposed by Hamilton soon after the
Americans broke free of their British overlords. In his ‘Report
on the Subject of Manufactures’, submitted to Congress in 1791,
Hamilton used the potent term ‘infant’ industries to argue for
economic protectionism.
“… In his view, infant nations needed room to maneuver
before they could compete with established industrial powers. The
United States embraced many of Hamilton’s recommendations; the
beneficiaries were, first, the textile and iron industries and
then steel.
“It was Hamilton’s formula, rather than free trade, that
made the United States the world’s fastest-growing economy in the
19th century and into the 1920s. And that formula was embraced by
other nations coming late to international economic competition.
Hamilton’s most influential student was a German economist named
Friedrich List, who lived in the United States from 1825 until
the 1830s and wrote a book titled {Outlines of American Political
Economy}. On his return to Germany, List attacked the free-market
gospel preached by Britain as sheer opportunism…. Applying
List’s lessons, Germany moved with spectacular speed from an
agrarian to an industrial economy.
“… Closely following Germany’s example, Japan heavily
subsidized its first factories ….
“… South Korea, too, found solutions for its problems in
Friedrich List rather than Adam Smith. The country’s leader, Park
Chung-hee … was also deeply familiar with German theories of
protectionism. (The economist Robert Wade reported coming across
whole shelves of books by List in Seoul bookstores in the
1970s.)…
“But little did I know that Hamilton (and List) would
achieve their greatest influence in post-Mao China. ‘The rise of
China resembles that of the United States a century ago,’ the
Chinese scholar Hu Angang writes. He is not exaggerating.”
Now, that’s a very interesting article to appear at this
moment.  I’m not saying that everything the author says in his
analysis is entirely accurate, or that all of the conclusions
that he draws are necessarily correct.  But what he does make
clear is that what made America great was the policies of
Alexander Hamilton.  And what’s making China great today are
those very same Hamiltonian policies.  This realization shows you
that we have a very fertile field for the reception of our
so-called Four Laws campaign — Lyndon LaRouche’s revival of
Hamiltonian policies.  The fight which Lyndon LaRouche has led
for decades to liberate the United States from this imposed free
market, free trade hoax; this British ideology.  To return us to
the principles of Alexander Hamilton.  What he did simultaneously
abroad to educate these other nations on the policies of the
American System and Hamiltonian economic policies.  That’s where
China got this from; that’s where you can credit the great
Chinese economic miracle of the last 15 years.  Do not write out
of the equation the role that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have
played as spokesmen for this great Hamiltonian tradition, and
urgently with updates and a profound scientific depth that Lyndon
LaRouche has brought to this discussion.  But the time is now,
and the field is very fertile for the reception of this idea that
the time has come for a Hamiltonian coalition of nations.  We
must join hand-in-hand with China to do exactly that; to bring
development to all the nations on the planet using these
American, but universal, economic principles.
Now, let me just play a very short clip from a broadcast
that Helga Zepp-LaRouche had yesterday.  Because the biggest
problem that you run into — and I think this is something that
you run into as an organizer or as an activist — is that people
fail to make the necessary leap in terms of understanding these
principles because they have an axiomatic problem.  There’s a
disconnect.  The biggest problem that we have when it comes to
economics today is that money is essentially God.  Money has
achieved this status in economics where it is everything to
everyone.  It’s the Genesis of economics; it’s the root, it’s the
prime mover; it’s the measuring rod, it’s the purpose, it’s the
medium.  Money is everything.  And Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed
exactly this pathology in her webcast yesterday.  And she called
for a public debate on this.  She said, as it begins to dawn on
people who have believed that everything that they had believed
about economics may perhaps have been wrong, we need to question
some of the most basic economic assumptions that we hold dear,
and ask ourselves the question, “What is the ultimate purpose of
an economy and what is the true source of true economic wealth?”
So, here’s Helga LaRouche:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I think there is something
fundamentally wrong with the system of the free market, which
after all is not that free, given the fact that all central banks
did was to bail out the banks and keep money pumping for the
benefit of the speculators, so that the rich become richer, and
the poor become more poor, and the middle class is shrinking.
This article by Bloomberg which you referenced earlier, is
very interesting, because the author admits that according to his
theory, China should be collapsing, it should have meager
economic growth, but obviously the contrary is the case.  And he
says that China is doing everything which according to his theory
are terrible, like state intervention, party control, — things
like that — and China is prospering. And actually, he says,
he’s not yet ready to completely overturn his theory, but he’s
willing to make corrections.
There will be a lot more corrections, because I think we
need a public debate, what are the economic criteria for a
functioning economy?  And obviously, the works of my husband,
Lyndon LaRouche, and his development of physical economy, going
back to Leibniz, to Friedrich List, to Henry C. Carey, to Wilhelm
von Kardorff, who was the economic advisor of Bismarck and was
one of the key influences to bring about the industrial
revolution in Germany; as compared to the so-called free market
model, I think we have to have a real debate, what is the cause
of wealth?  Is it money, or is it the idea of the creativity of
the individual, which then leads to scientific and technological
discoveries, which applied in the production process leads to an
increase in productivity, which then leads to more wealth,
longevity, and all of these things.
We need a discussion about that, because the notion of what
is economy, equating that with money, has really become one of
the axiomatic assumptions of a failing system. So we need a
debate about that. [end video]

OGDEN:  So the time has come.  As I said, it’s a very
fertile field, and this is one of the most important reasons why
we’ve now launched a new LaRouche PAC class series, which gets
directly at these principles; not only of economics, but this is
what drives global policy.  What is the purpose of economy?  What
is the true identity of man?  And what should be the
collaborative between peoples and between nations, to what end?
So, I’ll take that as an opportunity before concluding, to remind
our viewers that tomorrow we will have the second class in our
2018 class series.  This class will be titled “The End of
Geopolitics, Part I:  The History of Geopolitics.”  The guest
speaker will be Harley Schlanger.  Again, you can register for
this entire class series, which is called “The End of
Geopolitics.  What Is the New Paradigm?”  The registration is now
open.  If you have not registered for this class series, I
strongly encourage you to.  The link is available on the screen
— lpac.co/np2018.  You can also visit discover.larouchepac.com
which will be the central hub of all of the material for this
class series.  Again, if you’re a registered participant, not
only do you have the opportunity to participate in the live
public forums, such as the inaugural class that was delivered
last Saturday by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, but you also have the
opportunity for an in-depth engagement around the syllabus, the
required reading materials, the homework assignments, the live
feedback from the teachers and from the leaders of the LaRouche
PAC class series, and also some discussion periods which are only
open to registered participants.  Registration has continued to
increase.  We have a large number of registered participants from
all across the United States and elsewhere around the world, too.
So, we’re putting together the educated grouping, the cadre which
will be able to lead this discussion for a new economics, a New
Paradigm.  The field is wide open.  The door is there, and all we
have to do is walk through it.  We are in a unique position to
inform this discussion today; and it is a very urgent debate
which needs to take place as Helga Zepp-LaRouche just said.
So, thank you for joining me here today.  I thank Paul for
joining me.  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com; we have a lot
of work to do, and we’ll see you next week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vært Matthew Ogden: Jeg vil starte med at annoncere de seneste nyheder: Nunes-memoet, det fire sider lange memo, der blev udarbejdet af formand for Husets Efterretningskomite David Nunes, er nu officielt blevet afklassificeret af præsident Trump og er blevet frigivet til den amerikanske offentlighed. På trods af det Demokratiske lederskabs, efterretningssamfundets, selve FBI’s og endda britisk efterretnings trusler, bagvaskelser og intimidering, har præsident Trump og det Republikanske lederskab på Capitol Hill besluttet at afklassificere dette memorandum, og det er en bombe!

Det afslører præcis det, som LaRouche PAC har dokumenteret lige fra begyndelsen af dette: Det såkaldte slibrige og ubekræftede, britiske efterretningsprodukt, kendt som Steele-dossieret, blev brugt som såkaldt »bevis« for at indhente en FISA-kendelse til at udspionere ledende medlemmer af Trumps kampagne. Det, som dette memo fortæller, er, at det nu er officielt, at Christopher Steele selv sagde til seniorembedsmand i Justitsministeriet, Bruce Ohr, at han var »desperat for, at Donald Trump ikke blev valgt og havde meget stærke følelser imod, at han blev præsident«. Det er Christopher Steeles egne ord, og dette sagde han til Bruce Ohr, før den første FISA-ansøgning overhovedet blev indgivet.

Og selv om det var kendt, at dette såkaldte dossier var et helt klart partisk stykke researcharbejde for oppositionen, som blev finansieret af Hillary Clintons præsidentkampagne, imod hendes behørigt nominerede modstander i valget, Donald Trump, så blev denne anmodning om overvågning godkendt af FBI-direktør James Comey, og ligeledes af Andrew McCabe [daværende FBI-vicedirektør].

Dette memo vil helt bestemt markere et vendepunkt i hele denne operation og hele dette kupforsøg mod vores præsident og vil højst sandsynligt gå over i historien som et af de mest skamfulde kapitler i vores republiks historie. Hele Russiagate-operationen er et skamfuldt eksempel på det mest grove magtmisbrug fra FBI’s side, der fuldt ud lever op til den berygtede arv efter J. Edgar Hoover, i et forsøg på at bruge dette lands efterretningstjenester, i aftalt spil med britisk efterretning, til at underminere og vælte en ledende, politisk person og efterfølgende, USA’s behørigt valgte præsident.

Som indledning til denne udsendelse vil jeg gerne dele med jer, den fulde tekst af dette memo, der netop er blevet afklassificeret. Som I ser i toppen, »Afklassificeret«, og det blev afklassificeret af præsidenten, efter ordrer, den 2. feb., 2018. Vi læser teksten [LPAC’s redaktørs bemærkninger: Følgende tekst er taget fra Husets Permanente Efterretnings-Udvalgskomites pdf-dokument. I pdf-dokumentet vises den originale understregning (her med enkeltkrøllede parenteser) og fed skrift (dobbeltkrøllede parenteser); kursivering (ligeledes her vist med enkeltkrøllede parenteser) bruges udelukkende til publikationer.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/memo_and_white_house_letter.pdf]

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet):   

{{Purpose}}
This memorandum provides Members an update on significant
facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings,
which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy
and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a
troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the
American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
{{Investigation Update}}
On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA
probable cause order ({not} under Title VIl) authorizing
electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a
U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump
presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA,
the application had to be first certified by the Director or
Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the
Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the
Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National
Security Division.
The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting
Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by
statute (50 U.S.C.§1805(d)(1)), a FISA order on an American
citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each
renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause.
Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in
question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente,
and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications
on behalf of DOJ.
Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence
activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC
are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity
of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the
government to the highest standard– particularly as it relates
to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor
in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by
90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent
on the government’s production to the court of all material and
relevant facts. This should include information potentially
favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by
the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at
least four independent opportunities before the FISC to
accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However,
our findings indicate that, as described below, material and
relevant information was omitted.

1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele
dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and
the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the
Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source
who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via
the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain
derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any
of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC,
Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s
efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier
were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.
b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for
a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal
Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie)
representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the
time that political actors were involved with the Steele
dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately
working on behalf of–and paid by–the DNC and Clinton campaign,
or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for
the same information.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a
September 23, 2016, {Yahoo News} article by Michael Isikoff,
which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow.   {This article
does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived
from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.} The
Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not
directly provide information to {Yahoo News}. Steele has admitted
in British court filings that he met with {Yahoo News}–and
several other outlets–in September 2016 at the direction of
Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media
contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington
D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was
discussed.
a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source
for what the FBI defines  as the most serious of violations–an
unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the
FBI in an October 30, 2016, {Mother Jones} article by David Corn.
Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed
contacts with
Yahoo and other outlets {{in September}}–before the Page
application was submitted to the FISC in October–but Steele
improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those
contacts.
b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the
cardinal rule of source handling–maintaining
confidentiality–and demonstrated that Steele had become a less
than reliable source for the FBI.

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he
maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney
General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with
Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly
after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting
his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016,
Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump
when Steele said he {{“was desperate that Donald Trump not get
elected and was passionate about him not being president.”}} This
clear evidence of Steele’ s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time
and subsequently in official FBI files–but not reflected in any
of the Page FISA applications.
a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by
Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on
Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s
opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via
Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was
inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

4) According to the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence
division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the
Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial
Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source
validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI
assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet,
in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect
Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it
was–according to his June 2017 testimony–“salacious and
unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past
record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it
ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological
motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before
the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would
have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier
information.

