1

Trumps eneste valg for vort land er at
implementere LaRouches Fire Love
i Hamiltons tradition.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
16. juni, 2017

Matthew Ogden: … Jeg vil gerne begynde i dag med direkte at referere tilbage til lederartiklen, der blev udgivet på larouchepac.com sidste lørdag, og som fortsat er meget relevant og har vist sig at haste mere og mere, som ugen er skredet frem. Jeg viser den på skærmen. Som I kan se, var artiklens overskrift, »Lyndon LaRouche: Stop FBI’s bedrageri; Stop kuppet mod præsidenten – Hvad de løgnagtige medier ikke fortæller«

Hr. LaRouche kom med en meget klar advarsel.

Lyndon LaRouche lancerede en appel til det amerikanske folk om at stoppe det igangværende kup imod præsident Trump, som torsdag fik yderligere næring gennem den fyrede FBI-direktør, James Comeys løgnagtige vidneforklaring for Senatets Efterretnings-Udvalgskomite. LaRouche sagde, at kuppet er en FBI-operation, der forsøger at ødelægge USA, og hvis det ikke standses, vil verden stå over for generel krig.

Som I husker, så forklarede artiklen yderligere:

»Den 7. juni afslørede tidligere direktør for Nationalt Efterretningsvæsen, James Clapper, den faktiske motivation for kuppet imod Trump, med bemærkninger i Australien. Han sagde, at Trumps åbenhed over for fred med Rusland – det valprogram, som Trump blev valgt på af det amerikanske folk – i sig selv var totalt imod USA’s sikkerhedsinteresser og i realiteten at sidestille med forræderi. Det var allerede før valget almindeligt kendt i det officielle Washington, at præsident Obama, i aftalt spil med briterne, kandidat Clinton, DNI-chef Clapper, CIA-chef Brennan og FBI-chef Comey, havde styret USA på en kurs for krig med Rusland og Kina, som efter planen skulle aktiveres fuldt ud med valget af Hillary Clinton. I stedet blev Trump valgt, hvilket udløste kuppet, der fulgte.« 

Hr. LaRouche kom med en meget afgørende pointe:

»Præsident Trump har holdt sit løfte og etableret bedre relationer med både Rusland og Kina, der begge søger samarbejde med USA omkring udvikling af verden, baseret på store infrastrukturprojekter. Det er det virkelige, og eneste, spørgsmål her.«

Jeg har gentaget vores reference til denne artikel, for det er en meget afgørende advarsel fra hr. LaRouche, Og som jeg sagde, er den kun blev mere relevant og mere presserende, som ugen er skredet frem. Som I måske har set, udlagde vi også en video på LaRouche PAC’s webside, med titlen, »Stop kuppet mod præsidenten«, som allerede cirkleres temmelig vidt omkring og bør fortsætte med det.

 

[https://larouchepac.com/20170614/stop-coup-against-President]

Men, præcis som hr. LaRouche advarede om i denne erklæring, jeg netop oplæste, så, hvis denne kampagne mod præsidenten ikke stoppes, kan det føre til meget alvorlige konsekvenser for USA, og for verden.

(her følger resten af udskriftet på engelsk):

Although the very disgusting
propaganda and even direct threats against the life of President
Trump began very early on in his administration — practically
immediately after his inauguration, as we saw with the article in
the German news magazine {Der Spiegel} — over the last week and
a half, we saw a very alarming escalation of such threats in
increasingly explicit form.  Such as comedienne Kathy Griffin
holding an image of President Trump’s severed head, or the
ongoing production of {Julius Caesar} in Central Park which
depicts a caricature of President Trump and his wife, First Lady
Melania Trump.  These threats are serious; they should be stopped
immediately.  They’re very dangerous.  They create the
environment, as is characterized correctly, “a climate of
violence” in which very deranged and disturbed individuals such
as the shooter in Alexandria act out this kind of propaganda and
act on those threats.  Thanks to the Capitol Police detail of
Rep. Steve Scalise, a massacre was thankfully averted at that
Republican baseball practice on Thursday. But responsible parties
in this country must recognize Lyndon LaRouche’s warning that
this coup attempt and this climate of violence must be stopped
immediately, or it will lead to chaos and even general war.
As Mr. LaRouche said later in that same statement, “[I]t is
time for the people to speak and end this disruptive and highly
dangerous attempted coup.”  We are seeing a shifting attitude
among certain sectors of the population around the United States,
due to the very vocal and direct intervention by LaRouche PAC and
the LaRouche movement; including in New York City and elsewhere.
A push-back against this propaganda campaign, including an
increasing recognition that the never-ending, round-the clock
Russia-gate hearings happening practically every day in the U.S.
House and Senate are, in fact, nothing more than a McCarthy-ite
witch-hunt —  President Trump correctly used that term; and have
been ongoing now for several months with unlimited resources
invested in them, and have turned up zero evidence so far.
What the American people {do} want to hear about is not this
fabricated media narrative, but rather how their duly elected
government — be it Republicans or Democrats — but the people
who they voted to represent them plan to solve the truly urgent
life or death issues that are facing the American people every
single day.  Collapsing infrastructure.  As we know, we have the
so-called “Summer of Hell” coming upon us in New York City;
collapsing living standards; collapsing wages; a failing health
care system; epidemic proportions of drug addiction and drug
overdose deaths.  A Wall Street bubble which is about to explode,
which would have consequences worse than 2008.  It’s exactly
those issues which the Trump administration was elected to
address; but the Trump administration must now begin to deliver.
It’s not a question of piecemeal form, a little fix here, a
little bit there, but it’s a national mission which we require
from the U.S. Presidency which will mobilize the American people
in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did; in the way that John F.
Kennedy did that.  Getting this infrastructure project moving in
a very big way and really delivering on this front is crucial for
the President, as we’ve made the point over recent days; not to
mention making good on his campaign promise to restore
Glass-Steagall.  Frankly, if there’s anybody who this President
should be firing right now, it should be this clown, Treasury
Secretary Steve Mnuchin; who is repeatedly going in front of
Senate committee hearings and lying through his teeth that the
Glass-Steagall that Trump was talking about, was not the
Glass-Steagall that was in the Republican platform, is not the
Glass-Steagall that is called the 21st-Century Glass-Steagall.
This has been called out correctly by a number of sitting U.S.
Senators; Senator Warren, Senator Sanders.  But these are
concrete steps which must be taken immediately, if President
Trump is to mobilize the American people and to effectively
counter this mass propaganda assault and recruit the citizens to
mobilize behind the duly elected Presidency of the United States.
One thing that I know we’re going to address in the course
of the discussion in this show today, is Mr. LaRouche’s
{emphatic} point that what we need now is directed, Federal
credit on a massive scale in a Hamiltonian form.  Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has reiterated that point several times in
discussions this week.  What keeps coming up in discussions
around so-called infrastructure, including a major event that
Diane Sare attended up in New York City a few days ago, is this
question of privatization of major infrastructure and funding new
infrastructure through so-called private investment.
As Helga LaRouche said, this is not only grossly inadequate
and will never work, but it is also criminal in fact. As we saw
in the very real criminal privatization after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the mass privatization of state-owned utilities
there in Russia and the former Soviet countries and privatization
of infrastructure; which plunged the population there into a
demographic collapse and a real dark age while a few criminal
oligarchs looted the entire region. What we need is not that, but
what we need is the American System; as President Trump himself
referred directly earlier during his administration.  That is,
Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln; that is the American System
which built the United States.
What I want to shift to right now, before we get into a
deeper discussion on that, is what Mr. LaRouche also made a very
strong point about in that warning that I referred in the
beginning of the broadcast.  He said the fact that Trump was
elected, triggered this kind of coup from these factions which
had been trying to keep him out of office and escalate the war
confrontation between the United States and Russia and China.
Instead, you’ve seen President Trump reach out to China, continue
to reach out to Russia despite massive pressure not to.  And you
see these countries seeking cooperation with the United States on
developing a new paradigm, a new international system based on
great projects and development.  That is what the underlying
issue here is; and nothing else.  Do not get distracted.
What I want to do right now, before I get into the
discussion with Michael, is to share with you a little bit of
footage; some excerpts from a dialogue that President Putin of
Russia had with the people of his country and also with people
internationally on his annual direct webcast call-in show. This
lasted over four hours.  I’m going to put up on the screen for
you a couple of pictures from these and I’m going to read some
questions and then the answers that he had, because these
statements from President Putin are directly addressing this
question that Mr. LaRouche just raised.  What is the perspective
for a peaceful relationship between the United States and Russia?
So, as you’ll see, this is a picture of President Putin
[Fig. 2]; this was a call-in show where he received questions
live.  This was the first question from an American.  It said,
“Greetings, Mr. Putin!  My name is Jeremy Bowling.  I live in
Mesa, Arizona in America.  I’m a big supporter of you.  I am very
pro-Russian, and I wish you much health and success in your life.
My question to you is this.  As an American who sits here in
America and sees the racist Russian phobia running crazy in my
country, what advice would you give me to help set the record
straight, to help my fellow Americans understand that Russia is
not the enemy?”
President Putin replies: “To begin with, I am very grateful
to you for this call.  I can tell you as the current head of the
Russian state, that I know the attitudes of our people.  We do
not consider America our enemy.  Moreover, twice in history when
we were going through very rough times, we pooled our efforts; we
were allies in two world wars.  In the past, the Russian Empire
played a substantial role in helping America gain independence
and supported the United States.  We see that Russo-phobia is
running high in America, and think this is primarily a result of
the escalating political infighting.  I do not think I have the
right to give you any advice.  I simply want to thank you for
this stance.  We know that we have very many friends in the
United States.  My American colleagues tell me so, and public
opinion polls show the same results.  At any rate, those polls
taken a month ago, show that we have many friends there.  True,
regrettably, such hysteria is bound to affect the frame of mind,
but let me assure you that there are also very many people in
Russia who have deep respect for the achievements of the American
people and are hoping that eventually our relations will get back
on track, in which both we and the United States are extremely
interested.”
So, that was his answer to the first question, and then
coming up next, he had a question from an editor of a
Moscow-based Russian-language newspaper, who also asked about the
same question.  He said “One of the current trends is that
bilateral relations are deteriorating and there is Russo-phobia,
along with daily reports about new anti-Russian initiatives
including sanctions.  At the same time, there is a growing demand
not only for stabilizing, but also for improving Russian-American
relations.  At a Senate hearing the day before yesterday, U.S.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said something to the effect
that every time he meets with his foreign colleagues since his
appointment, they have asked him to stabilize relations with the
Russians.”  He went on to say, “In three weeks’ time, the G20
will convene in Hamburg, where you are to meet with U.S.
President Trump.  Is it possible that these talks will help prod
this negative trend towards a more positive one, and possibly
even towards a radical improvement in our relationships with the
United States?  In what areas and on what issues can Russian-U.S.
cooperation be productive and mutually beneficial?  I believe
these questions are of concern not only to people in Russia and
in the United States, but many other countries as well.”
President Putin answered as follows: “You know as well as I
do the areas in which we can work together with the United
States.  This includes above all control over non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction.  We are the biggest nuclear
powers and so our cooperation in this area is absolutely
natural…. Cursing and trading barbs and insults with the U.S.
administration would be the worst road to take…. We must work
together to fight poverty in the world…. There is a disastrous
situation in many parts of the world, and this is one of the
sources of radicalism and terrorism, this poverty around the
world; and we must decide together how to address this problem.”
Then President Putin continued by saying: “By the way, we worked
together with the United States to resolve the Iranian nuclear
issue, and we did reach an agreement, we did find a solution.
There are positive examples of cooperation, then.  The previous
U.S. administration directly recognized the substantial role that
we played in resolving this issue.  We can reach agreements and
work together then.  Of course we can.  On the Syrian problem and
Middle East in general, it is clear to all that no progress will
be made without joint constructive work.  We hope greatly too,
for the United States’ constructive role in settling the crisis
in southeast Ukraine.”  Then he said, “A constructive role as I
said.  You see then that there are many areas in which we must
work together.  But this depends not only on us.  We see what is
happening in the United States today.  I have said before and say
again now, that this is clearly a sign of an increasingly intense
domestic political struggle, and there is nothing that we can do
here.  We cannot influence this process, but we are ready for
constructive dialogue.”
So again, this was from a four-hour dialogue that President
Putin engaged in with the Russian people and people
internationally.  But it’s a very important point that he makes
there, that the Russians are ready for a constructive dialogue.
Obviously, President Trump has a very good opportunity now in
three weeks’ time with the G20 summit which is coming up, to sit
down directly with President Putin and engage in that dialogue
directly.
I also just want to point out that during the course of this
week, there was a real blockbuster feature presentation on
Showtime, of a four-part series of interviews that were produced
by the film director Oliver Stone.  This was based on interviews
with President Putin which occurred over the last two and a half
years before the election, and then a final one that occurred
after the election.  There’s far too much to go through, to
summarize these interviews in any detail.  But it really is a
chance that Americans rarely get, to hear President Putin in his
own words talk about how we reached this point; his view of
perspective points of collaboration with the United States; the
Russian view of what has been done to encircle and threaten
Russia over the recent 10-15 years; and his understanding of what
the strategic necessities and the strategic realities are, not
only of the present moment, but as he repeatedly said, there are
very few people who have the ability to think 25 or even 50 years
in the future.  And to see the present from what the challenges
are that the future generations will have to resolve together.
At one point, he even calls for a “new paradigm of international
relations”; very similar to what the LaRouche movement has been
calling for, for several years.