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information
regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but
there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between
Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the
opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July
2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the
Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text
messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known
relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear
bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also
investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive
discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the
media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to
discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.
[end memo]

So this is a bombshell.  And what it absolutely makes clear
is that these Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants
against leading members of the President Trump campaign {never}
would have been requested or obtained without the so-called
evidence presented in the Steele dossier.  And this Steele
dossier is completely discredited, and as it made clear, in
Steele’s own words, he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get
elected and was passionate about him not being president.”
Now, exactly as Congressman Matt Gaetz two weeks ago, when
he first read this memo, when it was still classified, he said,
“the facts contained in this memo are jaw dropping….  There is
no higher priority than the release of this information to
preserve our democracy….  I think that this will not end just
with firings.  I believe there are people who will go to jail….
The entire Mueller investigation is a lie built on a foundation
of corruption….  This will vindicate claims by many of us:  It
is a real attempt to undermine the President, from the scariest
of places.”
President Trump was speaking to the media earlier today, and
right before the official release of this memo, the decision to
release this memo by the Republican leadership in the House,
President Trump had the following to say.  This is what President
Trump’s own words were, in anticipation of the probable release
of this memo.  He said the following: “I think it’s terrible.
You want to know the truth?  I think it’s a disgrace.  What’s
going on in this country, I think it’s a {disgrace}.  The memo
was sent to Congress, it was declassified.  Congress will do
whatever they’re going to do.  But I think it’s a disgrace what’s
happening in our country.  And when you look at that, and you see
that, and some of the other things what’s going on, a lot of
people should be ashamed of themselves, and much worse than that.
So, I sent it over to Congress, and they will do what they’re
going to do.  Whatever they do is fine.  It was declassified, and
let’s see what happens.  But, a lot of people should be ashamed.”
So those were President Trump’s words.
Now, LaRouche PAC has issued a statement, which is now
posted on the LaRouche PAC website.  This statement contains a
short summary of what is contained in the Nunes memo, and then it
has a short analysis and some commentary, and it promises to be
swiftly followed up by more marching orders in the coming 72
hours.
But this is what LaRouche PAC has to say:  “…We have a
clear abuse of FISA, a fraud on that court.  Material facts about
surveillance of an American political campaign, and an American
citizen, set into motion by the campaign’s political opponent and
their allies in the Obama administration were concealed from the
court by the FBI and the Department of Justice.
“But there is much, much more here. Steele’s dirty work was
used by the Clinton campaign and the Obama Administration, in
collusion with the media, in an attempt to defeat Donald Trump’s
bid for the Presidency. The subsequent Russiagate and Mueller
investigations have been used in an attempt to destroy the Trump
Presidency. The entire Russiagate myth, promulgated by Obama and
the British, have destroyed U.S. Russian relations and endangered
the entire world.
“We published the full story and the reasons why this is
occurring months back. It is not what you think. Read the
dossier, sign the petition, all of it, {all of it}, needs to be
investigated and prosecuted.”
Now, this is the dossier [LPAC.co/ytdos]  which LaRouche PAC
released months ago.  This is the full documentation on not only
Robert Mueller’s background in prosecuting Lyndon LaRouche, in
covering up the crimes of 9/11, and now, in being a central
player in this attempted coup against the President of the United
States; but it was also ahead of the curve in absolutely
documenting exactly what this Nunes memo is discussing.
Let me give you one short example:  This is a quote from
inside the Mueller dossier.  It says the following: “Hillary
Clinton used the Steele Dossier to paint Trump as a Russian dupe
throughout her general election campaign against him.  James
Comey used it to justify his FBI counterintelligence probe of the
Trump campaign which began in July of 2016, and has continued.
“Thus, we have the British government … {intervening in an
election in the United States to sway the result.}  Most
certainly this raises questions about the applicability of
election laws which bar foreign funding for exactly the reason
that the United States elections should be decided by United
States citizens.  Most certainly, once this sequence of events is
fully investigated, it will become clear that all government
participants intended to sway the election unlawfully, using the
powers of a state to vanquish the will of the voters.”
And that gets directly at the core of the matter.  And we
didn’t need the Nunes memo to know that that what this was all
about all along.
Now, what this dossier also documented — this is now, I’m
talking about the LaRouche PAC dossier on the Mueller operation
— what this documented is that motivation is not what you think
it is.  The motivation has got to be contextualized within an
understanding of what is this moment in history in which we find
ourselves?  And this entire Russiagate coup from the very
beginning was intended to prevent the kind of collaborative
relationship that President Trump was clearly inclined towards in
his Presidential election campaign, to say we have to end this
World War III, thermonuclear game of chicken that the Bush
administration and the Obama administration have been playing
with the Russians, which has brought us to the very threshold of
the kind of nuclear war that the citizens of Hawai’i were
frightened about during that so-called false alarm a few weeks
ago.  This is a very, {very} real danger!
And the American people knew that to be true, and they
associated Hillary Clinton with nothing less, than the further
escalation of Obama’s World War III policy against Russia.  This
is the consequence of British Imperial geopolitics:  Divide and
conquer.
President Trump made clear that he was willing to reach out
a hand of collaboration and cooperation with Russia, and also, as
has subsequently been clear, with China, and to say, “we’re going
to turn the geopolitical chessboard over, and we are going to
establish a new great-powers relationship with these leading
powers, in order to address the common problems that mankind must
resolve.” And that was President Trump’s clear, clear
inclination.
So why was the Russiagate thing cooked up from the very
beginning?  Well, it was to block President Trump from
establishing that kind of collaborative relationship with Russia
and with China, and instead, to ensure the continuation of the
Obama/Hillary Clinton policy of confrontation and potential
thermonuclear war.
{So that’s what’s at stake here.}  And the reason that the
timing is so critical, is because a New Paradigm of economics and
strategic partnerships is emerging on this planet as we speak.
It’s rapidly escalating and it’s a tide that very well could not
be turned back short of that kind of thermonuclear war.  What
form that New Paradigm is taking is the Belt and Road Initiative,
China’s initiative to create a new win-win economic, political,
and strategic partnership among the nations of the world for
peace through massive economic development.  The Belt and Road
has already come to Central Asia, the Belt and Road has already
come to Africa, the Belt and Road has already come to Eastern
Europe. And the Belt and Road, as we speak, is in the process of
coming to the Western Hemisphere with Latin America and Caribbean
fully on board.  The question is, will the United States join?
That was the question which provoked this Russia-gate coup
attempt against President Trump from the very beginning.  That,
and because we must defend the very fundamental facets of our
Constitutional republic, of our Constitutional democracy; that is
why we must defeat this coup.  Whether you consider yourself a
Republican, whether you consider yourself a Democrat, an
independent, whether you even personally support President Trump
or like him; you must defeat this clear and blatant coup against
the Constitution and the Presidency of the United States.
Now, what I’d like to do for you is to point out the irony
that the Democratic Party which, going back to the dirty trick
operations against the Kennedys, against Martin Luther King, by
J. Edgar Hoover, the Democratic Party led the charge on
investigating this FBI operation.  The Democratic Party has now
sold themselves out completely to be the party of Russia-gate —
the new McCarthyism.  There’s a very ironic statement by attorney
Alan Dershowitz; he went on TV just yesterday, pointing out
exactly this irony.  And I’d like to just read you some of what
Dershowitz had to say, pointing out that the Democratic Party has
now become the cheering section for the FBI.  He says:
“I’m just old enough to remember when liberals and major
media organizations believed America’s national security
apparatus had to be closely monitored to protect our civil
liberties.
“The liberals and journalists brought to light the horrific
abuses of power that J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI and the National
Security Agency undertook in the 1960s against Martin Luther King
and others….
“But all of that was forgotten this week, as Washington
liberals rushed to the microphones to demand that the Nunes memo
from Representative Devin Nunes, Republican from California, be
kept from the American people.  Their sympathetic friends in the
media were quick to give their complaints blanket and largely
unskeptical coverage.
“The four-page Nunes document is a House Intelligence
Committee summary of Justice Department and FBI files that points
to serious abuses of power involving the surveillance of US
citizens in the run-up to the 2016 election…. But to leading
Democrats, the possible discussion of intelligence agency abuses
is akin to Armageddon.
“Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat from California, the
ranking Democrat on Nunes’ Intelligence Committee, has read the
Nunes memo, but curiously dismisses it by saying … the memo is
‘meant only to give Republican House members a distorted view of
the FBI.’  Far from resembling the crusading liberals of the
1960s and ’70s, who probed the FBI; Schiff has taken on the role
of the Bureau’s lapdog.
“… All of this presents a rich stew of questions that you
might expect Washington to be curious about.  Instead, you have a
frenzy of denunciation of people who want transparency in
government and a lack of curiosity about the activities of our
most powerful intelligence agencies — entities that have been
guilty in the past of clear abuses of power.
“If Americans are to have faith in their government, it must
have people who watch the watchers in our intelligence agencies.
So far this week, we are seeing an awful lot of people blindly
defend the bureaucracy rather than fulfill their duty to question
authority.”
Again, that was Alan Dershowitz.
So, the Democratic Party has completely bankrupted itself.
This is moment in which the entire LaRouche PAC program — the
Four Laws, the economic recovery program that we have documented
and we have put out, our campaign to win the future, and the
campaign to bring the United States into the New Paradigm of
development in the form of the New Silk Road — this has got to
replace this morally and intellectually bankrupt behavior by the
Democratic Party; and this must become the policy for all
American citizens who are interested in saving this country.
Now, Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered a very significant
webcast yesterday — the founder and President of the Schiller
Institute.  During that webcast, she was asked by the moderator
what we should expect from the release of the Nunes memo.  Of
course, this was before it was clear that the memo would be
released; although we were all highly anticipating the release of
this classified document.  But, I would like to play for you a
short excerpt of what Helga LaRouche had to say.  I think she
very clearly situates this within the broader context which must
be understood.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Oh, I think this is reaching
very interesting dimensions.  As a matter of fact, on the way out
of Congress, Trump was asked if he would release this Nunes memo,
and he said “100%.”  And then also the White House Chief of Staff
John Kelly was interviewed, and he said the White House would
release this memo “pretty quick,” because the American people
should make up their minds on their own, what their judgment is.
And that is very good.
So there, again, you have a complete freak-out, for example,
the German media, which were absolutely not reporting about this
whole controversy, or {if} they would only report about it from
the standpoint of Russia-gate and soon Trump will be gotten out
of office.  Now they have to sort of cover their behind, in
reporting about it, but they’re still on the line of the
FBI-leaning version, but they do have to report it.
What happened this week was naturally dramatic:  You have
the decision of the House Select Committee on Intelligence to
release the memo.  Then you had the firing of [FBI Deputy
Director Andrew] McCabe; that is very good.  Then you have the
ongoing operation by Senator Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham,
who, on the one side are insisting on a criminal investigation
against Christopher Steele; but they also sent letters to all the
leading Democrats, Podesta, the DNC, the various other Democratic
officials, asking them detailed questions:  What did they know
about the Steele dossier? When did they know about Hillary?
Many, many questions.
Then, McCabe is also under a new investigation, because it
seems that he delayed the whole Hillary investigation concerning
her emails by three weeks, trying to push it behind the November
election.
So I think there is a lot of fury:  You have people warning
that the outcome of this will decide the fate of the United
States — for example, Paul Craig Roberts, who after all was in
the Reagan administration, he had a very stern warning saying the
stakes are extreme; if the coup plotters would get away with
their actions, then the United States would turn into a full
police-state, where the intelligence services would create a
dictatorship and there would be no more accountability of the
government.  So this is clearly one side.
And on the other side, naturally, there is expected hope
that if this memo, which is due to come out, at the latest
tomorrow, because the rules are such that it has to be five days
after the vote in Congress, and that can really be an earthquake.
Because if what seems to be in this memo becomes public, I think
it will change not only the situation in the United States, but
also it will have an earthquake effect internationally. [end
video]

OGDEN:  So, we can expect that earthquake to occur
internationally.  This is a huge development.  The point is, that
this must be situated within this fight, this ongoing battle for
the soul of the US Presidency.  We can see even at this moment
that there are still opposite tendencies at work at the highest
levels of this administration; people who are working against the
inclination that this President has for the kind of great powers
relationship and a new paradigm of international partnerships.
We saw a very inflammatory speech by Rex Tillerson just
yesterday.  We’ve seen the release of the National Security
Strategy, which accuses China and Russia of being authoritarian
dictatorships which are attempting to reorder the entire
international order.  And so forth and so on.
But we also see that President Trump continues to reach out
to Russia.  He did not impose these sanctions against the Russian
officials, even though it was sent to him by Congress, and he
continues to reach out to President Xi Jinping.  And he continues
to emphasize that a good relationship between the United States
and these two countries is a very good thing, and not a bad
thing.  That’s the point, though; that he is being backed into a
corner.  He continues to have the highest levels of his own
administration working against him, and this political earthquake
which we can expect coming out of the declassification of this
memo which makes undeniably clear that this was a political
operation through the use of the intelligence agencies of this
country in pure J. Edgar Hoover style through and through.  It
was nothing more than that, and continues to be nothing more than
that.
President Trump, obviously as we know, delivered the State
of the Union address this Tuesday, just a few days ago.  Whereas
the LaRouche Political Action Committee has been in an intense
campaign to put on the table LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws and
the necessity for the United States to join the Silk Road, that
campaign has not lessened one bit in the aftermath of the State
of the Union; but has, in fact, intensified.  The persisting
questions will continue to be on the table.  If President Trump
wants $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment, where is that
going to come from?  How are you going to do that?  Should you
use a Hamiltonian national banking approach, as opposed to this
other concoction which has been put together by Steve Mnuchin and
others?  Also, as the trans-Atlantic financial system continues
to be perched on the verge of a meltdown, how will President
Trump respond to that impending threat?  God forbid, if the
entire came down as it did in 2008, if not worse.   We must
preempt that threat with a Glass-Steagall reorganization of this
entire financial system, as has been called for by LaRouche for
years.  The threats are very clear; we’re in a Catch-22.  We’re
on the verge of either a hyperinflationary blow-out, or a total
bottom dropping out of the entire trans-Atlantic system.
So, in response to President Trump’s State of the Union
speech, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in that same webcast yesterday, had
a little bit of analysis.  I’d like to share that with you.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Obviously, he did not say what
he should have said, namely to go with the Four Laws of Lyndon
LaRouche, Glass-Steagall, and a new credit system in the
tradition of Alexander Hamilton.  Now, we don’t give up hope that
that may still come, because, after all, if you remember, when my
husband in 1983 had campaigned for what became the Strategic
Defense Initiative, this was not mentioned by President Reagan in
the State of the Union address; but then, on the 23rd of March,
Reagan publicly announced the Strategic Defense Initiative.  So
therefore, we can absolutely hope that President Trump
eventually, when he has to come to the question of financing the
infrastructure he announced, he will come back to his promise
from the election campaign to implement Glass-Steagall.
Otherwise, the speech was not bad.  I think it’s quite
significant that, according to CBS, in a poll, 75% of the people
who saw the speech were in great support for Trump.  So I think
that domestically, he definitely touched on a sense of optimism,
even so there are still many problems, obviously, with the
financial system which he did not address.  But I think it’s on a
good course.
I think the strongest indicator that he is doing something
good is the freak-out by the Democrats, and while he appealed to
a bipartisan cooperation on the immigrant issue, on
infrastructure, the Democrats who basically were sitting there,
demonstrating not-applauding, and in a certain sense being quite
the war-party.  I think that has become crystal clear, because in
the context of the State of the Union, actually one day before,
was the deadline for the implementation of the sanctions which
the Congress had voted on half a year earlier; and nothing
happened.  The Trump administration did not implement sanctions
against Russia and there was a complete freak-out by such media
as the {New York Times} or think tanks like the Atlantic Council
which basically accused Trump of completely going against what
the Congress had mandated.  But the simple answer of the Trump
administration on the sanctions against Russia was that it was
not necessary.
Now, that’s very good.  I think that in spite of the fact
that Trump in terms of the foreign policy aspect of his State of
the Union address where he called Russia and China “rivals,”
rather than partners or something more positive, to which the
Chinese reacted quite strongly.  They said that this was alarming
and provocative.  But then, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said
that the United States and China should work together instead,
for a happier future of all of mankind.  So that response was on
the one side, expressing displeasure, but on the other side, keep
reaching out for the kind of cooperation which already was
demonstrated between Xi Jinping and Trump.
The Russians even responded less harsh, because they, in a
commentary said the speech by Trump was much milder those of all
of his predecessors, referring obviously to Obama and Bush.
So I think this is not the end of the world.  It’s not what
it should be, but I think in the context of what is happening in
the United States, one can also not expect, given the neo-con
mobilization, given the really ridiculous behavior of the
Democrats, I think he did pretty well. [end video]