II        With that said by way of introduction, let me just invite
Michael to come in, add a few points here, and then I think we
can get a little bit more going in terms of the discussion.

MICHAEL STEGER:  OK, sure.  It’s probably worth to start
from where you left off, Matt; which is this interview between
Oliver Stone and Putin.  There are a number of layers to the
interview.  It’s 20 hours of recording, only 4 hours are
presented, edited down.  But what you see from the discussion —
and it’s useful because it’s not simply an interview with
Vladimir Putin; but what Putin does provide — as you referenced
— is a 25-50-year perspective.  He captures a sense of
leadership in a way that’s unseen in American culture for some
time, except for probably Lyn.  It recognizes that what governs
an individual’s value and life is a sense of immortality.  He
references the 25-50 years; he discounts the questions of money
and power and says the reason he continues to be President is not
that he’s gotten so accustomed to power that he couldn’t do
without it, but that he’s committed to a single objective of the
economic development of his country.  That really does capture on
that 25-50-100-year perspective, a sense of immortality of an
individual.  What are we contributing our lives to?  That’s
actually the basis of political leadership.  That’s why Putin has
become so successful on the world stage; why he’s been able to
handle the failures of leadership from Clinton — especially from
the end of his term — but more so obviously Bush and of course,
Obama.  And why he’s able to deal with the insanity inside the
United States today.  But the other layer which is important to
point out, is that Oliver Stone has clearly made a shift in terms
of his intervention.  He recognized at some point, that we were
converging again on another potential nuclear annihilation and
nuclear war.  There’s a courage and a vulnerability in Oliver
Stone himself in the intervention; because he’s there to have a
very open and vulnerable dialogue with Putin. And he’s intending
to make a political intervention into the United States.  I think
people have to realize this:  He’s taking on what’s become this
kind of perverse political culture in the United States; this
so-called Obama left wing, which is now calling for a coup by the
CIA and FBI, war with Russia, police state-like measures,
complete control of the media, assassination of the President.
This is the Obama left now; it’s just fascism, as Lyn had said in
the last couple of days.  But he’s intervening on that, but on
the entire culture; a certain kind of courage is expressed by
this interview and by what he’s presenting.  Clearly, people
should engage it, watch it, find ways to access it.  Hopefully,
it becomes more public.  There is footage on YouTube that people
can capture.
But there is an intervention, and I think it makes it clear
what kind of intervention is now necessary.  Lyn has set the
standard on this kind of political intervention in the United
States.
Let’s put it in context.  As you mentioned, there is an
ongoing coup against the United States Presidency.  This is
something that was stated clearly after President Trump was
elected.  That either he is going to have to resign, be
impeached, or assassinated.  And you have the {Weekly Standard},
a number of publications throughout Europe — especially Great
Britain — who are very focussed on Trump’s removal by any means
necessary.  I think what we’ve seen over the last seven months is
a very sad attempt at trying to link Trump’s campaign to Russian
collusion.  The enemies targetting Trump knew the entire time
there was no collusion with Russia; this entire thing is a
made-up fraud.  But what they did hope for was that, one, they
could either prevent him from taking the oath of office.
Remember, soon after he won, there was attempt to prevent him
from even taking the oath because of allegations and concerns
that maybe he was a Russian agent.  That didn’t prevent him from
taking the oath.  Since then, we’ve seen an escalation towards
this so-called Russian collusion question.  They attempted to
capture the Presidency with an attempted coup run through the
National Security Council, as we saw with the Syria attack; but
that also then failed.  So, you’re now beginning to see a
regurgitation of the same stories.  Jeff Sessions was called in
to testify in the Senate; it went nowhere.  He called out; you’re
calling me, who served this country for 35 years?  Regardless of
where Jeff Sessions stands on policies, he served the country for
35 years; he’s not a Russian agent, he’s not a traitor to the
country on behalf of Russia.  These allegations are just wild;
they’re almost inconceivable, if you didn’t understand the
broader context. And so, this Russia-gate story is dying.  The
independent counsel that was appointed when Trump fired Comey is
now not event investigating Russian collusion per se, it’s now
just investigating obstruction of justice.  And President Trump
has been sharp on this with his Twitter account, and pointed out
that since there’s no Russia story, so now it’s just obstruction
of justice on the Russia story. It doesn’t add up.
In that context, what do we see happen?  As they continue to
push this — and they will continue to push it; they’re now going
to bring in other former Obama people, Jay Johnson, Homeland
Security Secretary; they’ll continue to regurgitate or hold
hearings, to keep the media story going.  But clearly what we’ve
seen over the last couple of weeks, you see it in the New York
play of {Julius Caesar}, where a Donald Trump character, or
Julius Caesar dressed as Donald Trump, is ritually stabbed, night
after night after night on the stage in New York City.  This is
backed by CNN, this is backed by the {New York Times}; it’s
backed by other media companies [“Shakespeare in the Park”]; it’s
backed by the City of New York. You see the Kathy Griffin ISIS
pose with the beheaded Trump mask.
So you see there is an intention to escalate the violence.
And then you see a mass murder attempt against up to 15 people,
members of Congress, Senate and House, House leadership; all of
the Republican Party, targetting them because they {are}
Republican.  And this [the shooter] is a guy who apparently left
his wife and his home, to live in a van for two months in
Alexandria, Virginia, well-known for targetting the LaRouche
organization and falsely targetting us for prison sentences in
the so-called “rocket docket.”  So, of course, swarming with FBI,
CIA, swamp-like creatures. This guy sets up camp for two months,
targets Republicans for mass murder, and simply perhaps because
of just circumstances, that there were a couple of Capitol Police
members there because the gates were locked on one side of the
ball field, it didn’t end up in a full massacre.  And hopefully,
everyone recovers; two people are still in critical condition.
But that’s a clear message:  You are associated with Trump,
you’re associated with Trump’s Republican Party; a Republican
Party, by the way, that Trump took over, away from much of the
Republican establishment.  But yet, now you’re Republicans
associated with Trump, you’re now targetted for mass murder.
This is an assassination attempt directly targetting the
Presidency of the United States.  Not surprising, because they
stated this is where they were going to go.  I think the fact
that’s shown by all of this is the desperation and panic and
hysteria by our enemies, by a British Empire, is increasing.  The
panic is increasing, the desperation is increasing, for the very
reasons we’ve covered on this website and in these discussions.
Because the Belt and Road paradigm, a growth paradigm between
Russia and China, is now becoming consolidated throughout
Eurasia, in Africa.  There were attempts by the U.S. Senate, just
the last couple of days to increase sanctions on Russia,
targetting even their oil and natural gas exports.  Germany, the
foreign minister and the Austrian Chancellor Kern, who have been
opposed to Trump on everything, have now just come out and backed
Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson in opposition to these
sanctions, because, one, it hurts Germany; it also hurts the
United States and it hurts the world.
So there is a constantly changing situation, and yet the
people in the U.S. Congress are rabidly off.  They’ve gone rabid
on this Russia question.  They’re being pulled by the nose by the
media on this question.
The question is, what do the American people do?  What do
you do in the face of an attempted coup by the FBI, CIA, Wall
Street, British Empire factions, and now, an outright call for
murder and violence on anyone associated with Trump, including
the President himself, or the direct overthrow of our government.
This is why it’s so important to understand what Putin
presents in these interviews, and what he and China and Belt and
Road Forum present.  There is an option.  And the main reason
this coup is taking place is because there is a threat from the
Trump Presidency to go with the full LaRouche option: not just to
work with Russia and China, not just to take away the threat of
war — that was a critical factor, in the entire Obama
Presidency, especially in the second term.  But not just to end
the danger of war, but to create an all-out collaboration of
these nations around a paradigm of growth and development,
something Putin himself is committed to growing and developing
the Russian people, the Russian economy; the same thing China is
committed to, growing more people.  You see this in Africa:
Africa is burgeoning with new levels of growth because of Chinese
investments.  We could do a whole show, and maybe we should, on
just the developments in Africa alone: The Congo Basin is facing
huge potential developments to provide electricity to all of
Sub-Saharan Africa.  So there’s real growth potential.  There’s
an option in the United States to do the same thing.  That’s the
LaRouche program.
Now Donald Trump has raised much of these issues for the
U.S. economy, the space program, infrastructure, there’s been a
whole week on infrastructure; job training programs,
apprenticeship programs, an entire week this week, on
apprenticeships in jobs training programs.  He’s called for the
Glass-Steagall fight.  But what we don’t see, with all of this
talk of infrastructure, even from Democrats who have commended
Donald Trump for his commitment to infrastructure, but nobody’s
presenting the question of how do you finance these projects?
How do you develop the country?
We are, personally, as an organization; Elliot Greenspan
gave a very thorough briefing last night on the Thursday night
Activists’ Call on this website
[http://action.larouchepac.com/fireside_chat_june_15], on the
event that we attended in New York City:  There is a lot of
discussion and we can go through more of that, Matt, if you want
to in a second.  But the point is this:  There is a chance to go
with the full LaRouche program, to create the public credit, to
create the national banking system, to shut down this Wall Street
fraud, to shut down the bail-in orientation; and to go with the
program of unleashing trillions of dollars of U.S. credit,
immediately.  Staged over time, but trillions of dollars to begin
to rebuild and develop the country.
What this will accomplish, if Trump moves on this, the
LaRouche program, Glass-Steagall, the National Bank, it will
eliminate the artificial political divide of the country.  It
focusses the nation on the nation’s potential for development,
pulling people out of poverty, giving young people a sense of a
future, and it puts us directly in coherence with Russia and
China on a growth perspective.  That’s how Trump can outflank
this attempted coup, that’s how the American people can
participate in this kind of historical fight.
And it takes courage, but there’s a pathway by which we win
this fight, with an enemy that is increasingly panicked and
desperate by any means possible to shut down what is a very
viable LaRouche option.  And I think that really captures where
we are today, and why we have to be so aggressive, joyfully
aggressive, about the potential mankind has if we can win this
fight in the United States, because it’s certainly winnable
today.
So I’ll add that, and see what else we have to discuss.