OGDEN:  So, that’s Helga LaRouche’s analysis of President
Trump’s State of the Union.  Clearly, what this demands of us is
an escalation on the front of the campaign that we’ve been
waging.  This is contained in the Campaign to Win the Future
statement which is now being circulated across the country for
endorsement; and in fact, has already received an endorsement
from some members of state legislatures, including a Democrat
member of the state legislature from Michigan.  This is really on
the verge of totally breaking through.  This really goes to the
core of what President Trump, I think, stands for in the eyes of
those who elected him; especially those electoral victories which
were decisive in the so-called “Rust Belt” states — in
Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Wisconsin.  He flipped those three
states in an unprecedented Election Night turnaround.  That’s
what secured him the victory.
During his campaign when he went to the Midwest, when he
went back after his victory, continually President Trump has
continued to stand by this idea that we are a nation of builders,
and we must revive and live up to that great legacy with great
projects for our own generation.  That was one thing that he
mentioned in the State of the Union speech, but he elaborated it
last night in a speech at the Greenbrier in West Virginia for the
Republican Party retreat.  This is the very conclusion of that
speech by Donald Trump:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

:  We’re proud of our history,
we’re confident in our values, and we’re grateful to our heroes,
and we are determined to create a brighter future for all of our
people.  We are restoring the bonds of love and loyalty that
unite us all, as friends, as neighbors, as citizens, as
Americans.  Because when Americans are united, nothing — nothing
at all — nothing can stop us.  We win.  (Applause.)
As I said the other night, we are a nation that built the
Empire State Building in one year.  Actually, to be exact, it was
— we built it in less than a year.  Would you believe it?
Working 24 hours around the clock.
We built the Hoover Dam in record time.  We built the Golden
Gate Bridge.  We linked our nation together with railroads and
highways.  We dug out the Panama Canal.  We’re the nation that
won two World Wars, defeated fascism and communism, and put
satellites into space and planted our great American flag on the
face of the moon.  We’ve healed the sick, cured disease, and
cared for the poor like no other nation.  We’ve lifted millions
into prosperity, and delivered millions into freedom.
This is our legacy.  This is our birthright.  And this is
the foundation on which we build our very glorious future.
Because together, we are, indeed, making America great again.
Thank you, and God bless you all.  Thank you very much.
(Applause.)  Thank you. [end video]

OGDEN:  Now, that’s exactly the spirit which I think has
energized the American people, and which we must continue to
inform with the specific policies to honor that birthright as a
nation of builders, as a nation which has accomplished
unprecedented things, and which we must continue to do.  The
great projects are there for the taking, and if we look at what
China is now doing, China has become a nation of builders as
well; not only domestically, but abroad.  The building of the One
Belt, One Road Initiative, this New Silk Road — both the land
Silk Road and the new Maritime Silk Road which is spanning the
globe — this is what the United States must decisively join.  It
has come to the Western Hemisphere to the southern nations; and
now it is time for the United States to join that collaboration
and to reach out a hand of partnership between the United States
and China, and to renew our partnership between the United States
and Russia.
One thing that you just heard President Trump say is that we
were the nation that won two world wars and defeated fascism.
Well, today happens to be the 75th anniversary of the victory at
the legendary battle of Stalingrad.  This was a horrific,
six-month siege.  The casualties are absolutely staggering; over
1 million casualties reported on the Russian side alone.  Half a
million Russians died during the battle of Stalingrad; but this
was a great victory, led by the legendary Marshal Zhukov.  It was
a decisive defeat of the Nazi army, which led to the following
two years of the war, which finally, in collaboration between —
there you see on the screen — President Roosevelt and Stalin of
the Soviet Union.  Fascism, Nazism was defeated.
To conclude our show, this is a quote from President
Roosevelt’s letter of congratulations to Josef Stalin on the
victory at Stalingrad, 75 years ago today.  I would encourage us
to take this as the paradigm of what we must revive in terms of
that kind of great powers relationship.  If we come together as
great nations on this Earth against mankind’s common enemies and
for the common aims of mankind, we can accomplish great things.
So, here’s what President Roosevelt had to say; this is addressed
to Josef Stalin.
“As commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United
States of America, I congratulate you on the brilliant victory at
Stalingrad of the armies under your supreme command. The 162 days
of epic battle for the city which has forever honored your name
and the decisive result which all Americans are celebrating today
will remain one of the proudest chapters in this war of the
peoples united against Nazism and its emulators.
“The commanders and fighters of your armies at the front and
the men and women who have supported them in factory and field
have combined not only to cover with glory their country’s arms,
but to inspire by their example fresh determination among all the
United Nations to bend every energy to bring about the final
defeat and unconditional surrender of the common enemy.”
“[signed] Franklin D Roosevelt”

And as we know, it was Franklin Roosevelt’s vision, as
documented in the book {As He Saw It} by his son, Elliott
Roosevelt, that in the aftermath of World War II, in the
aftermath of the defeat of fascism, we would work together with
those allies that we had during the war, including Russia and
China and India, to bring about a new era of development for the
planet.  To bring what Franklin Roosevelt demonstrated in the
form of the New Deal with the TVA and the great projects that
were built here in the United States, lifting hundreds of
thousands of Americans out of poverty at that time, to bring
those New Deal policies to the globe in collaboration with the
allies who won the war against fascism, to continue the war after
the defeat of Adolf Hitler and to fight a war against the
colonial and imperialist policies of the British Empire.  And to
fight a war against the poverty and backwardness that had been
imposed on the world from centuries of British rule.  That was
Franklin Roosevelt’s vision for after the war.  That was
unfortunately and tragically abandoned with Franklin Roosevelt’s
death.  We experienced decades of a Cold War with the nuclear
sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.  We are now at the
point at which finally we must make the decision — will we allow
that Cold War mentality of geopolitics to bring us to the point
now of World War III and the potential extinction of the human
race through thermonuclear war?  Or, will we embrace the revival
of that legacy which is now being accomplished by the Chinese and
the Belt and Road Initiative and all the nations that have joined
together for that New Paradigm of peace through great projects
and development?  Will we say now is the moment when we can pick
up where Franklin Roosevelt left off and reach out a hand of
partnership and collaboration to Russia, to China, and to all the
other nations of good will on this planet, to bring development
— finally — to every corner of the globe.
Obviously today, we’ve seen a major turning point in the
history of the United States.  This is a huge development, and as
we promised, there will be more updates from LaRouche PAC in the
coming hours, the coming 24, 48, and 72 hours to come.  So,
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com and mobilize, mobilize,
mobilize.  Thank you for joining us; stay tuned.

Vært Matthew Ogden: I dag har jeg en særlig gæst, Bill Roberts, som er med fra Detroit, Michigan. Bill Roberts er LaRouche PAC’s kampagnekoordinator for Midtvesten, og vi har også set hans succes mht. at være kandidat til kongressen, hvor han vandt 41 % af stemmerne i det demokratiske primærvalg i Michigan.

Titlen på vores udsendelse i dag er »Genopbyg Amerikas hjerteland: Fra ’Rustbæltet’ til ’Bælte & Vej’«. Vores tema i dag er at se på kampagneplatformen til 2018-valget, som LaRouche PAC har udgivet og nu mobiliserer for på nationalt plan, og se på dette gennem Midtvestens linser, det såkaldte ’Rustbælte’, der engang var motor for økonomisk vækst i hele USA. Dette er vort lands produktive hjerteland, og dette har været epicentret for kollapset i vareproduktion og den specialiserede arbejdsstyrke i USA. Dette udgør kernen i vores evne til at bringe USA ind i en ny æra for store projekter og økonomisk udvikling, der typificeres af Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ; heraf titlen på vores udsendelse, »Genopbyg Amerikas hjerteland: Fra ’Rustbæltet’ til ’Bælte & Vej’«.

Kerneindholdet i LaRouche PAC’s valgplatform 2018 er, at USA’s præsidentskab omgående må vedtage Lyndon LaRouches fire økonomiske love og gå ind i en win-win-relation med Kinas Nye Silkevej. LaRouches fire økonomiske love er præcis det, der er nødvendigt lige nu, hvis vi ønsker at få midlet til at gå ud af det, der synes at være en »ingen udgang«-situation. Vi er nu i en nedtælling på fire dage til præsident Trumps State of the Union-tale på tirsdag. I takt med denne nedtælling, har vi optrappet vores kampagne nationalt for at sætte dette på dagsordenen: LaRouches fire økonomiske love, og USA må gå med i den Nye Silkevej.

At dømme umiddelbart ud fra præsident Trumps tale her til morgen på Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum, så vil han få brug for en ’omvendelse på vejen til Damaskus’ i løbet af weekenden for at komme til at forstå, at, nej – at tale om en aktiemarkedsboble og $7 billion i såkaldt »tilføjet værdi« eller merværdi på Wall Street, udgør ikke en økonomisk genrejsning! Faktisk udgør det selve problemet. Dette er præcis, hvad William White, tidligere cheføkonom for Den internationale Betalingsbank (BIS), advarede om i et interview, han gav i Davos til Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, og hvor han diskuterede det faktum, at vi praktisk taget uundgåeligt har kurs mod det transatlantiske finanssystems kollaps, af præcis denne grund: de billige penge, nulrente-politikken, der er blevet gennemført af Federal Reserve og den Europæiske Centralbank (ECB), har skabt det, som William White kaldte et »Catch-22«, et Punkt 22. Hvis disse rentesatser forbliver lave, vil vi have kurs mod en hyperinflationseksplosion af penge i systemet, og det vil føre os til en Weimar-stil hyperinflation, som vi så det i 1923. Men hvis ECB og Fed beslutter at hæve renten, vil »zombie-bankerne« og »zombieselskaberne«, der i de seneste flere år har eksisteret, baseret på denne politik med nulrente, billige penge og kvantitativ lempelse, kollapse indad, og vi vil få et kollaps af systemet i denne retning.

Ud fra William Whites standpunkt, så har denne advarsel »ingen udgang«.

Der er faktisk en udgang, og vi ved nøjagtig, hvad det er, og dette er, hvad præsident Trump omgående må vedtage. Udgangen består i Lyndon LaRouches fire økonomiske love: Rejs en brandmur i form af Glass-Steagall mellem kommerciel bankvirksomhed og de produktive investeringer, og så alt det møg, vi har i form af spekulativ værdi på Wall Street og City of London. Lad dette møg tørre ud og blæse væk; men beskyt de nødvendige, produktive, kommercielle bankvirksomhedsaspekter af vores økonomi. Erstat den spekulative økonomi med et kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, hvor man tager billioner af dollars i statslig kredit, via en ny Nationalbank, og dirigerer det, ikke til spekulation, men derimod til reel, fysisk værdi: til storskala infrastrukturprojekter, store projekter, nye industrier, vareproduktion og til en forøgelse af arbejdskraftens produktive evne i USA’s arbejdsstyrke; og især – som vi skal diskutere her i dag – i Midtvestens tidligere produktive arbejdsstyrke, og ligeledes bringe USA ind i dette store nye projekts Nye Silkevej.

Dette er, hvad præsident Trump må forstå om økonomi, og vi er i en nedtælling på fire dage til State of the Union, til at sætte dette på dagsordenen. Vores job slutter på ingen måde her; men formålet med denne 2018-valgplatform, som LaRouche PAC har udgivet, er tværtimod at vinde en kampagne, essentielt, for USA’s præsidentskab. Vi er naturligvis ikke i et præsidentvalgår, og præsident Trump er den behørigt valgte præsident og vil være vores præsident for de næste tre år, mindst, på trods af bestræbelserne fra Russiagate-kuppets side og hans opponenter, der forsøger at vælte hans præsidentskab; men den kampagne, vi kører, er en kampagne for USA’s præsidentskabs politik: Det er en kampagen for at vinde kampen om præsidentskabets politik.

I dag skal vi diskutere strategien, og Midtvesten, eller USA’s industrielle hjerteland, er et af de afgørende elementer i denne strategi. Om lidt vil I få at se, at præsident Trumps sejr i 2016-valgene, i realiteten skyldtes hans sejr i Midtvesten. Han var i stand til at bryde det, der kaldes den »Demokratiske blå brandmur«, og han vendte fire store, tidligere industrielle rustbæltestater, der havde stemt demokratisk, siden valget af FDR i præsidentielle valg; og han vendte dem og vandt disse stater: Pennsylvania, Michigan og Wisconsin, for ikke at tale om hans sejre i Ohio.