OGDEN:  Great.  You mentioned this event up in New York
City, I think that also actually goes to the point, of, number
one, the LaRouche movement — Lyndon LaRouche, Helga LaRouche —
when it comes down to it are the leading authorities in the room,
and the representatives of the LaRouche movement are the leading
authorities in the room, on exactly this question: How would
Alexander Hamilton apply the American System in this present
situation?  But number two, it makes the point that the world is
a completely different place, following this Belt and Road Forum
that happened in Beijing.  One of the organizers of that event in
New York obviously had been at the Belt and Road Forum, changed
his attitude.  Helga LaRouche’s presence at the Belt and Road
Forum is a very key reference point; I think that this really
allows us to put two bookends on maybe the last 20 years of
history at least, from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
proposal of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, this New Silk Road idea,
when it originally came out of the LaRouche movement in
1990-1991.  And then the adoption of that in 2013 by Xi Jinping,
and then this world-historic forum with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
herself, personally in attendance.
And so, she continues to make the point, the world has
completely changed.  The world is a different place, now that
this dynamic has begun to consolidate itself.  And this is the
reality which Americans continue to fail to recognize, and must
be presented with.  The opportunities are {so} strong for a
direct participation, by the United States in this initiative,
coming from China but also with strong support from Putin in
Russia, and it’s already changing the reality on the ground, as
you said, in places like Africa, has a strong potential to be the
key to peace in the Middle East and so forth.
But you made the point, there is nobody, even despite all
the best intentions to say “we need to build infrastructure, we
need to create jobs, we need to increase manufacturing,” there’s
nobody who understands the science of economics behind how you do
that, other than the leadership of the LaRouche movement right
now.  People should remember in the context, obviously, of what
we’ve been talking about with these threats against President
Trump — I mean, he did make these two speeches referencing the
American System, several months ago now, but they were a leading
feature of his economic initiative.  But who was the founder of
the American System?  It was Alexander Hamilton.  What fate did
Alexander Hamilton meet?  It was Aaron Burr, it was the duel
which killed Alexander Hamilton:  {This has been the fight in the
United States} since the founding of the United States, and
before.  Will the United States adopt a scientific approach to
economics as it was elaborated by Alexander Hamilton, which is
based on the recognition that the creative powers of the human
mind {are} what creates wealth?  This is what changes the
platform over time, as new technologies are introduced, step by
step; or, will the United States continue to be a satrapy of the
British Imperial system, as we’ve seen, increasingly over the
last 50 years.  This is the role that the United States has
played.
And now we have the opportunity from outside of the United
States, from elsewhere, from China and other countries who are
adopting exactly this kind of development perspective for the
United States to reclaim its birthright, and to become, again,
that Hamiltonian type of nation that we were founded to become.
So, as people continue to become disillusioned with the kind
of propaganda that they’re being fed, day in and day out, about
what this Russia-gate thing is all about, the proper perspective
is needed, and you need to be able to step back and say, “what’s
the real issue here? What is the conjunctural point in world
history that we find ourselves at? And what’s the decision-making
point, which we’re being confronted with?”
So that’s the kind of leadership I think, but it’s not just
a question of where does the United States go?  It’s a question
of do we recognize that the world has completely changed, and are
we at the point of saying, “Yes, that’s the change, that’s the
next 25 years, that’s the next 50 years, and we have to put
behind us the failed system which is now collapsing.”
I don’t know if you want to say a little bit more about the
change in the attitude of the American people, Michael. I mean, I
would like to see what the effect is if this Oliver Stone
interview receives more widespread circulation, what people’s
reaction to that will be, but even up to this point.

STEGER:  Yeah, we can say, we know for certain an increasing
number of the American people are getting fed up and frustrated
by the outright obstruction of the Trump Presidency.  I mean,
Trump does have a real base in the American people, and most
Americans don’t want to see their government overthrown by a
CIA/FBI/{New York Times}/Wall Street operation — they just
don’t.  They might be intimidated; there might be a {vox populi}
kind of French mob out there.  But most Americans are not of that
nature.
And they’re fighting back.  We see this in field squads in
New Jersey and throughout other parts of the country, that many
people are wanting to come over to the table and discuss it.  You
know, we have signs “Defend Trump, Stop the Coup, Support Trump.
Stop here.”  “End the British Empire, Arrest Obama.” So it’s very
clear that people are willing to fight if there’s a quality of
leadership.  But we have to make it very clear to the people
around President Trump and to him directly, you will not be able
to accomplish anything, if you don’t change the system.
Perhaps we put it in the form of an analogy:  You know,
Trump can change the building all he wants to — he can put in
new walls, he can expand it, he can build it taller, he can build
it bigger, he can change the electrical system, he can change the
plumbing system, he can do all those things if he wants to, to
the building.  The problem is, he’s not going to actually give
the building long-term survival if he doesn’t change the
foundation.
The foundation of a nation’s economy is the system which
allows it to grow and develop, it’s its credit system, and right
now our credit system is locked into Wall Street.  Just a couple
of numbers stand out:  $6 trillion was spent on the wars over the
alst 15 years, since we launched the war in Afghanistan.  There’s
$4 trillion apparently on the Federal Reserve books, largely from
buying junk speculative assets from Wall Street banks.  That’s
$10 trillion.  So the credit of our country has been locked up
for 15 years in these wars, in these bailouts,  — like you said,
20, 25 years, the American people have been living under a reign
of psychological and political terror for 20, 25 years.
Now, at the same time, China’s been creating this
development perspective.  So if Trump’s going to create a change
in the orientation, he’s really going to fulfill what he intends
to — and you see it, he references the Hoover Dam, the Erie
Canal, he talks about the big infrastructure projects that have
transformed the nation’s industry and its political direction,
like Roosevelt did, like Hamilton did.  But if he’s going to do
it, he’s going to have to change the fundamental foundations of
how that system is functioning.  He’s going to have to move the
nation’s credit back into the hands, of a focus of industry,
science, and agriculture of the country.  He’s going to have to
not just repair some infrastructure projects but set an entirely
new platform and let that platform, which will last for another
hundred years, it’ll be a century-long platform — much like our
infrastructure today is nearly a century old.  But upon that
platform will allow an understanding of how to make the immediate
repairs we need to.
This is what he’s got to do.  This is the LaRouche program,
the Four Laws. And I know from what Diane Sare and Elliot
Greenspan have described, we are clearly increasingly
collaborating with members and leadership from China; there were
leadership from China at this event in New York City just the
other day. We’ll be having further conferences with leading
figures from China on infrastructure.  We’re in discussion with
people throughout New York City.  There is a potential and Elliot
described it last night [on the Activitists’ Call]:  If we work
with the Chinese today, if we started today, within  just two
years we can resolve immediately the infrastructure and transit
crisis in New York City, as a first step move, setting a new
platform for every nation’s cities and the connection between
those cities on a regional and national basis.
There is an outlook we can take, but you have to change the
foundations of the system the way Hamilton established, the way
Lincoln and Roosevelt applied it.  And that’s critical.  The
American people see the coup.  They don’t like it.  They’re ready
if there’s leadership, but they also have to be given a direction
and they also have to be given a chance, to begin to build the
country.  And Trump’s really got to take on these big challenges.
And again, I think the question for Trump, as Putin himself
expressed, and as any real President — you maybe can say more on
this about John Kennedy, Matt, since his 100th birthday just
passed — but the question any true President faces is a question
of immortality.  Because what are you really there to do?  And
the tough questions challenge that sense, and I think the recent
political attack we saw in Virginia, the murder attempt, are
going to confront this Presidency, and the leadership around him,
to have to make a decision: Are they really going to fight for
the future of the American people?  Putin had to make the same
decision when he came into office in 1999-2000; every true
President, as Lincoln did, FDR did — he faced near assassination
before his inauguration; Kennedy certainly faced it, and knew it.
And that’s the question that Trump has to face, but the LaRouche
program provides the alternative link, not only to end this coup,
but to really launch a Renaissance for the United States.

OGDEN:  About John Kennedy, he made numerous speeches which
addressed that question of the immortality of the leadership of
the country, in directly the terms of infrastructure.  He went
down to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and he said,  — this was
1961 or 1962 — and he said, it was because of the decisions that
Franklin Roosevelt took 30 years before, that we are able to even
stand here today and look at these wonderful projects and it
transformed this entire region of the country.  But it makes us
ask the question:  Thirty years from now, once we are out of
office and once we are dead and gone, what will future
generations say about us?  What great projects will we have
built, just as FDR did for us at that time; and in 1991 or 1992,
what will people living at that time say that we did for the
future of the United States and for the human race?
Obviously, Kennedy’s greatest legacy was the space program.
But it’s that same kind of question, which now must be asked, and
always must be asked by any great leader of any country.  So I
concur: That’s the kind of question which President Putin very
eloquently put on the table and repeatedly.  And he said,
unfortunately, there are very few people within the United States
who think in these terms — although there are some.  And I think
those are the people who are responsible for taking the
leadership of the United States and consolidating this, making it
work.
Michael, I think you make the point very clearly:  If
President Trump is going to outflank this coup attempt, not only
must it be exposed in no uncertain terms, head on; but also, he
must deliver on the vision and the campaign promises which the
American people elected him around. And it cannot be in a
piecemeal way, it has to be from the standpoint of a Hamiltonian
national vision, funded by, as you say, trillions of dollars of
direct Federal credit.  It can’t be done in any other way.  But
if he begins to deliver on that, the American people will be on
his side and will give him the backup which he’s going to need.
So:  Thanks a lot Michael.  We’re going to be circulating
even more — there was an email that went out to all of the
subscribers to the LaRouche PAC email list, on some of the
background material that you need to understand the timeline
behind this attempted coup against the Trump Administration going
all the way back to the inauguration, if not before.  And I think
we covered a little bit of that in detail.
And I continue to emphasize the importance of this statement
that Lyndon LaRouche put out now a week ago, last Saturday,
titled:  “Stop the FBI Fraud: Stop the Coup against the President
— What the Lying Media Are Not Telling You!”  We already know
that this has received pretty wide circulation, but it’s
something which can continue to be circulated.
Thank you very much Michael.  I think we can probably have a
countdown to this G20 summit which is coming up in less than
three weeks; and look forward to some real changes in the same we
had the relationship between the United States and China; now
some changes in terms of the potential for cooperation between
the United States and Russia.
I’d like to thank people for tuning in tonight.  Please
subscribe to our YouTube channel if you haven’t yet; subscribe to
our daily email list.  You can get active at the Action Center at
larouchepac.com, and join in what we’re doing here with the
LaRouche movement across the United States.  So thanks a lot, and
good night.

 




Hvordan amerikanere bør fejre Infrastruktur-uge:
Gå med i den Nye Silkevej!
Gennemfør Glass-Steagall!
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
9. juni, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her følger videoklippene og resten af webcastet på engelsk:     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROSS:  Or, “Twilight Zone.”

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 




Lad os komme videre!
Nu skal landet genopbygges!
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
26. maj, 2017.

Matthew Ogden: Vi befinder os nu lidt under to uger efter det verdenshistoriske Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, Kina. Som resultat af dette ekstraordinære topmøde har de forskellige dele af verden nu indledt processen med at konkretisere og konsolidere det, der blev diskuteret på dette forum; og de befinder sig i processen med at bygge det mest ambitiøse og langt det mest vidtrækkende infrastrukturprojekt i verdenshistorien – det såkaldte Ét Bælte, én Vej; det økonomiske bælte; den Maritime Silkevej. Dette nye paradigme, der repræsenteres af dette fredelige, samarbejdende win-win-udviklingsprogram med storstilede projekter og reel, eksponentielle eksplosioner i menneskelig produktivitet, er nu ved at blive den fremherskende dynamik på denne planet. Vi har en meget spændende rapport fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der, som det er vore seere bekendt, deltog personligt i dette Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing; hvor hun deltog i flere plenarforsamlinger og rundbordsdiskussioner. Hun er fortsat med at holde private møder i Kina, siden topmødet sluttede. Så sent som i går holdt hun endnu en fremtrædende tale i Nanjing.

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet. Hele Helgas tale vil kunne læses på dansk her på hjemmesiden i løbet af weekenden.)