Hvordan gjorde han det? Han adresserede selve det faktum, at både det Republikanske og det Demokratiske Parti havde indgået en ’aftale med djævelen’ om en konsensus om, begge at være partiet for frihandel og post-industrialisering. Kandidat Trump sprængte hele denne konsensus i stykker, gik ind og sagde, »Jeg er imod frihandel, vi vil nedlukke NAFTA«, og han sagde i særdeleshed, »vi vil bringe industri tilbage til hjertelandet«. Vi vil få ny vareproduktion, nye jobs, og han krævede endda en »ny industriel revolution«.

Jeg vil gerne give lidt baggrund, før vi kommer til diskussionen, om, hvad det var, præsident Trump fik adgang til, hvad enten, han helt var klar over det eller ej. Men dette er i produktivitetens ånd, og jeg vil faktisk hævde, at dette ikke er Trump-vælgerskaren, men at det er »LaRouche-vælgerskaren«. Og det, vi vil gøre med denne kampagne for at lægge 2018 LaRouche PAC-platformen på bordet, er, at vi vil organisere denne vælgerskare omkring denne vision, de Fire Loves økonomiske program, og vi vil bruge denne indflydelse til at skabe en revolution i USA’s præsidentskabs økonomiske politik.

Lad os gå lidt tilbage i tiden, til det industrielle kraftcenter, som Midtvesten var kendt som, før det fik lov at sygne hen og blive til ’rustbæltet’. Dette skete pga. Franklin Roosevelts mobilisering under Anden Verdenskrig, med at tage det, som var bilindustriens maskinværktøj til biler – i Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin og i det vestlige Pennsylvania – og at tilpasse disse bilfabrikker og bruge den specialiserede arbejdsstyrke til at lancere det, der blev kaldt »Demokratiets arsenal«.

Så lad os nu gå lidt tilbage i tiden og se på denne nyhedsfilm fra Anden Verdenskrig, og I vil få at se, hvad vi mener, når vi taler om Franklin Roosevelts Demokratiets arsenal.

 

(Engelsk udskrift af resten af udsendelsen:)

[Video]
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT:  We must be the great arsenal of
democracy.

NARRATOR:  President Roosevelt makes an unprecedented 9,000
mile tour of the United States, to see for himself the nation at
war.  Visiting armament plants from coast to coast, he stops at
the giant Chrysler tank arsenal, where he sees the Army’s latest
mechanized monsters, tested as they come from assembly lines.
Then, on to one of Henry Ford’s great bomber plants, where
the President and First Lady are greeted by Mr. Ford and General
Manager Sorensen.
Plane workers, delighted with the surprise visit, show the
President that wartime production is meeting the goal set, many
plants exceeding their quotas.

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT:  We shall send you, in ever-increasing
numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns:  That is our purpose and our
pledge!

NARRATOR:  And the President’s words meant action.  America
became the Arsenal of Democracy. …
Working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, where General
Motors is undertaking to produce more than 10% of all war
matériel fabricated from metal.  Thousands of workmen in four GM
divisions turn out machineguns in a mass-production basis.
Output is months ahead of schedule….
General Motors has pioneered in applying mass production
methods to the manufacture of aircraft.  Work goes on day and
night under the adept fingers of General Motors men and women.
They are producing an avalanche of weapons for victory in General
Motors manufacturing centers all over America.  Machine tools,
the master tools of industry and of victory are made at a
constantly increasing rate…. [end video]

OGDEN:  So “machine tools, the master tools of industry and
victory” are made at an ever-increasing rate.  That was the
Arsenal of Democracy.  That was Franklin Roosevelt’s economic
program.
Now, what happened?  President Trump, in the 2016 election
did what all other candidates have refused to do:  He refused to
take what he called the “forgotten men and women” of the United
States, very much so, these formerly industrial, skilled labor
force, and he said, you will be the forgotten men and women no
more.
Contrast that to what Hillary Clinton did, where she took
these states — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — took them
for granted, and in fact, never even went to Wisconsin for a
campaign event — and lo and behold, on Election Night, surprise,
surprise, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, all went for
Trump. And in fact, that was the key to his winning the U.S.
Presidency.
How did he do it?  Well, let me play this clip for you from
President Trump’s going to Ypsilanti, Michigan to the Willow Run
auto factory, and where he discusses the Arsenal of Democracy,
and calls for the creation of new industrial revolution.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Great Americans of all backgrounds
built the Arsenal of Democracy, including the legendary Rosie the
Riveter, who worked here at Willow Run. You know that. [cheers]
Seventy-five years ago, during the Second World War, thousands of
American workers filled this very building, to build the great
new airplanes, the B-24 Liberator, at peak production — listen
to this — it’s not the country that we’ve been watching over the
last 20 years: They were building one B-24 every single hour.
[cheers]  We don’t hear that, we don’t hear that any more, do we?
We’ll be back, we’ll be back, soon.  The most amazing
people.
And while that’s incredible, it’s a tribute, really, to the
teamwork, determination and patriotism that lives on today, in
each and every one of you.  Great people — you’re great people.
Now, these hundreds of acres that defended our democracy are
going to help build the cars and cities of the future.  So I ask
you,  — that’s fine, ’cause you’re rushed — so I ask you today
to join me in daring to believe that this facility, this city,
and this nation, will once again shine with industrial might.
[cheers]
I’m asking you to place your faith in the American worker
and these great American companies. [applause]  I’m also asking
you, to respect, and place your faith in companies from foreign
lands that come here to build their product.  We love them, too.
Right?  We love them, too. [applause]
I’m asking all of the companies here, today, to join us, in
this new industrial revolution:  Let us put American workers,
American families, and American dreams first, once again.  May
God bless the American worker.  May God bless the Motor City.
And may God bless the United States of America.  Thank you, thank
you. [cheers]
[end video]

OGDEN:  And there you have it. So let’s put on the screen
here, the electoral map, and this is a very interesting map [Fig.
1] and I’m actually going to ask Bill Roberts to discuss it with
us a little bit.  But this was published by the Washington Post
immediately after the election victory by President Trump. And
you’ll see here, the title is “The Former Obama Strongholds
Sealed the Election for Trump.”   And I’ll let Bill describe what
we’re looking at, but you’ll see there, the concentration is in
the rust belt, in the former industrial heartland, there, and
that’s the region of the country we’re talking about here, right
now.
So Bill, tell us what we’re looking at in that map and
explain to us exactly what the strategy for victory here, has to
be.

BILL ROBERTS:  Sure.  Matt, let me just start out by saying
that there was recently an article published by a local
representative, representing Macomb County [Michigan],  I think
one of those counties that was an Obama-voting county, probably
voted for Obama twice, and then shifted and voted for Trump.
What this local elected official was arguing for a decent
high-wage, what’s called a prevailing wage, for union employees.
And he made the point in that document that this policy actually
started with Henry Ford; it started with Henry Ford’s decision
that he was going to pay his workers $5 a day to produce cars,
and this wage would allow them to be able to buy the car that
they were producing.  So this is the coalition of producers which
we now have to mobilize to define, the standard of competence on
which national elected officials are going to run their
campaigns.
Now, let me bring back up this map, here:  What you’re
looking at, these are the districts across the country that voted
for Obama twice, as in the dark yellow; and in the light yellow
are districts that voted for Obama once.  But all of these shaded
areas then were the counties that switched, that swung and voted
for Donald Trump in 2018.  So these are traditionally Democratic
areas, where Trump went in and campaigned, where Hillary Clinton
did not, and he really made his focus the “forgotten men and
women,” who were part of this very advanced — I think “rust
belt” is a kind of derogatory term, because in fact, the labor
forces associated with these regions, whether they be farmers or
skilled workers, produce extremely advanced products, to the
tolerances of a thousandth of an inch, or even smaller.  And
Trump tapped into something that Lyndon LaRouche identified
later, which is that, this was part of actually a global process
of voters rejecting the failures, the failed policies of the
trans-Atlantic financial system, the destruction of the skilled
workforce; the overrunning of these areas with an epidemic of
drugs, of opiates; the failed regime-change wars.  And they voted
for the policy, and not the party.
And so, these are obviously going to be areas in which both
the parties are going to be looking in the election to try to
swing the vote.  The problem is, neither party has the policies
that can address the dire situation that these forgotten men and
women find themselves in.   Neither party’s leadership has a
competent program to be able to directly address these blue
collar and rural districts in the upper Midwest, in terms of the
kind of economic destruction they’ve seen.
So, it really falls upon the campaign of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee, and what we have to find is the
standard of competent that can actually rebuild these areas.  The
LaRouche Four Laws, the identification of the necessity of the
United States cooperating with China and countries that we can
align our credit systems with, in order to actually capitalize a
national infrastructure bank and a full economic recovery.
I would just say that, you know, you have Democrats on the
one hand, who continue to push the fraud of the Russiagate
investigation, as if this hasn’t been disproven, and moved to
other slanders against Trump, such as the Durbin fraud of the
racist remarks that Trump allegedly said.  None of the voters in
these swing areas, they absolutely hate this kind of stuff.  And
then, on the Republican site, Trump has really got to be able to
break with this GOP/Wall Street backed leadership orientation
within his own party, in order to be able to address, similarly,
this voting base.  Because Wall Street- backed policies are not
going to finance an economic recovery.  Trump has already said
that the public-private partnerships are not going to function to
build the vast amount of infrastructure that’s required.
So the LaRouche Political Action Committee and our team here
in the Midwest, are looking at races of interest, not necessarily
ones that are going to come down to Republicans versus Democrat,
but maybe even ones where there’s an interesting difference in
the party primary first — in other words, in the immediate
period, in the immediate campaigns, is there an Obama-backed
candidate, for example, who is running against someone who has
the support of building trades, of engineering societies?  Has a
real interest in the revival of the productive economy, and this
is our domain to shape.
As you said Matt, this is really a LaRouche constituency.
And I’ve been in these areas:  I mean, these are people, that
voted Democrat in every election in their entire life, and then
they voted for Donald Trump.  And it was the question of the
“fair trade not free trade,” it was the issue of bringing back
manufacturing; it was the commitment to seeking solutions beyond
geopolitics, beyond the regime-change wars that have been, really
disproportionately hitting these post-industrial and urban
communities that have made up a disproportionate number in the
Armed Forces recruitment.
So, if you look, there is 53% of these communities that
shifted over and voted for Trump after having voted for Obama:
This is an interesting demographics of producers who are
clamoring for real leadership.  There is a profound, profound
vacuum of leadership, that I know from our forays into the state
legislatures in the recent weeks, are really demanding a way in
which — and they have not found this solution outside of what we
have presented to them — but a way in which you can actually
capitalize, a sustained and thorough, scientific-driven,
infrastructure-driven economic recovery over the next 10, 15, 20
years.  And what strikes these local elected officials more than
anything, is that they have not been presented with any other
plan at all that even identifies an approach to amassing the kind
of investment that you will get with the LaRouche plan and that
you will get with the cooperation of the United States with China
and with countries like Japan.
So, I think it’s an extremely fertile situation if we
intervene with a kind of vigor now to define the only competent
solution which exists for candidates and for constituency groups
to demand that those candidates campaign on.

OGDEN:  And that’s exactly the declared intention of this
2018 Platform from LaRouche PAC, is to seek out those
constituency groups, but more so to create those constituency
groups that are going to, through leadership and organization,
will demand this scientifically informed economic agenda; what
LaRouche has laid out.  Glass-Steagall to erect a firewall;
reorganize the financial system; national banking as Alexander
Hamilton did it; trillions of dollars in Federal credit for
infrastructure, new industries, productive employment; and then
all under a driver.  Like the same kind of driver you saw there
for the Arsenal of Democracy; that was a mission orientation.
The kind of mission orientation that we need today is the space
program and for fusion power.  These are the kinds of drivers
that create the top-down organization that economic activity can
participate in, and then will feed into and have a
self-reproducing kind of increase in productivity.
Now what happened in Detroit, and what happened in Michigan,
and what happened in the Midwest, was not something that was just
a crisis of the last few years.  This has been decades and
decades in the making, and it goes back even before NAFTA.  What
occurred was a loss of that commitment that Franklin Roosevelt
had to productivity and to productive employment.  We actually,
Bill, you and I worked together to produce a video several years
ago, around the time that Detroit was forced to declare
bankruptcy.  It was called “Detroit: A Test Case for Genocide”.
In that video, we put together an animated graphic that showed
the population increase in Detroit due to the mobilization around
the Arsenal of Democracy; but then following that, and with the
abandonment of that commitment to industrial production, the
population decrease which has occurred for several decades, and
which has now gotten to a critical point.  So, this is actually
an animated population graphic, and I would like to just put this
on the screen.  You can listen to the narration there.  This is
from the original video, “Detroit: A Test Case for Genocide”.

VIDEO:  The population of Detroit began to explode around
the turn of the 20th Century; increasing exponentially around
1910.  However, with the crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great
Depression, the population of Detroit began to level off and even
decline for the first time in its history.  It wasn’t until
Franklin Roosevelt’s Arsenal of Democracy that the population
began to grow again, surging to its maximum in 1950 with a
population of over 1.8 million people; making Detroit the fifth
largest city in the United States at the time.
However, after 1950, the population began to drop once
again, slowly at first, but accelerating over time.  By the year
2000, the population had collapsed to under a million, and by
2010 to 713,000; less than the population was a century before.
A more than 60% drop from its peak in 1950; a loss of over 1
million people.  This will only continue to accelerate at an
ever-increasing rate under the bankers’ dictatorship now
controlling the city. [END VIDEO]

OGDEN:  That was the despair and the crisis which really has
been many generations in the making in Michigan, in Detroit, that
Lyndon LaRouche was seeking to resolve when he called for a new
re-tooling of the auto industry back in 2012 to 2013, and even
prior to that around the bankruptcy of the Big Three
[automakers].  What he was calling for at that time, was to say
“Let’s re-tool the auto industry, and let’s use this machine tool
capability — the ‘make anything’ industry — to build the kinds
of lock and dams, the bridges, the high-speed rail, the
components for nuclear power plants; the kind of materiel that
you would need to mobilize an emergency economic recovery of the
United States.  The fact that that wasn’t done, has created even
worse conditions of impoverishment and despair.  As you pointed
out, Bill, some of the pockets of the worst opioid epidemic are
in these former industrial, former skilled labor communities.
This is the constituency which elected President Trump, but what
has to happen if President Trump is going to deliver on the
promises that he made?  How is this going to mobilized?  What
kind of economic recovery, what form is that going to take now
from the standpoint of the Midwest?

ROBERTS:  Well, if the news media had actually reported what
Trump did when he was in China, Trump secured $254 billion in
direct investment into these various states you’re talking about.
West Virginia, which has been decimated by Obama and by the drug
epidemic, West Virginia is set up to receive $84 billion in
direct investments from a Chinese company, as a result of the
trip that Donald Trump took to China and the friendly cooperation
of China and the United States, facilitated through these two
leaders — the President of China and President Trump.  Now,
that’s more money than any known proposal proposes to have the
Federal portion, the Federally-funded, matched portion of
investment in U.S. infrastructure.  You look at any plan coming
from Democrats, that’s more money than the Federal government is
going to capitalize in an infrastructure program.  So, the first
question on anyone’s mind who now knows that — if you tell that
to them — since the media is not readily reporting that is, “How
is China able to invest so much in infrastructure?”  Of course,
the answer is that China has an American System policy bank;
that’s how China is able to capitalize these vast development
programs across the continent of Asia into Africa.
Now of course, China and Japan are both willing to put
probably a total of about $1 trillion or more into capitalizing a
policy bank in the United States.  It doesn’t have to be a direct
investment.  A number of direct investments by China were
rejected on the basis of supposed security concerns.  So, they
don’t have to be direct investments, but we can simply capitalize
a national bank and then utilize the approach we have in the
past, such as a new gas tax, to finance such debt, such a
national banking structure.  I think this is something that used
to be very commonplace; this is how Franklin Roosevelt did
things, this is how Abraham Lincoln did things, and it’s a kind
of forgotten method.  If this would have been reported that, in
fact, this is the dynamic that exists in the world that is
driving massive development throughout the planet, then everyone
would be talking about this already.  Everyone would be wanting
to know how China is able to do this.  They would be demanding
that the very Henry C Carey system that the Chinese love to study
so much is exactly the basis on which we now unleash a 10-15 year
process of massive infrastructure investment; and that the way
that you pay for this, is through massive revolutionary
breakthroughs in technology keyed off of breakthroughs in the
manned space mission and the expansion of NASA, and in fusion
power.  That it’s the revolutionary scientific advancements, not
money per se, which actually is what pays for this process.  The
Chinese understand this, too; which you can see in their fusion
program and in their highly developed and growing space program.
The media has certainly been aiding and abetting an
unfortunate process in this country; where the elections will
tend to be very partisan, low level, least common denominator
kinds of discussions; hot-button topics.  But it doesn’t have to
be.  Everything that we’ve just gone through here in terms of the
history of how the United States has been a productive country
and has been a scientifically revolutionary country driven by the
machine tool sector, and has had institutions that make it
possible to finance such revolutionary developments; that these
are not only available to the United States, but that this is
already a process driving most of the world.  In fact, the
President of the United States has been the most open President,
and is very open to working with these other countries within
this very sort of dynamic.  So again, our objective — we have to
sort of evangelize; because there are so many people out there
who, if they simply knew what was happening in the world and if
they had the LaRouche Four Laws solution at their fingertips,
they would gladly demand it.  They would gladly reach across the
aisle to work — Republicans working with Democrats on mobilizing
big Federal expenditures for infrastructure; Democrats gladly
dropping the insane anti-Trump tirades, and instead urging him to
break with Wall Street, and reach across the aisle and work with
Republicans who are willing to collaborate on an anti-Wall Street
policy, an American System policy along with Trump.  So, we found
tremendous openness.
But we don’t want to just go to the candidates for the
endorsement and for them to campaign on these policies — on the
New Silk Road, on ending the coup against the President, and on
LaRouche’s Four Laws.  But rather, we want to get to their base
of support — the skilled labor unions, the professional
organizations, the engineers, the voting blocs in general and the
state legislatures, the super constituents.  We have to have an
accelerated process of educating these individuals on the unique
LaRouche solution that you are not going to get from the party
leadership at this point, who are really too much stuck in the
old paradigm.  But if we introduce these constituents to the New
Paradigm, sure, of course, gladly they will take that instead of
this lame discussion that you’ll otherwise get at these
candidates’ debates.

OGDEN:  And LaRouche PAC is uniquely positioned to do that;
that’s why it’s so necessary that we put out this platform, this
statement of intent and that we’re conducting a national
mobilization.  LaRouche PAC, especially there in the Midwest with
the productive labor force, the working class constituency,
LaRouche PAC has an extraordinary amount of authority on the
ground among those kinds of labor organizations and productive
workers.  I would say also Bill, you personally have an
extraordinary amount of authority because of what you have been
engaged in there for years; including, as I mentioned at the
beginning, a Congressional campaign that you ran in 2012 there.
You got 41% of the vote in the 11th Congressional District there
in the 2012 Democratic primary.
Now, I’d actually like to play a clip for our viewers of
testimony that you gave in front of the Detroit City Council in
2012, when this entire rigging of the LIBOR rate came up and the
city was dealing with “Oh my gosh!  How are we going to repay
these debts and are we going to have to declare bankruptcy?”
Here’s the intervention that you made around Glass-Steagall and
the necessity of immediately instituting this kind of Franklin
Roosevelt policy.  So, this is testimony from July 24, 2012 at
the Detroit City Council.

ROBERTS

:  My name is Bill Roberts.  I am running for
U.S. Congress, and I do so for the same reason I’m here today,
which is that if I were not here to say what I’m saying today, no
one would say it.  I’m calling on the Detroit City Council to
reject any cuts that endanger the lives of human beings, and
instead to publicly call for and fight for the reinstatement of
House Resolution 1489, the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall; which
both Congressmen from Detroit are co-sponsors of, to break up the
too-big-to-fail banks.  The reason why I bring this up today is
because it is clear that 75% of major cities enter into interest
rate swaps.  These interest rate swaps were rigged against cities
at the highest level; at the LIBOR — the London Inter-Bank
Offered Rate.  This is murder.  This is not insider trading; this
is murder.  It has resulted in cuts to departments that have
killed people.  There are people at the highest level involved in
this.  I call upon the Detroit City Council to stand up and have
the guts to tell the private bankers that they are going to jail.

OGDEN:  Now, within the next year, Detroit was forced to
declare bankruptcy under Rick Snyder and financial manager Kevyn
Orr.  And exactly one year later, in July of 2013, Lyndon
LaRouche went on record and was asked what has to be done to save
the city of Detroit, to save the entire industrial heartland, and
what kinds of solutions are on the table?  He talked about
Glass-Steagall, but he talked about an expanded Glass-Steagall
solution.  So, I’d like to just play this clip from Lyndon
LaRouche for you.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  What is the situation of the United States
in terms of its economic development over the period, say the
last really effective Presidency went down?  What happened,
particularly with two terms of the Bush family and this latest
phenomenon, is that the economy of the United States virtually
does not exist.  And that’s true in the case of the auto industry
in particular, which is the center of this whole thing with
Detroit, is the auto industry.  It’s not just the auto industry
in Michigan, nor is it in the northern states around Michigan.
It goes all the way through the entire system — north, south,
east and west.  The U.S. economy does no longer function!  And
there is no hope for this nation under the present conditions,
unless we change those conditions radically.  Therefore, we have
lost the auto industry.  Do you know how important the auto
industry was?  Do you know how important back in 2005 and so
forth when we fought to save the auto industry?  And I was
playing a leading part in that fight.  Do you realize what
happened when the auto industry went down?  Do you realize that
we no longer are a nation capable of meeting our own needs?  Look
at the food supply.  What’s the food supply of the United States?
How do parts of the farm area work?  Nothing works!  Especially
since George W Bush became President.  Since that point, there
has been a disintegration throughout Europe and throughout the
United States and other parts of the world.  We no longer have a
sustainable economy.  What we have is the possibility, with
special efforts, to revive the economy.
Now, what we’re going to have to do — we’ve got some people
in Detroit, for example.  They’re unemployed, essentially.  There
are few of them left in the other odd industries that they fled
into as machine tool specialists and so forth.  What we’re going
to do is create a new industry, based on the core of the skilled
people who can play a key leading part in assembling a
replacement for what used to be called the auto industry.  The
real name for the auto industry as it was since World War II, is
the machine tool industry; that’s its character.  So, our job is,
in the case of Detroit, you cannot solve this economic problem by
sitting there or by following some politician’s recipes.  What we
can do is seize control of the situation.  Only through
Glass-Steagall can we save the United States; otherwise the
United States is doomed without Glass-Steagall.  Because there is
no agriculture, there is no machine tool system, there is no
labor production of any significance; that’s it.  So therefore,
unless we get Glass-Steagall in, we will not be able to make an
immediate change from the kind of economy on which you’re
operating now, which is a hopeless failure.  By changing quickly
to bring agriculture back, to build up the water systems that we
need for feeding our people; all these things depend upon
Glass-Steagall.  Not just Glass-Steagall itself, but an expanded
version of Glass-Steagall.
Therefore, the issue is, unless we can seize the hands of
power in the United States and organize the government to behave
like the government, not like it’s been doing recently; and go in
there and put Glass-Steagall into effect quickly.  Having done
that, we’re going to have to — in addition to Glass-Steagall —
we’re going to have to create a credit system to supplement
Glass-Steagall in order to finance the things that have to be
built up in terms of production which are needed to restore this
nation.  Without those actions, there’s no hope.  You don’t have
a chance; there is no other option.  Grab the United States; put
it back to business as best you can, and use some innovation.
But above all, apply Glass-Steagall as I know how to do it; and
some other people also know.  The very fact that we restore the
confidence of the people in their own nation — that is, the
United States — by taking immediate action; which means large
amounts of fundraising and fund contributions to get farming and
industry back going immediately.  We have to have — just as
Roosevelt did during the period of the onset of the Depression,
his first years.  We had people; we put them to work.  They
weren’t really producing anything; they were stuck in there with
shovels and picks and so forth out in the streets.  They weren’t
really producing things, but they were there; and they had a job.
And they had the beginnings of a family income, and they had a
future.  That’s what Roosevelt gave them, and that’s what we now
have to give the people of the United States.  We cannot give
them much, because the friends of the Bush family have stolen so
much there’s not much left for real people.  But we can restart
the process of production; restart that; and that we can do.  And
that we {must} do.  Without Glass-Steagall, we cannot do it.
So, the lives of the people of the United States depend upon
Glass-Steagall.  And Glass-Steagall can only be delivered by
Glass-Steagall Plus.  Glass-Steagall Plus means that we’re going
to take the junk that is junk, and we’re going to cancel it.
Most of this banking crap is worthless; there’s no value in it.
So why are we continuing to bail it out in a hyperinflationary
rate?  We don’t need it.  Put the thing through processing, and
you will find that when you go through the paperwork, all these
banking systems, the Wall Street crowd, all of them; how much of
these things they claim they own are actually real?  I don’t know
if they could come out with a penny of it for a giant.  So
therefore the point is, we have to restore the United States; get
rid of this crap, and do what Franklin Roosevelt did.  It’s going
to be more difficult than what Franklin Roosevelt faced in his
time, but the principle is, we’ve got to do it.  That’s the
answer; we’ve got to do it and get the message across to the
people.  That’s the only thing; there is no other chance.  Forget
this Republican nonsense; they’re just wolves trying to find a
place to bark in.  But that’s the answer, and there is no other
answer.

OGDEN:  So, that was from 2013, but as you can see, that’s
the core of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws; that’s the
entirety of the program.  That’s the kind of voice of authority
that we have to come into the scene with, and speak with that
kind of forcefulness, that kind of authority.  That’s exactly the
voice of Lyndon LaRouche that this constituency bloc can be
formed around.  As I said, what Trump tapped into — whether he
knew it or not — is indeed the LaRouche constituency there in
the heartland, in the industrial Midwest.
So, Bill, I just wanted to let you make some concluding
points, but this is the theme.  We can very rapidly take this
so-called Rust Belt and bring it into the Belt and Road
Initiative; and bring the New Paradigm of great projects into the
Midwest and awaken that kind of optimism.  So, Bill, I invite you
to just go ahead.

ROBERTS:  Well, I think what Lyn said right there is
absolutely key; that’s it.  People got brainwashed into thinking
that money is the key to wealth; that money is economy.  And Lyn
said “No. Cancel a lot of that money.  We don’t need the money.”
People said, “Cancel the money?  How can we do that?”  The point
is, you don’t need it, and what you need is, you need the machine
tool capability, you need the advanced farming, and you need the
things that go along with that.  I wish we would have had a
graphic in terms of where the funding goes in a national credit
system, because that’s really what he was addressing here.  But
the key is, you need the credit.  We can build everything we need
to.  The people, the “toolies” in these areas as they call them,
in these counties where people switched profile and voted for
Trump; they understand this.  They understand how what is central
to an economy; what is essential to a productive workforce.  The
issue is credit.  You don’t need Wall Street trying to make
11%-12% off of any money that they loose from their hands.  What
you need is to organize the credit; then the people can build the
economy.  You don’t need the straitjacket of this monetary
system.  In fact, if Trump doesn’t move against this Wall Street
financial bubble, this will bring the country down.  It’s a
ticking time bomb right now, waiting to go off; as William White
and others have said.  This thing is ready to go.  If this is not
moved against with the Glass-Steagall policy, we’re looking at a
complete and utter disaster.  But the good news is, we don’t need
it.  It’s simply that the American citizenry, the people watching
this today, have to take it as a personal challenge that we have
to create among these constituencies of the country, the notion
that there is a standard of competence for Federal office.  That
standard of competence is the comprehension of this principle;
this non-monetarist credit system principle that we have been
discussing today.
I guarantee that if you do that, people will listen.