So, let’s take a look here; this is what Helga LaRouche had
to say.  She was a featured speaker at a conference of several
hundred people at the Phoenix Press Publishing Group
headquarters, which published the Chinese version of the New Silk
Road Special Report.  It was a report-back from her attendance at
the May 14-15 Belt and Road summit.  So, here’s a view of
beautiful Nanjing; this is where she was speaking yesterday.  As
you can see, a very modern and high-tech Chinese city.  She said
the following:
“The Belt and Road has injected optimism into many
countries, and the momentum is unstoppable.  But bringing it
fully to fruition will not be easy,” she said.  Then she
elaborated a little bit on that; she said, “Immediately after the
Beijing summit, the attacks against the Belt and Road escalated;
combined with attacks against President Trump, who had sent a
high-level delegation.  The attacks were based on the absurd
charges of collusion with Russia in the election.”
“After the Cold War, the British and their American allies
wanted to create a unipolar world.  In doing so, they have
destroyed the Middle East and left it in a shambles”; which she
said contributed to the refugee crisis.  And she said, “The Belt
and Road will bring about the creation of the World Land-Bridge,
which will connect all continents.”  This is something that we,
the LaRouche movement, have been fighting for, for over 40 years.
She concluded saying, “Transforming the Belt and Road to a World
Land-Bridge will realize politically for the first time, a real
future for the people living on this planet; and will establish
forms of governance for the world.”  She made a very important
point, which we’ll take up. “But to fully realize this, you must
also study the ideas of my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, on the
question of economics.”
In addition to Helga, other speakers at this conference
were:  Bill Jones, the {EIR} bureau chief for Washington, DC; and
a very distinguished gentleman, Professor Bao Shixiu, who’s a
professor of military science.
That’s the kind of optimism, you get a sense of the real
optimism that’s being expressed by Helga LaRouche; and that’s
what the world looks like to the rest of the world for anyone who
is not reading the hysterical American and European press.  On
the other hand, for your average American citizen, the very words
“New Silk Road”, “One Belt, One Road”, “Belt and Road
Initiative”, these phrases are almost like a foreign language.
It’s practically unheard of, with hardly a mention of this
incredible development in world history that occurred over the
last two weeks.  Hardly a mention of this in the mainstream press
aside from propaganda about how this project is just some sort of
front for a so-called “new Chinese imperialism” or other lying
distortions of what the implications of this idea, of this
vision, is.
So instead, while your average American is sitting in the
sweltering heat in Penn Station, waiting for a train which has
been delayed for two hours because of some track derailment, or
literal disintegration of the track, while he’s sitting in his
car for hours in a traffic jam waiting to go through the Lincoln
Tunnel, or stuck in traffic on 495, or sitting at home looking
for a job to pay off hundreds of thousands of student debt that
he spent to get a degree that has earned him nothing.  What is
the average American forced to listen to on the radio, or on CNN,
or while he’s reading the esteemed headlines in the so-called
venerable press, the mainstream media, the {Washington Post} or
the {New York Times}?  Nary a mention of the new high-speed,
vacuum tube magnetic train that is being developed by China, or
the new rail routes that are being opened in Africa, or the
literally hundreds of great infrastructure projects that are
being built practically overnight along the routes of the New
Silk Road.  But rather, what are you reading?  Page after page
after story after article of McCarthy-ite scare stories about
evil Russian spies who have supposedly infiltrated and subverted
the entire Trump administration, lurking behind every desk in the
West Wing.  Literally smuggling hidden microphones into the Oval
Office itself; the inner sanctum of the Trump administration.
They’re reading John Brennan repeatedly tell a Congressional
hearing “I don’t do evidence”; as he increasingly begins to sound
like a character out of a “Doctor Strangelove” movie.
Here’s a quote from John Brennan:  “I know what the Russians
try to do.  They suborn individuals and they try to get
individuals, including US individuals, to act on their behalf;
wittingly or unwittingly.”  In other words, any American who has
some contact with Russia or Russians, may be a spy or a mole,
whether he or she knows it or not.  Subversion, or possible
subversion, is everywhere; trust no one.  There’s John Brennan
for you.
Now, Americans should ask themselves, why are we being
subjected to an endless, round-the-clock, literally nonstop
narrative of so-called collusion between Russian spies and the
Trump campaign, when even John Brennan himself was forced to
admit in that same hearing, under rigorous questioning from
members of Congress, that no, in fact, he has absolutely {no}
evidence of collusion, cooperation, or coordination.  Let’s take
a look:

ALICIA CERRETANI [on video]:  On Tuesday, Obama’s CIA
director, resident thug, and coup plotter John Brennan testified
in front of the House Intelligence Committee.  His testimony was
then used by the crazed media to flame the ongoing coup against
the President for yet another day.
Who is this guy? Well, after his stint as CIA station chief
in Riyadh, Brennan became George Tenetâs gopher at the CIA, and
then authored the intelligence assessment that claimed Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Credible guy, right? He
became Obamaâs CIA director in 2013, and regularly joined Obama
for the infamous Tuesday kill sessions. He helped overthrow the
duly-elected government of Ukraine using neo-Nazis, and helped
Obama encircle Russia and China with US military forces, setting
the stage for World War III.
On Tuesday, Brennan told Congress that based on his
intelligence experience (like the Iraq war intelligence
assessment), when he observed contacts between Trump campaign
personnel and Russian personnel he thought they might be
nefarious, even if the Trump campaign personnel were “unwitting”.
This has justified a full, unprecedented FBI investigation of a
Presidential campaign and all that has followed.
And just like the Iraq war, his “judgment” is not based on
“evidence”. As he explained, he “doesnât do evidence.” Listen to
these exchanges:

REP. TOM ROONEY:  But with regard to the main question at
hand, in your experience with the Russians trying to involve
themselves in our election, did you every find any evidence, as
the ranking member spoke of collusion, while you were the
Director, did you find direct evidence of collusion between the
Trump campaign and Putin in Moscow, while you were there?

JOHN BRENNAN:  Mr. Rooney, I never was an FBI agent, I never
was a prosecutor, so I really don’t do evidence.  I do
intelligence throughout the course of my careerâ¦.

REP. TREY GOWDY:  When you learned of Russian efforts, did
you have evidence of a connection between the Trump campaign and
Russian state actors?

BRENNAN:  As I said, Mr. Gowdy, I don’t do evidence.  We
were uncovering information and intelligence about interactions
and contacts between US persons and the Russians.  As we came
upon that, we would share it with the Bureau.

GOWDY:  So, was it contact that you saw, was it something
more than contact?  What is the nature of what you saw?

BRENNAN:  I saw interaction, and was aware of interaction.
But again, it raised questions in my mind about what was the true
nature of it; but I don’t know.  I don’t have sufficient
information to make a determination whether or not such
cooperation or complicity or collusion was taking place.

REP. MIKE TURNER:  But if someone left this hearing today,
and said that you had indicated that those contacts were evidence
of collusion or collaboration, they would be misrepresenting your
statements, correct?

BRENNAN:  They would have mis-heard my response to the very
good questions that were asked of me.  I’m trying to be as clear
as possible in terms of what I know, what I assess, and what I
can say.

TURNER:  So, you would say that’s a misrepresentation of
your statement, yes?

BRENNAN:  I would say that it was not an accurate portrayal
of my statement, absolutely; it was inconsistent with my remarks.

TURNER:  So, let me go to the next step.  If someone saw
what you saw, and only what you saw, with respect to those
contacts, if they looked at the intelligence that you saw, where
you said it might have been benign, might not have been benign,
and then they characterized what they saw as having been evidence
of collusion or collaboration, they’d be misrepresenting the
intelligence, would they not?

BRENNAN:  I don’t know what else they have seen that could
corroborate or —

TURNER:  If they saw only what you saw, they would be
misrepresenting the intelligence, correct?

BRENNAN:  I presume they would be misrepresenting what it is
that I saw.  Again, I don’t know —

TURNER:  Thank you.  I appreciate that, because I do believe
that there are members of this committee who deserve that
counsel.  Because your specificity gives us an understanding of
what we’re reviewing, and I do believe there are those who
reviewed some of the information that you have seen, and
represented to the public absolutely incorrectly and
misrepresented it.

CERRETANI:  Itâs time for Americans to see the world as
Brennan and his cohorts see it. Their establishment has their
panties in a bunch, not over Trump-Russian collusion, but because
Donald Trump said he is ready to work with Russia and China on
terrorism and economic development, ending the miserable years
under Bush and Obama which Brennan so faithfully served. Trump
needs to keep his promise; end the regime change wars and focus
on rebuilding the economy. And the same goes for our Senators and
Congressmen: Suck it up, move on, and back Trump up on rebuilding
the country.

OGDEN:  So, as you can see, we have a petition on that
subject which is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  It’s
called “It’s Time to Rebuild the Country”; the website is
lpac.co/rebuild.  This is a petition which you can sign and you
can circulate.
So, to take up that question — “It’s time to rebuild the
country” — I’m joined by Jason Ross as I mentioned earlier; who
spent the last week in New York City, conducting meetings with
some top engineers and discussing what must be done to form a
task force, a national action force, to address what is rightly
being called an infrastructure emergency.  It is expressing
itself very acutely in New York City, but it’s a general problem.
Before I bring Jason on, I want to show a couple of headlines to
give you a flavor of what New Yorkers are experiencing right now.
Here’s the first:  “Nothing Can Save New York City Commuters from
a Summer of Hell”; “Long Island Railroad Riders Could Be in for a
‘Summer of Agony’|”; “MTA Taking on ‘Crushing Debt’ for Expansion
Projects”; “New York Governor Urges Trump to Provide Emergency
Funds for Penn Station”; and “If You Want to Understand America’s
Infrastructure Problem, Just Look at New Jersey!”
So, Jason, why don’t you give us a flavor of what’s going on
up there in New York?

JASON ROSS:  Sure!  I can say a bit about what’s going on up
here, and then I think the really important aspect is about where
the solution can come from.  Some people like to look for local
solutions, which in the case of New York is simply not possible
here.  In terms of what the region is facing, I’ll just give a
couple of examples.  One is New York Penn Station, which is where
the New Jersey Transit trains come in from New Jersey, it’s where
the Long Island Railroad trains come in from the east, and also,
Amtrak trains use it.  It serves about 700,000 passengers every
day, busiest train station in the United States.  The tunnels
that go under the Hudson River from the west side of Manhattan,
are over 100 years old.  They received damage during super storm
Sandy, and without repair, they’re expected to potentially fail
anytime within a decade or so.  But it’s unpredictable; they
could fail sooner.  Basically, it’s a ticking time bomb.
Were one of these tunnels to fail, there would literally be
probably about 100,000 people unable to get to work in the
morning, or get home, or run their errands or do whatever they’re
doing.  100,000 people.  That’s an awfully large number of
people.  Also related to this, Matt, you had mentioned the
“Summer of Hell” for Long Island Railroad commuters.  Coming out
of Penn Station to the east, are tunnels that cross the East
River.  Of the four tunnels, there are two that are going to be
undergoing repair and maintenance.  During that time, the
availability of trains is going to be decreased; this is the
“Summer of Hell”.  This is going to be a major bottleneck for
commuters.  Then coming up in 2019, the L train, which crosses
the East River and heads to Williamsburg and Brooklyn, is going
to be closed down for over a year.  That tunnel needs such major
maintenance; again, an over 100-year old tunnel serving the
busiest metro system in our nation.  When that is closed for over
a year, that’s going to cause major disruptions.
The thing is, this is not an accident; it’s not as though
these things were unforeseen.  Due to decades of
under-investment, the infrastructure of New York City, the
largest, most important city in the United States, is really at
catastrophic levels.  Even the planned outages are going to be
very debilitating, and were something to occur to the Hudson
River crossing heading into Penn Station from the New Jersey
side, you would have an absolute disaster.  You’d have to change
the bridges and tunnels to be buses and carpools only, for
example.  Major disruption, very major disruption.
What I think this shows us, in addition to the $100 billion
to $1 trillion that would be required to really revamp the system
in New York, to standardize the types of sizes of the trains, or
have platforms that can operate on both New Jersey Transit and
Long Island Railroad trains; not to get into all the detail on
this.  Let’s talk about what would make it possible.
You opened up the show discussing Helga LaRouche’s visit to
the Nanjing, following her participation in the Belt and Road
Forum in Beijing two weeks ago.  This Belt and Road Initiative
outlook, the types of financing that are involved in this, the
funding, the way that this infrastructure is being conceived and
put together; this is something that’s absolutely essential in
the United States.  Infrastructure isn’t little bits and pieces
that get put together to make individual commuters or the
movement of goods easier.  What it is, is a platform as a whole,
required for a certain level of productivity.  So, we require
both an increase in the productivity of the United States,
productivity in the sense of producing things.  Producing
something for the future, as exemplified by scientific research
or high-technology manufacturing, by the space program.  These
are things that are incredibly productive in achieving a greater
potential for the future.  When you say what is the platform on
which a higher level of productivity can exist, then the answer
to that question is things like national rail upgrades; very
high-speed rail, for example, along the eastern coast of the
United States, throughout the country.  A large investment in
revamping in the New York City metro system, for example; but far
beyond that.  Nationally, rail; power plants.  Upgrading our very
old power plants to new, higher technology, more efficient and
safer nuclear power plants; fourth generation nuclear power
plants.
The kinds of upgrades that are needed are on a scale that is
so large, that it requires a commitment from the nation.  This, I
think, gets to the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, the proposal
that he’s made for what’s necessary for real economic recovery in
the United States.  With Glass-Steagall in place and the
potential to actually direct the economy in a productive
direction, you’re going to need a national banking approach.
We’re going to need the ability to finance large investments in
infrastructure in projects that will not bring a return.  This is
the biggest problem people have in understanding this.  You’re
thinking about value in terms of money.  Does the New York subway
pay for itself?  Do people pay enough in fares to pay for the
system?  These kinds of things really miss the point, because
they ignore the qualitative incommensurable change in
productivity that’s made possible by an infrastructure platform
as a platform.
As Mr. LaRouche considers it, in creating a synthetic
environment, an artificial environment, a manmade, nurturing,
improved, better environment around us; where our surroundings,
the world that we live in, is, to an increasing degree, one of
our own creation.  The resources that are resources to us in our
daily life, or on a national economic scale, are not those of
2000 years ago.  They’re not the resources of good land for
agriculture — although of course, we use that; or of resources
that are sitting around.  Fish in the ocean or the river that you
can catch.  They’re resources that are underground; they’re
resources that are very hard to separate from each other.
Separating out rare Earth elements for their use; mining aluminum
ore and creating aluminum with a process that requires a great
deal of electricity.  The ability to use the resources of the
future to increase our power as a species; that’s the real key
direction that infrastructure must be approached from.
The way to avoid the bit by bit, piece by piece, piecemeal
user fee approach to infrastructure financing, is to acknowledge
its unique role in the economy as something that’s of
governmental responsibility and something whose returns are
inherently indirect and should not be looked for in terms of
direct money made by them via user fees.  It’s just a completely
wrong way to look at these things.
The way to make this possible is going to go far beyond
Donald Trump’s proposals for investing $1 trillion in
infrastructure over the next decade via a process that pulls in
private money via PPPs (public-private partnerships) and the
like.  What’s required is not annual appropriations, not private
financing, but an ability to have national credit over a longer
term loans via a national banking approach to make it possible to
build these 5-, 10-, 25-year programs at rates that are
affordable.  So we can put in place this necessary physical
environment; create the platform that we would want to live in,
where we’re able to move efficiently.  Where new areas for, for
example, affordable housing open up, when you’ve got a better
transportation system.  You don’t have to live quite so close to
an expensive city center to be able to get a job there.  You can
enjoy more of your time when you have an efficient and productive
infrastructure platform.
So I think overall, New York City is a case study.  You’d
say that if this can happen in New York, and you think about the
importance of New York City and the nation, the importance of the
businesses that are located there; you’d say that there is enough
of a pull that this should never have been possible for this to
occur in New York City.  But it has, and it’s just an
illustration of a dramatic underinvestment nationwide; and
something that has to be reversed in this way that Mr. LaRouche
has been very unique and very correct in proposing for the United
States.

OGDEN:  Well, Jason, you have unique perspective, because
not only have you spent the last week up in New York, but you’ve
had the opportunity to travel to China.  Maybe you could just
tell us a little bit; just a personal eyewitness view.  What’s
the difference between being an American walking around the
streets of New York City right now with crumbling infrastructure,
versus being in China, walking around Beijing with a blossoming
high technology commitment to modern infrastructure?

ROSS:  Well, some people might say it’s an unfair
comparison, because the metro system in Nanjing is basically
brand new; it’s a decade or two old.  And in Beijing, there’s
been significant expansion of the lines.  But the fact is, that
even older cities — take Seoul, South Korea; they’ve had major
upgrades to their subway system.  They put in the screen doors in
the stations so you don’t have trash or people falling on the
tracks; it makes it safer, it makes it possible to air condition
the stations.  These are the kinds of things that New York could
have retrofitted; but if you look at the situation today, you’ve
got the interesting aromas in New York subways.  You’ve got the
famously unreliable performance.  In contrast to that, the
Chinese, for example, high-speed rail network, where you’re able
to go an equivalent distance as that between here and Chicago —
meaning Beijing to Shanghai — you can go in five hours in China.
That same trip by rail here in the United States takes 19 hours.
Or, take New York to Washington.  It’s kind of insane for
somebody looking from the outside, to see these two major cities
of the United States separated by travel really takes hours.
It’s a little under three hours even with the “high-speed” Acela;
which is isn’t very high-speed.  By road, you’re looking at more
than five hours.  This would be a one, one and a half hour
travel.  It’s really a question of how we’re thinking about
ourselves; the fact that these kinds of terrible conditions are
being tolerated.  And the fact that of these stupid, stupid
economic policies that have made this possible, continue to be
tolerated.
Mr. LaRouche has pointed to the post-Kennedy shift in
orientation of the United States, away from a future orientation,
away from investments in the future, away from physical
productivity towards finance.  You can have all of the exotic
investment derivatives that you want, but that’s not going to get
you home any quicker if the train is late, or because a bunch of
trash on the tracks caught on fire and delayed the subway line.

OGDEN:  One thing about that.  First of all, infrastructure
goes far beyond just transport infrastructure.  Obviously there’s
the power production and what you can provide in terms of energy
density towards manufacturing and all of the agricultural
technology that is involved in a modern infrastructure platform
for a nation.  But one question I think is interesting, and we
discussed it a little bit.  We take for granted that the idea of
faster transport is just a modern idea and that we should have
faster transport between cities.  That sort of stands on its own,
it is true.  But what role does that play in terms of the science
of economics?  Productivity and what does that allow us to do
economically that we couldn’t do before without this kind of
high-speed transport?

ROSS:  Well, let’s also take it on the level of the Belt and
Road, where some of these areas, it’s not just going from
moderate to high speed transit; it’s going from a two-week voyage
through the mountains by road to one that only takes a few days
in the location I’m thinking of right now.  But think of the
value of land in a certain area.  What is the value of a piece of
land?  It depends on what the surroundings are, what is the
environment; including, very importantly, probably most important
these days, the created environment — the constructed
environment.  That nurturing, synthetic, artificial, manmade
human environment that we’ve created.  If you’ve got an area, and
now you’ve got access to high-speed rail, you’ve built several
fourth-generation, a very highly efficient nuclear power supply.
You know it’ll be on 24 hours a day; the rates are reasonable.
You’ve got a water supply system backed up by desalination to
ensure that it’s always available; and you’ve got an efficient to
get people, employees, and goods around.  The value of that area
has now just dramatically increased; not just in financial terms,
like the rent would be higher on a piece of land there, if you
owned a building.  But it actually is more productive.  You can
move things around more quickly; you can go from a prototype
design to creating goods more rapidly.  You’re able to waste less
time having whatever it is that you’re producing or working on
just being in transit going from place to place.
Think about it.  When you’re shipping things, say you’ve got
a type of production facility and you’re shipping things by ocean
and you’re counting on a certain number of car parts arriving
every week.  Well, there’s always a certain number that are just
sitting out in the ocean in transit; it’s just wasted inventory
basically.  So physically, those are maybe a small type of
improvement to look at, but the type of economy that’s made
possible as a whole.  You could do the best urban planning you
want, you could have a wonderful system in some area; but if that
area didn’t have electricity, it doesn’t matter how well things
are laid out.  It doesn’t matter how clean the water is around
it, how perfect the weather; you’re simply going to be limited in
terms of what processes you can engage in.  Transportation,
energy, access to resources.  I think the real way to look at it
right now is we have to keep in mind, whenever we’re talking
about infrastructure or platforms, we have to talk about nuclear
fusion.  Because that’s really the thing you’ve got to keep in
mind.  How will our relationship to other people, land area,
resources, how is that going to change with the development of
commercial nuclear fusion?  Where the price of energy will come
down dramatically; where our ability to process resources will be
dramatically eased.  How is that going to change the
productivity, the value of every person, the value of the
platform of constructed environment that we’ve got?  You have to
always keep that in mind.  What’s the next level going to be?
I’ll say one more thing.  You brought up agriculture.  Think
about the important role of space infrastructure in agriculture
today.  The ability of GPS positioning; the ability to get a very
good sense of conditions on the ground of agricultural
conditions, of weather, of location; and the way that changes the
way you approach to fertilizing, taking care, harvesting of the
field.  So, the space program, where our space infrastructure is
playing a major role here.
So, what are the next levels of infrastructure going to be?
Let’s keep that in mind.