OGDEN:  Well, let me put on the screen one more time “A
Campaign for Victory: The Campaign to Win the Future”.  This is
the electoral platform that LaRouche PAC has put out for 2018.
And Bill, you’re right in the middle of mobilizing the
constituencies there in the Midwest.  We need a national
mobilization to endorse this platform; not only candidates for
office, but Bill, as you said, the building trades, the labor
unions, the productive workers, the agricultural organizations.
These are the constituency bases that need to come to understand
this as principle.  The link is there on the screen:
LPAC.CO/YT2018.  This is the LaRouche PAC election platform for
2018.
We’ve got a lot of work to do, because it is our
responsibility to communicate what you just said, Bill.  This is
a non-monetarist principle; it means that you have to raise your
level of comprehension of what economics is really all about.
This is not monetarism, this is not Wall Street; this is a
question of what makes mankind a unique creative species, and how
is that reflected in national economic policy.  So, that’s what
is contained in the LaRouche PAC 2018 Campaign to Win the Future.
We ask you to join our mobilization; endorse this, and become a
part of what we’re doing nationally.  This is our strategy for
victory.
So Bill, thank you very much for joining me here today.
It’s good to hear from you; it’s good to hear what’s happening
out there in the Midwest, and we look forward to being in touch a
lot more.  I think we can look forward to a real mobilization.
So, thank you very much.
And thank you for tuning in to larouchepac.com.  Please stay
tuned; we have a lot of work to do, and we’ll see you next week.
Thank you.  Signing off, this is Matthew Ogden.  Good night.

Vi har et helt særligt program i dag; med mig i studiet har jeg Jason Ross, og via video fra Sverige har jeg Hussein Askary. Jason og Hussein er begge medforfattere af en ny rapport, der netop er udgivet, med titlen, »Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika: En vision for en økonomisk renæssance«.

(OBS! Se invitation til seminar i København 5. febr. med Hussein Askary)

[Bemærk: Der er mange billeder, der hver er separat nummererede af de forskellige talere; det er selvfølgelig bedst at se videoen, -red.]

Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er 19. januar, og dette er vores ugentlige fredags-webcast fra larouchepac.com.

Vi har et helt særligt program i dag; med mig i studiet har jeg Jason Ross, og via video fra Sverige har jeg Hussein Askary. Jason og Hussein er begge medforfattere af en ny rapport, der netop er udgivet, med titlen, »Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika: En vision for en økonomisk renæssance«.

Det bliver emnet for aftenens udsendelse; men før vi kommer til det, vil jeg gerne lægge ud med at sige, at LaRouche Political Action Committee har indledt en national kampagne for at sætte betingelserne for valgene 2018. Som I ser her, er titlen for vores kampagne »Kampagnen for at vinde fremtiden«, og det er titlen på en erklæring, der nu cirkuleres i hele landet. Erklæringens indhold fremlægger de politiske prioriteter, der vil bestemme udfaldet af valgene her i USA i år, med hensyn til dette lands overlevelse. Vi er i det indledende stadie for at indsamle underskrifter på denne erklæring, og vi opfordrer seerne, især her i USA, til at underskrive denne kampagne. URL ses her på skærmen, og I kan også få organisationer i valgkredsene, medlemmer af delstatskongresserne, siddende medlemmer af USA’s Kongres og i særdeleshed kandidater til offentligt (føderalt) embede, til at underskrive denne kampagne.

Indholdet af denne programerklæring er meget signifikant. Den kræver, at USA vedtager Lyndon LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love, dvs.: Vedtag Glass-Steagall for at rejse en brandmur mellem kommerciel, produktiv bankaktivitet og spekulativ bankaktivitet på Wall Street; for det andet, at indføre et nationalbanksystem (statsligt banksystem) i Alexander Hamiltons tradition; for det tredje, brug billioner af dollar i føderal (statslig) kredit til at løfte det amerikanske folk og for at skabe produktiv beskæftigelse på det højeste og mest avancerede teknologiske niveau; og for det fjerde, sæt et forceret program i gang, der går i retning af udvikling af fusionskraft og udvidelsen af bemandet rumfart.

Det er meget, meget vigtigt, at vi har indledt denne kampagne nu, for vi går nu ind i de sidste 11-dages nedtælling fra nu og frem til præsident Trumps State of the Union-tale den 30. jan. Indholdet af dette politiske programforslag må være bestemmende for præsidentskabets politiske program her i USA. Som I ser, er vore to punkter på dagsordenen 1) Vedtag Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love, og 2) Gå med i den Nye Silkevej.

Det bliver emnet for vores diskussion i dag. For de seere, der evt. ikke ved det, så blev ideen om den Nye Silkevej først udarbejdet af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche i 1980’erne. Det var den daværende Eurasiske Landbro for at udvikle det eurasiske kontinents indlandsområder, som forbinder Øst og Vest. Det blev til den Nye Silkevej og blev kaldt således af præsident Xi Jinping i Kina, da han i 2013 vedtog dette. Det udviklede sig så til Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som var en forbindelse mellem den landbaserede Silkevej og udviklingen af en Maritim Silkevej.

Gennem LaRouche-bevægelsens lederskab udvides dette nu til ikke blot en eurasisk Ny Silkevej, men en Verdenslandbro, der omfatter alle Jordens kontinenter, inklusive Vesteuropa, Central- og Sydamerika, Nordamerika og for vores udsendelse her i dag i særdeleshed, Afrika.

Udviklingen af Afrika har ligesom været en slags lakmusprøve for menneskeheden i dag: Kina har taget denne udfordring op og har bestået prøven og sat standarden, som resten af verden må følge. Vi har set dette inspirere andre nationer, og for nylig har vi haft et meget signifikant gennembrud med den franske præsident Emmanuel Macrons besøg i Kina, hvor han mødtes med præsident Xi Jinping og erklærede, at Frankrig favner billedet af udvikling af verden gennem den Nye Silkevej, inklusive, at Frankrig ønsker at arbejde sammen med Kina om Afrikas udvikling. Dette er måske en bodsgang for Frankrigs kolonialistiske imperiefortid, men det, præsident Macron havde at sige, var meget signifikant.

Som I ser, så holdt han en meget signifikant tale i Xi’an, og i denne tale diskuterede han, hvad Kina har gjort for at udvikle Afrika og for at løfte 700 millioner af sin egen befolkning ud af fattigdom, og at Frankrig nu må imødekomme opfordringen til at deltage i denne udvikling, især udviklingen i Afrika, i partnerskab med Kina. Her følger et par citater af, hvad præsident Macron havde at sige:

»Det er lykkedes Kina i de seneste par årtier at løfte 700 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom … Men jeg tænker også på Afrika. Kina har i de seneste par år investeret stort i infrastruktur og råmaterialer med en finansiel styrke, som europæiske lande ikke har. Samtidig har Frankrig historisk og kulturel viden om Afrika, som giver det mange aktiver for fremtiden.

Vi må ikke gentage fortidens fejltagelser, med at skabe politisk og finansiel afhængighed under påskud af udvikling … det turde være unødvendigt at sige, at denne udvikling kun vil ske i fællesskab … Frankrig har erfaringen med en ensidig imperialisme i Afrika, der undertiden har ført til det værste, og i dag, med disse nye Silkeveje, der åbner op … Jeg mener, at partnerskabet mellem Frankrig og Kina kan gøre det muligt at undgå en gentagelse af disse fejltagelser … Det er en moralsk udfordring, og jeg håber oprigtigt, at vi kan imødekomme den sammen … Det enorme arbejde, der gøres med infrastruktur og økonomisk udvikling, vil give et nyt ansigt til disse nye Silkeveje på det afrikanske kontinent.«

Som præsident Macron sagde, »det er en moralsk udfordring«; og nu får Afrika, der har været et af de mest underudviklede, fejlernærede, forarmede og tilbagestående steder på planeten, muligheden for en renæssance og for at blive et knudepunkt for udvikling for hele dette område af planeten.

Som jeg sagde, så er titlen på aftenens udsendelse »Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika«, og jeg vil lade Jason Ross introducere jer til Hussein Askary, og vi kan diskutere indholdet af denne specialrapport, der netop er udgivet.

Jason Ross: Jeg tror, vi skal gå direkte til Hussein nu. Hussein Askary har arbejdet i området i mange år. Han er den, der oversatte EIR’s Specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen« til arabisk og lancerede denne oversættelse i Kairo på et møde med den egyptiske transportminister.

Hussein har arbejdet meget på dette. Sammen har vi skrevet denne 274-siders rapport, I ser her. I kan få en kopi af denne rapport på Amazon og direkte gennem vores site også, [LPAC.CO/ExtendedSilkRoad], I ser linket her for neden, for at få en kopi.

Og hermed, lad os høre fra Hussein.

 

(Her følger et engelsk udskrift af resten af udsendelsen).

HUSSEIN ASKARY:  Thank you, Jason and Matt.  I’m very happy
to be on this show.  The writing of this report, actually, which
took us several months last year, together with you, Jason, and a
great team of collaborators in the Schiller Institute, it was a
bit of a paradox, because we were writing this report from the
standpoint of the future, and therefore the tone is optimism in
the report.   But at the same time, when you look at the news
from Southwest Asia, which people wrongly call the “Middle East,”
and Africa,  the news that these regions are, you know,
hell-holes and people are fleeing from there by tens of
thousands, there’s famines, there’s wars, and all kinds of
things.  But, if you keep digging your feet into that so-called
“reality,” which is artificially created by geopolitics, you will
never come out and you will never be able to think clearly to
solve the problem.
And therefore, as Lyndon LaRouche always says, it’s the
future that determines the present.  It’s our vision of the
future which gives us the inspiration and the means of thinking
to change our behavior today.  And this is something which we
hope that with this report, too, and all the other campaigns we
are having, to change the minds of people, and of leadership,
whether it’s in the United States or Europe, or Southwest Asia,
or Africa — anywhere.
At the same time, we are not naïve, we are not in the ivory
tower, sitting and drawing nice baths, but this is a very
scientific study, based on LaRouche’s idea of physical economy,
but also they are philosophical and humanist principles
throughout this whole report and the project we are designing,
which goes both humanist Christian tradition and also the
Confucian humanist Chinese tradition.  We have provided for the
readers of this report, a complete picture of what are the tools
needed, whether physically, or intellectually, scientifically and
morally, to be able to reach this future we are outlining in the
report.
And we are not simply just reporting on “great things” that
have already happened, that China is doing, but we are drawing a
map towards the future: A future which Lyndon LaRouche already,
more than 30 years ago, when the African Union published the
Lagos Plan of Action for the development of Africa, he criticized
the reaction to that policy by saying that you cannot adhere to
the existing financial and economic and moral policies of the
existing order, and at the same time achieve the development
goals of Africa.  You have to have a complete shift.  And that
shift is what Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the president of the Schiller
Institute now says is the New Paradigm, the New Paradigm which
has been launched by China and its partners in the BRICS, Russia
and other nations, and many more nations are joining.
Now, if we look at the first slide, the Silk Road, this is
what Matt said in terms of our development of the idea — the
LaRouches’ development of the idea of the World Land-Bridge, to
bring all the continents together.  Now, the New Silk Road is
already reaching West Asia and Africa.  Egypt has been building
the new Suez Canal to adapt to the Maritime Silk Road, and the
other nations, like Ethiopia, Kenya, and others are already in
collaboration and new railway systems have been built.  So
already on the ground, that’s taking place.
But what is needed is a larger vision which we provide.
Now, also we have to reverse many of the old policies which have
been followed, which have kept Africa impoverished, such as, for
more than 200 years, Africa has been considered by the European
colonialists and their partners across the Atlantic, as a looting
ground — whether it is slavery, whether it is raw materials,
plantations, and so on.  And unfortunately, after World War II,
the vision of Franklin Roosevelt was not implemented, because he
died before the end of the war, and a wholly new type of
creatures took over in the United States.  And the United States
also, with the “special relationship” with the British Empire
became a partner in the looting of Africa. And companies we have,
like Anglo American, which is a corporation called Anglo
American, very active in mining in Africa — I mean, the name
tells you all about it.
But we just take a look at what has been happening in Africa
in at least the last 10-15 years, the attitude,  — that’s what
is fascinating with the New Paradigm — the attitude of Europe
and the United States toward Africa has always been that “Africa
is a problem,” while the Chinese see Africa as an “opportunity.”
Therefore, the focus by Europe and the United States, while they
were looting the continent, were just pushing aid programs.  Now,
the slide we have, number 2, here, is the “Foreign Direct
Investments in Africa,” where we see the United States is the
blue line on the top, and China is the red line, which is
increasing steadily.  The United States, something funny happened
in 2008 — there was the financial/economic crisis — then you
have a dip in investments in Africa, but also what happens in the
United States is that the first African-American President is
elected.  And you see, from 2009, U.S. investments in Africa
completely collapsed and came down to zero by 2015, while the
Chinese investments increased.
Now, there’s a flip side to this argument, is because most
of the U.S. investments in Africa are in the oil and mining
sector. And with the collapse of the oil and mining prices, there
was no more interest; and Mr. Obama also launched the largest
fracking operation on Earth in the United States, to make the
United States the biggest producers of fossil fuels in the world.
But China’s investments continued all the same.
In the next slide, number 3, we see the level of investments
by the Export Import Banks of the United States on the one hand,
which is the blue line which is completely dead, on the bottom;
the United States does not issue credit for exports any more to
Africa.  But then we have the China Exim Bank increasing its
investments, and more interestingly, is that the World Bank,
which is the top, and you see where the failure of Western policy
in Africa has been: The World Bank has been investing more than
China in Africa, but it’s a completely misdirected investment.
It’s on tiny, tiny, small programs, there is no financing of
large-scale infrastructure as China does; there are no
transformative projects, and no new technology.
In the next slide, we can see we have a lot of hypocrisy,
saying that the Chinese want to come into Africa to loot African
natural resources, and this image, number 4, shows a very clear
picture that it is actually the United States and the Western
countries, but with the United States, the investments in Africa
have been mostly in the mining sector and the Chinese investments
have been very diversified, in construction, manufacturing,
mining, and others, such as agriculture, for example.
We can see also, the next slide, is Britain.  Now, China is
the largest, and people think, is not the largest investor in
Africa, yet.  It’s the United States and Britain which have been
the biggest investors in Africa.  But as we showed the United
States is mostly interested in mining, energy, and metals; and
here we have Britain, you can see the last 10 years of
investments. [“U.K. Foreign Direct Investment Positions in
Africa, 2005-2014”]  And the last two columns in the breakdown
into types of investments: The red one is mining, and the light
blue is in the financial sector, which is also looting Africa’s
financial resources.
So that’s really the picture. And in the final slide in this
group, number 5, we have where the investments of the Import
Export Banks have gone:  The United States has 71% of all loans
from the Exim Bank, although it has been very, very little, but
70% of it is in the mining sector; while China, the greatest
chunk of the Exim Bank investments has been in the transportation
sector.  And of course, there’s mining and energy,
communications, water, and other — very, very important sectors
for Africa’s development.
Now, what we have, in addition to this looting of Africa, we
have the hypocrisy which is very rampant in the West, like in
Europe and the United States, that “we have to help Africa.” Now,
when they talk about “helping Africa” is simply very small relief
projects to keep things as they are.  And they usually talk about
“sustainable development.”  Now, “sustainable development” does
not mean that you build modern technology, technologies that we
have in the United States or in Europe, whether it’s in transport
or power generation; it is absolutely forbidden to support roads,
railways, nuclear power, hydropower — there is nothing like
that.  What they are proposing is simply, as President Obama, as
we show in one of the slides, when he went to Africa, his idea,
he had projects called “Power Africa,” for power generation in
Africa, and we looked at the numbers and you know, the goal of
Obama’s Power Africa is to keep Africa exactly as it is, with
very, very slight changes here and there.  And also what was
being proposed was this idea of using solar energy, which
everybody knows is not efficient to have a modern, industrialized
economy.
So this has been a real problem in dealing with Africa.  And
as we have seen, that China has completely different idea about
Africa —