OGDEN:  I think that’s the key.  It’s vision; it’s where are
we going next.  Where is the world in the next 50 years?  Can we
imagine a new platform of human existence which is incommensurate
with the one that we currently have?  It’s very important to look
backwards in history and say, prior to the discovery of nuclear
fission, what was possible and what was not possible?  Prior to
the development of widespread electricity?  So, if you look at
the incommensurate changes over time that the human species has
gone through, can you imagine what the next incommensurate leap
is going to be?  I really do think that that is the beauty of
this Belt and Road Initiative.  Go back 40 years, go back as I
think Helga mentioned in the remarks that I quoted in the
beginning; go back to when Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche
were first campaigning for this idea of a new international
economic order around the International Development Bank.  This
became this vision of this productive linkage between East and
West, uniting Eurasia; it was known as the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
This was the vision for the New Silk Road that now in 2013 was
adopted by the Chinese government and is now a reality.  Forty
years ago, would you have even imagined what has now become
possible because of what China has committed itself to?
It requires those types of visionaries at every stage of
history to say where do we go to next; what is the next leap that
mankind has to take?  I do think, as we’ve discussed, the next
leap is moving mankind into near-Earth space and then beyond.  We
have to become an extraterrestrial species; not just one that
makes expeditions with two-man, three-man capsules to the Moon
and back.  But actually building up an infrastructure as we have
here on Earth, to create these kinds of artificial environments
in space.  You project that vision of the future back onto what
we should be doing here on Earth, and a lot of these things just
become kind of obvious.  We shouldn’t have trains derailing
coming in and out of Penn Station, if we’re actually a species
worthy of colonizing Mars.

ROSS:  Right.  You’re talking about looking back to the past
to look at something having been a breakthrough originally.  Some
of the equipment that’s currently operating in the signalling in
the New York subway is from the 1930s, when those relay boxes and
things like this go back to the Roosevelt administration.  And
they’re still in use; thankfully, still working for the most
part.

OGDEN:  Do they use Morse Code to signal when the train’s
coming into the station?

ROSS:  There are rude levers and things like this.

OGDEN:  I thought it was unique that in this speech that
Helga made in Nanjing, as I mentioned, she was speaking to the
Phoenix Publishing House, which  published the Chinese version of
the “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” special
report; which is the {EIR} Special Report from two years ago, and
now this is circulating in Chinese.  But she was sort of giving a
report back on what’s the progress that we’ve made; what are the
breakthroughs that we’ve made so far; what do we have to do next?
It was this remark that she made that to fully realize all of
this, you must study my husband’s science of economics.  It
really is true.  Beginning to understand these things not just
from the standpoint of transport corridors and train tracks and
highways and these types of very necessary projects; but to
understand it from above in terms of the science of human
productivity and how the human mind harnesses new technologies
and uses them to build these increasing platforms of human
existence.  You already have the world engaging in a process of
which they’re not even quite conscious of what they’re doing.
It’s necessary to become fully conscious of what this process
actually is, in order to carry it forward to the next level.
Let me ask you one more political question, Jason.  On the
ground there in New York, how are people responding to, on one
side this 24-hour nonstop news cycle barrage about Russian spies
and so on; and then on the other side, being told that there’s
this incredible process that’s underway, this breakthrough that
happened in China that they’re not even being told about?  What’s
people’s response to that?

ROSS:  I don’t know how different it is from other places,
but overall, people are getting really sick about hearing about
Trump-gate and Russia.  People are really sick of it.  Either
that, or they’re going along with it and they kind of listen to
it.  But what really gets through to people is when you’re
discussing thinking about the future.  This is what people really
do respond to.  They say, “OK, what are we going to do?  The
election happened.  What’s our future going to be?”  If your
favorite historical figure ever were the President of the United
States right now, what would be the policies you’d want to get
implemented?  OK, let’s start making those things happen.
The potential to do this in a very new way, both shocks some
people or seems impossible to others; but I attended a forum
about US-China economic relations the other day, and one of the
things that came up was one of the presenters was going through
various studies about the economy in China.  About how the middle
class is exploding, how poverty is diminishing very rapidly; the
percentage of the population that’s actually poor is going down
very quickly; and about the level of optimism.  There was a chart
of optimism among different nations; it measured as survey
questions.  “I think my children will have a better future than I
do.”  And in all segments of China, this was very positive in all
segments of China.  For the middle segments of China it’s 60-70%;
even a majority in the lower income segments as well.  There’s
just this tremendous sense that things are getting better, things
are moving forward; the next generation will have it better.
Then on this chart, you have the United States, way down here
almost at the very bottom, along with the Western European
nations.  So, I just think — I know this gets away from asking
how people respond here, but it’s a very important point, I
think.  In keeping with the shift of the center of gravity in the
world, the importance economically and politically, away from the
trans-Atlantic and towards Asia where everyone is expecting the
majority of the growth in the world economy in the next decades.
Along with that, you have this sense of happiness and optimism in
that part of the world.  In these old, sour nationsâ¦.  It’s also
changing in Europe, but in the trans-Atlantic, the government
leaders can say whatever they want, but if you actually ask
people what they think about what their future looks like, it’s
very grim.  The contrast between these two outlooks — you had
asked earlier about New York versus China — as a personal
anecdote, that was one of the huge differences that I saw; was
this overwhelming sense of optimism from people in China.  It’s
getting better.  We can absolutely have that sense here as well,
by making it a reality; by throwing off the stupid ideas that are
holding us back.  By throwing off this slavish adherence to Wall
Street and London; by tolerating the avowed supremacy of finance
over actual human contributions.  It’s a choice we have to make.

OGDEN:  Exactly!  That was exactly the point that Helga made
in her speech in Nanjing; she said “The Belt and Road has
injected optimism into many countries, and the momentum is
unstoppable.  But, to fully bring it into fruition, it will not
be easy.”  So, we have our work cut out for us here in the United
States.  I think this idea of a task force of engineers and real
qualified minds who are going to put their minds to work on how
to construct this vision for how the United States can join this
New Silk Road dynamic; it’s a very important one.
I’d like to put on the screen one more time the address to
the petition:  This is “Congress: Suck It Up and Move On!  It’s
Time to Rebuild the Country”; lpac.co/rebuild.  I encourage you
to sign that petition and to circulate it, and to become involved
in what you just heard from Jason.  Spread the news about this
dynamic of optimism that is sweeping the world, and the
possibility that this is something that could happen here in the
United States.
Thank you so much, Jason; it was a pleasure talking to you
from your remote location.  I’d like to thank everybody for
tuning into our webcast here today.  Please stay tuned for more
news from Helga Zepp-LaRouche; we’ll keep you updated as her
travels continue.  We’ve got some definite breakthroughs that we
can be expecting over the coming days.  So, thanks for joining
us, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.




Vi vil finde vores frihed i nødvendighed
og udføre vores pligt med lidenskab!
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
19. maj, 2017

Uddrag:

Aftenenes vært: Jason Ross.

I denne weekend fandt der et enormt skift sted i verdenshistorien; noget absolut fænomenalt enormt, med Bælt & Vej Forum, der fandt sted i Beijing, Kina. Det omfattede flere end 1000 deltagere fra over 100 lande, to til tre dusin statsoverhoveder; flere dusin internationale aftaler blev underskrevet under selve begivenheden. Der blev truffet bestemmelser om over $100 mia. i ekstra finansiering til infrastruktur i hele verden.

Jeg vil gerne gennemgå noget af det, der fandt sted under denne konference, og dernæst sætte det i kontrast til kvaliteten af politisk debat, vi har netop nu i USA.

Her ser vi et af åbningsbillederne fra begivenhederne, med statsoverhoveder og andre delegerede, der deltog i konferencen. En meget stor begivenhed. Hallen med over 1000 mennesker. Her ser vi præsident Putin, der taler for deltagerne – han var æresgæst; viser den virkelige forbindelse mellem Kina og Rusland omkring dette projekt; her bydes han velkommen af Xi Jinping. Blandt de øvrige deltagere ved denne begivenhed var – på en meget bemærkelsesværdig måde – Helga Zepp-LaRouche, »Silkevejsladyen«; præsident og stifter af Schiller Instituttet, og hustru til Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har mobiliseret for et Nyt Økonomisk Paradigme i årtier.