ROSS:  Hussein, why don’t we switch over to a clip we have
of President Obama explaining what he thinks about African energy
development?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  It’s going to be your generation
that suffers the most.  Ultimately, if you think about all the
youth that everybody’s mentioned here in Africa, if everybody’s
raising living standards to the point where everybody’s got a
car, and everybody’s got air conditioning and everybody’s got a
big house, well, the planet will boil over. [end video]

ROSS:  That was President Obama in South Africa.

ASKARY:  And in fact, that’s really revealing, because
that’s his soul speaking, because they consider human beings as a
burden.  Now, the United Nations statistics say that by 2050, the
bulk of the world’s population growth will take place in Africa.
And of the additional 2.5 billion new people, projected to be
born between 2015 and 2050, 1.3 billion will be added in Africa,
which means Africa’s population will reach about 3 billion
people.  Now, for Obama and the Malthusians this is a huge
problem.  But for China, this is a great opportunity!
And if we look, in 2015, which is very interesting, a
complete contrast with what Obama’s saying, when President Xi
Jinping went to South Africa, the same place where Obama was
speaking, in December 2015 at the Forum on China-Africa
Cooperation (FOCAC), this is slide number 10, President Xi
Jinping said something very interesting, which is really the
spirit of the New Paradigm: What he told the African leaders is,
I quote, “Industrialization is an inevitable path to a country’s
economic success.  Within a short span of several decades, China
has accomplished what took developed countries hundreds of years
to accomplish and put in place a complete industrial system with
an enormous productive capacity.” And then he continues and says,
“It is entirely possible for Africa, as the world’s most
promising region in terms of development potential, to bring into
play its advantages and achieve great success.  The achievement
of inclusive and sustainable development within Africa, hinges on
industrialization, which holds the key to creating jobs,
eradicating poverty, and improving people’s living standards.”
Now, wow!  What a contrast!  President Xi Jinping said that
by using modern technology as scientific development, we have
achieved miracles in China and this really applies to Africa,
too, as developing nations.  And he means it.  So the Chinese now
have turned the whole idea of :sustainable development” upside
down.  What people think in Europe and the United States about
sustainable development means, pumps for water, the small solar
panels — no!  China’s talking about [industrialization] and it’s
also the latest, the state-of-the-art technology available.
Because this is also interesting from a economic-scientific
standpoint, because what China experienced that instead of going
back to square one, going back to the industrialization process
where the United States and Europe started, with the steam engine
— no, you start not with that, you start with the best
technology available today, and that’s high-speed railway for
example.  The same thing applies to Africa.

ROSS:  You know, Hussein, you and I were both at a
conference in November in Germany, in Bad Soden, and one of the
speakers there was a Chinese professor He Wenping, who gave some
talks about Chinese approach towards Africa.  And since you’re
bringing up what China’s policy is, why don’t run a short clip of
what she had to say, to hear it from a Chinese person directly?

DR. HE WINPING:  But now, I think One Belt, One Road is
entering 2.0 version–that is, now facing all the countries in
the world. As President Xi Jinping mentioned to the Latin
American countries, “you are all welcome to join the Belt and
Road.” In the Chinese “40 Minutes,” Xi said, all the African
continent is now on the map of the One Belt, One Road, the whole
African continent, especially after the May Belt and Road Summit
in Beijing had taken place. …
China’s One Belt, One Road initiative is relevant to
countries, their own development strategy. For example, Ethiopia.
Ethiopia has now been named as the “next China” on the African
continent. It’s not my invention, these words–many scholars have
been published talking about which country in Africa is going to
be the China in Africa, which means, developing faster! Faster
and leading other countries forward. Most of them refer to
Ethiopia.
Ethiopia has now reached an GDP growth rate, last year, as
high as 8%…
So very quickly, let’s move to Africa. In Africa, we have
commitment, that is the FOCAC, the full name is the Forum on
China-Africa Cooperation. This forum was established in 2000, and
every three years there is a FOCAC meeting. The FOCAC meeting in
2015 took place in Johannesburg, South Africa. In that meeting,
President Xi Jinping joined the meeting, put forward ten
cooperation plans, and pledged the money–as high as $60
billion–to cover all ten areas: industrialization, agriculture,
infrastructure, finance, environmental protection, and more.
The Belt and Road is very good for Africa’s job creation. A
lot of money has been earmarked to use for the industrialization
of Africa. Let me just highlight in my last two minutes, the two
areas, like two engines–like in an airplane, if you want to take
off, you need two engines: One is industrialization, another is
infrastructure. Without good infrastructure, there’s no basis for
industrialization–short of electricity, short of power, short of
roads, and then it’s very hard to make industry take off.
We have done a lot. Africa now is rising. Before, Africa was
regarded as a hopeless continent, more than 15 years ago. But
now, with kite flying over, now it’s Africa’s rising time….
Just to show you another infrastructure map: the Mombasa to
Nairobi railway that was just finished at the end of May. We are
going to build the second phase, from Nairobi all the way to
Malaba in Uganda, and then that’s an East African Community
network. When this railway was finished–this is President Uhuru
Kenyatta, saying this laid the foundation for industrialization.
This shows people celebrating this railway connection, and this
shows a man holding a paper saying “Comfortable, convenient, very
soft, safe, and very beautiful.” And here, very beautiful at 100
years old, a grandmother. [applause] [end video]

ASKARY:  Yes, that’s the spirit, that’s the spirit of things
that are happening in Africa, which is fantastic.  But it’s also
a certain projection of the happiness of the Chinese people and
their leadership in what they have achieved in their own country.
So China’s saying, we have done this ourselves, you can do it,
and we are committed to offering you everything we have achieved,
so you can also achieve yours.  It’s a win-win policy:  It’s good
for you, it’s good for us.
It’s completely different from what we have seen in the
Western policy, which hopefully will change — what we mentioned
about President Macron, what he had said is really shocking for
me, too. And you see that the New Paradigm, it changes people’s
souls.  And this is very, very important that we are becoming
more human than before, with these great achievements
So in any case, what we do in this report is, we took for
example, if you look at slide 12, this is a map which the African
Union put together in the Lagos Plan of Action in 1982.  But
nothing has been done.  This is for highways.  Now, we don’t
prefer to have trucks travelling 10,000km from north to south; we
prefer more high-speed railway, standard gauge railways, and so
on.  But this is the kind of vision which existed, but it was
never implemented.
Our vision of connecting the whole African continent, and
also with the so-called Middle East, that this could be done now.
We also believe that the Chinese intention is the same: To
integrate all of the African nations, the populations and the
natural resources of these nations, and utilize them for the
development of Africa itself.  Now, in 2014, which is my next
slide [slide 13], the Prime Minister of China, Li Keqiang, went
on a tour in Africa.  This picture is his meeting with the
leaders of the East African Community, which Professor He Wenping
just mentioned in her speech in the video you showed.  He told
the African leaders that China’s intention is to help connect all
the African capitals with high-speed railway.  One interesting
thing which the Africans themselves say, is that when the Chinese
want to do something here economically, when they want to help,
they are not like the Europeans.  The President of Uganda said,
they don’t come here with lessons in democracy; they come here to
build things, they are not lecturing us.  This is very
interesting because China is not imposing anything on any nation.
It’s inviting others and offering its capabilities.  This was in
May 2014, and in just three years, we have the first standard
gauge railway which is in the next slide [slide 14]; Uhuru
Kenyatta, very proud, inaugurating the railway from Mombasa to
Kenya.  There was a British line which was called the Lunatic
train, which was very slow, but it was designed to loot African
wealth.  And also the Djibouti to Addis Ababa railway was built,
also in three years in record time, and so on and so forth.  So,
China is winning African hearts and minds by doing these
investments, but doing them in record time and with no
conditionalities involved.
In addition of course, some of the mega-projects which we
are demanding be built and encouraging being built in Africa with
China’s help, for example we have in slide 15 the Transaqua
Project, which is an Italian-designed project to both refill Lake
Chad, which is drying up and threatening 30 million people’s
lives with drought.  To bring just 5% of the water of the
tributaries of the Congo River to Lake Chad through an artificial
canal.  But at the same time, connect East and West Africa with
railway and roads to open these countries, which are Rwanda,
Burundi, and Eastern Congo, the Central African Republic, Chad,
and so on.  These nations need outlets to world markets and also
to import useful machines and so on.  So, we have been
propagating, as the Schiller Institute, for many years and trying
to get the European Union and the United States to support this
project; but they rejected it.  Now China is proposing to start
looking at this project, and a Memorandum of Understanding was
signed with the Lake Chad Commission to have a feasibility study
of this project; which is a huge project, but it will transform
large parts of Africa, not because of the water itself, but
because of the old infrastructure involved in the central part of
Africa.  The next slide [slide 15] outlines the impact area of
this whole project.  It will create massive agro-industrial
centers in that part of Africa which is suffering the most.  The
biggest migration from Africa is from these regions into Europe.
But instead of having all those young people drowning in the
Mediterranean, trying to flee to Europe looking for a decent
life, they can stay in their countries now and build their
countries by giving them the tools to do that.
Of course, there are also other projects, but what’s
interesting about the Belt and Road is that it’s also inspiring,
not just helping countries, but inspiring countries to undertake
plans which have been dormant for many years.  But now the time
has come; for example, the new Suez Canal project.  There is also
connecting to Europe from Morocco, which is the next slide [slide
16]; building a tunnel under the Strait of Gibraltar, connecting
Morocco and Spain; and building a high-speed railway, the first
high-speed railway in Africa is being built now in Morocco.
There are new ports being built, and also a scientific,
industrial city being built in cooperation with China.  We have
another connection between Africa and Europe; we have still not
given up on Europe.  We want Europe to its and technological
potential to contribute to this project and help itself by
contributing to Africa’s development.  We have the Sicily to
Tunis tunnel and bridge connection to connect North Africa also
to Europe; this is a mega-project, and so on and so forth.  We
have also the Grand Inga Dam which China is now interested in
building on the Congo River, which will produce a huge amount of
hydropower — 40,000MW of power — which is twice as big as the
biggest dam in the world which the Chinese built in China; the
Three Gorges Dam.  The Inga Dam, or series of dams, will be twice
as big as the Chinese Three Gorges Dam, and a Chinese company has
made an offer to the government of the Democratic Republic of
Congo; and there’s also a counterbid by a Spanish company.
People should read the report; they should look at all the
content and try to understand it with a completely new eye.  The
eye of the New Paradigm, which I think is very important.  In
conclusion, what I wanted to say initially, is that as we have in
the last slide [slide 19] is this region which people call the
Middle East; we call is Southwest Asia.  It has been a horrific
scene for the worst results of geopolitics and power politics.
Regime change in Libya; regime change in Iraq; attempted regime
change in Syria supporting terrorist groups.  We have a horrible
war in Yemen which should end immediately.  It’s the worst
humanitarian catastrophe in the world right now, taking place in
Yemen.  You look at this region and say “How could this region
get out of this Hell?”  This is what Helga Zepp-LaRouche said:
This year we should kill geopolitics.  We should end geopolitics.
The idea that nations have to undermine other nations; that
nations are in competition with each other; that you have to
weaken your adversaries; you have to undermine them, you have to
kill them, you have to ruin their economy, destroy their
infrastructure, so you can become a winner.  That ideology is not
really human.  This has to end now and be replaced by the
“win-win” idea, which is the more human kind of idea.  The
potential for enormous development exists in this region.  It’s
the crossroads of the continents.  Both the Belt and the Road
pass through there.  Forty percent of world trade passes through
there.  You have natural resources, you have human resources, you
have rivers; you have every element necessary to have a massive
development process in this region, which will be the basis for
establishing peace among the nations of this region and also the
big powers.  If the United States joins Russia and China in
developing this region, this would be the biggest test for
mankind.  Of course, Africa is very important, but we have things
happening in Africa.  But, we still have a horrible situation in
Southwest Asia, which can lead into new and maybe bigger wars
than before.  Therefore, I think what Helga is saying that if we
use the Belt and Road idea, the idea of “win-win”, to crush
geopolitics, this would be victory not only for the countries of
this region; this will be a victory for all humankind.

ROSS:  Absolutely!  It’s a victory for a concept of mankind.
One example that comes to mind is Yemen.  Yemen is under constant
Saudi bombardment; they’ve been victims of a war by the Saudis
for some time now.  Yemen has a very powerful movement within it
for integration with the BRICS; a real sense of “Hey!  Even
though our conditions right now are what they are, this is our
future; and we’ve got to have that future in mind.  That’s what
we’re going to make happen.”
You think about the economic potential of Africa, and as you
said, it’s so clear, it’s so obvious the economic potential in
West Asia and Africa.  Geopolitics is what has prevented this
development.  It’s not that Africa didn’t get the help that it
needed; China is showing that it’s an obvious thing to do.  It
was a deliberate decision to prevent development and to hold
Africa back for the purposes — as you described — of looting.
A couple of examples that you brought up, just to bring out the
contrast a little bit more: You brought up the Grand Inga Dam
which would be located in the Democratic Republic of Congo; one
of the poorest, most energy-poor per capita, very low energy
availability.  It’s got the perfect site for a hydroelectric dam
complex, making enough electricity for tens of millions of
people.  The World Bank pulls out funding on it, because it’s a
big project which of course, they’re not going to touch because
it would have a major development impact.
What I’d like to actually show is another voice from Africa.
Professor He Wenping had mentioned that Ethiopia is sort of the
China of Africa, and other African diplomats will say this as
well; that Addis Ababa is sort of the unofficial capital of
Africa.  I don’t know if everyone in Africa agrees with that.
But I’d like to hear from Dr. Alexander Demissie, who also spoke
at the Schiller Institute conference in November, and hear from
him from a direct African perspective, what the impact of Chinese
investment has been and what the future can be in Africa.
DR. ALEXANDER DEMISSIE:  So today, what I’m trying to
discuss with you, or to present to you, is what is actually this
Belt and Road Initiative and how is that connected to Africa?
What kind of long-term impacts when we talk about the Belt and
Road Initiative and Africa?
So, this is a map [Fig. 1] I always present when I do
presentations, and I ask people, “What do you see here?”  It’s a
very simple question.  But what do you see here?  Yes, you should
see something.  So, it’s a rhetorical question; I’m not expecting
you to answer me.  But it takes usually several minutes until
people realize what they see here.  You see the absence of the
American continent; that’s what you see here.  The absence of the
American continent.  By saying this, you see that the Belt and
Road Initiative, the Chinese version of the Belt and Road
Initiative, is absolutely Eurasian-oriented; meaning that
starting in China, it is primarily Eurasian-oriented.  The idea
of the Belt and Road Initiative — probably even your idea back
in the ’70s — is the Land-Bridge that we have been discussing
yesterday and today.  Within this picture or map, you will see
also Africa.  Africa is prominent, Africa is not entirely in the
center, but on the left side; and it should be part of the Belt
and Road idea.  It’s primarily an infrastructural undertaking, so
the Belt and Road Initiative we don’t have yet political
institutionalization.  We have infrastructural ideas, we have
corridors; but we don’t have yet political institutions.  If we
talk about the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank or the Silk
Road Bank, these are just connected to infrastructure; they are
not political ideas.  And interestingly, this idea fits perfectly
into the current African needs.  What are the current African
needs?  The current Africa need is infrastructure development.
Africa wants infrastructure and the aspiration — I’m going back
here to the Agenda 2063, that has also coincidentally been coming
up 2013 together with the Belt and Road Initiative.  Africa wants
a good infrastructure connection, a good internal
interconnectivity.  So, the idea coming from China is perfectly
fitting into the idea actually happening or discussed within the
Africa continent.
We see now an actor coming in.  China is an actor coming in
and literally taking or doing part of those needed works.  This
is a huge — at least from the African perspective — this is a
huge plus for many African countries.  The idea of the Belt and
Road Initiative, which is actually coming only in 2013; we see
that it is helping what has been taking place on the continent
between China and African countries since the year 2000.  We see
this that China has clearly declared that they would like to see
Chinese-African cooperation moving into development of highways,
regional aviation networks, or industrialization.  Also we see
that China has been given a lot of clarity to the African Union’s
infrastructure development for Africa.  This program has
approximately 51 different programs, and this is translated into
400 different physical projects.  I speak about ports, and
streets, and telecommunication lines, whatever you require for a
nation to function, or for a continent to function.
What we see in Africa now is that since at least two years,
there is a growing corridorization in the China-Africa
relationship.  As corridorization, I mean that not single
countries are any more important, but entire regions are becoming
more important for China.  This is a huge departure from a
single, bilateral country-based approach towards corridor
development.  If you look at Africa corridors, the map on the
right [Fig. 2], we see right now as we speak today, there are
around 33 different corridors that have either been developed, or
are under development, or are thought out and need to be
developed.  Corridors do nothing else than combine two different
areas, and by doing so also creating a development initiative, a
development paradigm.
Let’s go to East Africa.  So now, this is Africa; I’m aware
that the plans for these things have been in the drawer for a
long time.  We know also that a lot of American research
institutes played a very good role in creating those plans in the
’50s and ’60s, especially in Ethiopia.  The Grand Renaissance Dam
that is being built in Ethiopia, goes back to American scientists
that have been creating those ideas in the ’60s.  It’s being
built already now.  So, a lot of ideas in East Africa have been
already on the table for decades, but no one was able or willing
to pay for it.  But now a lot of money is coming out of China, so
these infrastructure — and how this can change the life of the
people is easily described.  The transportation of cargo from the
Djibouti port to Addis Ababa used to take three days.  Now, with
the train, it’s already 10 hours.  So now we can imagine what
kind of economic activity will happen to this one corridor
development, or one infrastructure within this community. [end
video]

ROSS:  I just wanted to read another short excerpt from
Alexander Demissie.  Towards the end of his presentation, he
said, “The problem as I see it, is that the traditional partners
are still in the old paradigm of thinking.  They still think with
traditional assumptions.  Africa is seen as an aid-dependent
continent; not a continent full of opportunities.  It is still
seen with the wrong mindset.  This is one of the biggest
problems, and it has to change.”
So, I think our report does a very thorough job of
addressing the whole gamut of issues here.  What the historical
errors have been, or not errors, but cruelties or injustices that
have occurred towards Africa, towards Southwest Asia with the use
of geopolitics, with the use of looting rather than development.
As well as what some of the ideas are today that hold back the
potential for development.  The ways that environmentalism is
used; the ways that there shouldn’t be any net growth of the
human species are used.  This is the basis, for example, for the
World Bank refusing any loans to coal or to large hydro plants.
But you’re not going to develop a continent with solar panels, as
much as Obama might have wanted to have done that.
The other issues are in regards to economics.  That there is
this prevailing and totally wrong view about economics that looks
for financial returns as being the metric; as opposed to going
beyond GDP and saying how are we changing life expectancies?  How
are we changing productive potential?  What’s the long-term value
of helping a nation to develop in a partnership?  This is the
sort of thing.  So, the report goes through all of this; it goes
through what the specific projects are that are needed.  It goes
through something that’s very important for policymakers — how
to finance it.  How the hopes of trying to get investment, of
trying to get loans from private banks for these big projects;
it’s simply not going to fly.  The use of national banking, as
China has done both domestically as well as with its ExIm Bank
with these two large rail projects in Africa in particular in
Kenya and the Addis Ababa to Djibouti railroad.
So, I think we’ve heard from China, we’ve heard from
Southwest Asia, we’ve heard from Africa.  Let me ask you,
Hussein, if you have any words that you would like to direct
towards our American viewers.  What would you tell Americans?
What should we be doing?

ASKARY:  Exactly!  I had also in mind to say that, because
we need to hear from Americans.  I don’t think it’s a good idea
that the United States is not on the map of the Belt and Road;
but I think a different United States should be involved.  I’m
very sure that if President Franklin Roosevelt, President
Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King must be very happy now for what
is now already starting to happen in Africa.  They might feel
sorry for the lost time, but I’m sure they are happy.  Americans
should look back at that best of American tradition and work with
ideas of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche PAC and LaRouche’s
associates, because the United States will not become great again
with the team that President Trump has.  America will be great
again with the ideas that the LaRouche PAC, the ideas of Franklin
Roosevelt, the Hamiltonian idea of a national credit system,
rather than depending on Wall Street.  These things will make
America great again, but it also will help the United States to
have a completely different policy in the world; which will make
the people around the world see the United States with completely
different eyes.  Right now, the United States is not so liked
around the world; not because of Trump, but because of previous
administrations’ war policies, their hypocrisy.  As you showed in
Obama’s case, their policies would lead to genocide.  So, the
United States is not really a popular country around the world,
but this can shift.  In order for that shift to happen, there
should be a shift inside the United States in the mind and the
soul of the American people.  I’m sure the kind of work you are
doing in LaRouche PAC would help greatly.

OGDEN:  And that’s exactly what we are doing with this
campaign to win the future statement.  As I said in the beginning
of the show, we’re initiating a national mobilization to bring
together all of the constituent layers — regardless of party,
political orientation — around a vision of economic development
for the United States and for the world.  If you just imagine the
kind of way that the world could be transformed in the next 15 or
20 years with what China has begun doing in Africa; something
that people thought was impossible.  They just disregarded Africa
and said well, this is just where you’re going to have
impoverishment and backwardness.  Now, this could seriously
become a hub of development for the planet.  But take that and
extend it across the Bering Strait into the Americas; have a rail
link between Eurasia and North America.  Then imagine an entire
development corridor down through the central part of North
America, through the heartland, the farm country in the Midwest;
down through Mexico, across the Darien Gap into Central and South
America.  Then also, extend the Maritime Silk Road to the
Caribbean.  That vision of what could happen in the Western
Hemisphere is the extension of the sort of optimism that you now
see China bringing to Africa.
So, as I said, I think it’s the great moral test.  Emmanuel
Macron was absolutely right; he said it’s a moral challenge what
the nations of the world do to collaborate to bring development
to the African continent.  I think we can be very happy that it’s
because of the leadership over decades of the LaRouche movement,
of you Hussein.  What you’ve been doing; what you did to
collaborate with Jason to put together this extraordinary Special
Report.  I know that this is being listened to in the highest
levels of power across the African continent and in Southwest
Asia; we have evidence of that.  The invitation that you
received, Hussein, from the Egyptian Transportation Ministry, and
other examples.  So, we have to proceed with that kind of
confidence that we are, indeed, shaping the policy for the
future.
So, let me put on the screen one more time; this is the
vision of an economic renaissance — this is the Special Report
that Jason and Hussein collaborated in authoring.  That is
available; you can find the link to that on the screen here —
LPAC.CO/ExtendedSilkRoad.  It’s a very thorough, book-length
Special Report.  This is something that is not just important for
the African leaders and for China.  This is something that is
very important for the United States.  This is something that we
should be considering when we talk about what is US foreign
policy, and those disgraceful graphics about the plummeting of US
investment into Africa over the course of the last eight years
during the Obama administration.  That needs to be reversed; and
it needs to be reversed by bringing the United States and China
into a “win-win” collaboration for the development of these
areas.
We are going to proceed with this campaign to win the
future.  And we’re asking you to endorse this, to join our
mobilization, and to make sure that this becomes the policy
parameter for the 2018 election.  None of the melodrama, not the
soap operas, not all of the secondary and tertiary issues.  These
are the questions which will determine the future of the United
States and the survival of our country and what our role is in
respect to this New Paradigm that we’ve just been discussing on
the show today.
So, again, we have 11 days between now and President Trump’s
State of the Union address.  We are putting these two items on
the agenda.  The United States must adopt LaRouche’s Four
Economic Laws, and the United States must join the New Silk Road.
So, Hussein, is there anything that you want to say in
conclusion before we end this show today?  Any special messages
for our viewers, both in the United States and internationally?

ASKARY:  I think it’s a great opportunity for people now to
get this report, take to themselves the scientific, even
philosophical and other ideas that are in the report which are
necessary.  As you said, it’s for everyone; it’s not only for
Africans.  I think the main target of the report should be
Europeans and Americans, because we need these kinds of ideas
more than at any time before.  We have problems here in Europe
with the infrastructure, with unemployment.  You have massive
problems in the United States.  You need to have these ideas for
your own sake, too; but there is enormous potential that exists
in Europe and the United States that could be revived.  But that
has to be done in the right way; and the right way was outlined
by Mr. LaRouche, but we put it in very clear terms in this
report.  I hope people will get the report and learn something
and push the policymakers in the United States to also do the
same.

OGDEN:  Wonderful.  Thank you very much, Hussein, for
joining us.  And thank you to Jason for joining me here.  I think
we have a lot more to come.  So, a very exciting report here
today.  Help us circulate this video; send it out to everybody
that you know; share it on social media.  Let’s get these ideas
to permeate the United States.  Thank you very much and please
stay tuned to larouchepac.com.