Det, der fandt sted på konferencen i Beijing, inklusive Helga Zepp-LaRouches deltagelse som medlem af en tænketank i et forum for tænketanke, som fandt sted, hvor hun et par gange fik lejlighed til at tale og føre sine pointer frem, var, at et helt nyt paradigme virkelig er ved at tage form. Kinas Bælt & Vej-initiativ inkluderer foreløbig disse seks landruter, som man ser her på skærmen, sammen med den maritime rute, som man ser gå gennem oceanerne. Det kinesiske initiativ vil medføre investering af billioner af dollars; for $4-8 billion infrastrukturinvestering i veje, jernbaner, havne, kanaler og den slags ting. Det, som LaRouche-bevægelsen, som Schiller Instituttet, som EIR har foreslået gennem rapporter om dette, er et Verdenslandbro-koncept for konnektivitet, infrastruktur, udvikling og opbygning af en ny platform for at gøre den fremtidige, potentielle økonomiske vækst til virkelighed.

Mængden af programmer og projekter, der er planlagt, overstiger allerede mange gange selv Marshallplanen, der genopbyggede Europa efter Anden Verdenskrig. På denne graf – som I måske dårligt kan se – repræsenterer denne lille, blå søjle her til venstre den inflationstilpassede investering i Marshallplanen, som var USA’s finansiering til genopbygningen af det krigshærgede Europa efter Anden Verdenskrig; omkring $150 mia. Ved siden af er RFC – Reconstruction Finance Corporation, som var et af hovedinstrumenterne til finansiering af New Deals infrastrukturprogrammer (i USA); RFC byggede de store projekter i USA, der var motor for den daværende økonomiske vækst. Se dernæst på størrelsen investeringerne i Ét Bælt, én Vej; et sted mellem $4-8 billion er planlagt at blive investeret som en del af dette program. Mange, mange gange større end noget, der tidligere er gjort.

Det er vigtigt, mener jeg, at erkende, at i denne verden, der er ved at tage form, er den ene ting, at det repræsenterer et Nyt Paradigme i verden; og den anden ting er, at det repræsenterer årtiers arbejde, årtiers mobilisering. Kort tid efter forummet, en dag eller to efter, inviterede et af top-tv-programmerne i Kina, »Dialog«, Helga Zepp-LaRouche som gæst på programmet. Lad os se et kort klip:

Interviewer: Hvad synes De om Kinas globale ambition?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at det er et meget vigtigt, strategisk initiativ, for det er den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan løse alle problemer, regionalt samarbejde, underudvikling, fattigdom; det er virkelig en historisk mission. Jeg ser intet andet. Bestemt ikke fra USA, og bestemt ikke fra Europa; så jeg er virkelig optimistisk. Jeg mener, i går var et fantastisk historisk øjeblik.

Ross: Jeg vil gerne læse en sætning ved dette interviews slutning, hvordan Helga afsluttede dette interview. Hun sagde: »Jeg er fuldstændig overbevist om, at, om et halvt år, så vil flertallet af de nationer, der stadig tøver, erkende, at det er i deres bedste interesse at tilslutte sig. Tyskland burde f.eks. have en fundamental interesse i at samarbejde. Tysk industri, Mittelstand, mellemstore virksomheder, er præcis den form for komplementær økonomisk styrke, der ville fungere perfekt med Kina; og jeg tror, det kommer, jeg lover det.«

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet)

  So, this is reflected as well in the statements from the
many foreign leaders who attended the conference.  Let’s get a
sense of what the world thought about this event.  This is a
quote from Matthew Pottinger; he was sent by President Trump.
About a week before the forum, it was announced that Trump was
upgrading US involvement; and the National Security Council East
Asia head was sent.  He said, “You can really see that there is a
shared interest in expanding infrastructure connectivity through
high quality investment financing.  That’s why American companies
should really be involved in a lot of the projects that we’re
hearing about.”
President Putin talked about how it’s creating a new type of
world order.  He said, “We have exhausted many former models and
indicators of economic development.  Poverty, the lack of
financial security, and the massive gap in the level of
development between countries and regions; these all fuel
international terrorism, extremism, and illegal migration.  We
will not be able to tackle these challenges unless we overcome
this stagnation in global development.  None of the old
approaches to conflict resolution should be used to solve modern
problems.  We need fresh and stereotype-free ideas.
“By proposing China’s One Belt, One Road Initiative,
President Xi Jinping has demonstrated an example of a creative
approach towards fostering integration in energy, infrastructure,
transport, industry, and humanitarian collaboration.  We would
welcome the involvement of our European colleagues in this
partnership.” Putin was the guest of honor at the event.
President Xi Jinping himself said, “We should build the Belt
and Road into a road of prosperity.  Development holds the master
key to solving all problems.  In pursuing the Belt and Road
Initiative, we should focus on the fundamental issue of
development; release the growth potential of various countries,
and achieve economic integration and interconnected development,
and deliver benefits to all.”
Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, said that “the
trend of the Belt and Road Initiative, this trend is the exact
opposite of what we’re used to, and what we have been taught
about the workings of the global economy.”  More on that in a
moment.  President Erdogan of Turkey said, “This initiative,
particularly against rising terrorism in the world, will be an
initiative that will almost eradicate terrorism.  I believe this
cooperation, which will benefit everyone, will succeed as a
model.  We, as Turkey, are ready to give all kinds of support for
it.”
Jean-Pierre Raffarin, sent by new French President Macron,
said “The Belt and Road Initiative proposed by President Xi shows
that he attaches great importance to cooperation between Europe
and Asia.  It will inject vitality into global development, and
shows his global vision.”   Prime Minister of Greece, Alexis
Tsipras: “What is particularly positive for us is that the goals
of the Belt and Road Initiative are compatible with our own
regional economic goals.  And our dynamic, comprehensive,
strategic partnership with China sets a solid basis for working
in this direction.  Greece, after many years of severe crises, is
returning to a growth path which opens up remarkable
opportunities for investment and trade.”
And last, the Economics Minister of Slovakia, Peter Ziga,
said, “It’s an historic opportunity.  View it as the project of
the century.  Everything indicates that the Chinese side and
other important states such as Russia, have a strong interest in
launching a New Silk Road.  Even though the details still haven’t
been released, it’s seems that the question actually is only
whether the project will take place with us, or without us.”
And that’s exactly right.  As President Putin and Prime
Minister Orban had said, there is a New Paradigm that is taking
place in the world right now.  The past decades’ attempts to try
to control terrorism or extremism without having a real
development model simply will not be effective; they cannot be
effective.
I’d like to ask Kesha to address what Mr. LaRouche views as
one of the most important aspects of US cooperation, in terms of
what the US has to offer the world in a World Land-Bridge-type
perspective.  Kesha, what do you see as the opportunities that
the US has to provide leadership on this front?  What do we have
to offer?

KESHA ROGERS:  Well, Jason, Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche stressed
both that the next phase of cooperation has to be around the
offer of the United States to cooperate on the space program.  We
have to go beyond what most people have looked at as come to the
space program, even going back to President John F Kennedy, as
something of a competitive avenue.  But that this is to unite in
harmony, mankind; to bring cultures together in a vision for, as
Mrs. LaRouche said, what is the natural mission of mankind for
the next 10, 100, 1000 years.  As she stressed in her remarks at
the recent event, where do we want humanity as a whole to be in
100 or even 1000 years?  As she posed in her speech, is it not
the natural destiny of mankind as the only creative species known
in this universe so far, that he will build villages on the Moon,
develop a deeper understanding of trillions of dollars [inaud;
11:46] universe, solve the problems of — until now — incurable
disease, or solve the problem of energy and raw material security
through the development of thermonuclear fusion power.  She goes
on to say that by focussing on the common aims of humanity, we
will be able to overcome geopolitics and establish a higher level
of reason for the benefit of all mankind.
As Mrs. LaRouche made clear, and Mr. LaRouche, from their
decades-long work as we know, that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have
dedicated decades of their lives to the formation of what has
been brought about with what we’re seeing of the Belt and Road
Silk Road initiative; what they have called the Eurasian
Land-Bridge.  But we’re not just talking about development and
cooperation among nations in infrastructure development here on
Earth with these bridges and dams and roads, but as has been
reported coming out of the Belt and Road summit, this was
actually developed in the science magazine, China is also looking
at win-win cooperation in what is called space development or
science infrastructure or a science Belt and Road.  You see
already out of this conference, there were over 370+ agreements
which took place; but on science and technology, President Xi
Jinping of China said “Innovation is an important force of
powering development.”  With that, they developed — to kind of
highlight a few things here — a science and technology action
plan, calling for 25,000 foreign-born scientists, engineers, and
managers over the next five years.  They want to give 10,000
scholarships to students from developing countries to study in
China.  You have a set-up of about 50 joint laboratories that’s
being discussed; 40+ countries to cooperate in space-based Earth
observation; observatories which would be used to identify and
manage natural resources and to respond to natural disasters.
So, when people think about cooperation in space, before we
even talk about going to another planetary body, going to the
Moon, we can actually start to set up new technologies of the
shared interests for the development of mankind on this planet.
But that takes us into the next phase of mankind’s commitment; as
Mrs. LaRouche said, “Our destiny has to be building villages on
the Moon.”  This is something that’s not new to Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche.  Mr. LaRouche developed the concept really as finally
to restore and revive that which was destroyed by the British
Empire and those who thought to take out President John F
Kennedy.  Mr. LaRouche came in and restored that vision of
President Kennedy in the 1980s with the Woman on Mars mission.
But let me just say, the concept here is vision; vision for the
future.  What the United States has to restore itself to, is a
commitment to vision in space exploration as we had under
President John F Kennedy, and cooperation.  A lot of people don’t
know and I hear all the time that the purpose of going to the
Moon, the purpose of President John F Kennedy’s famous speech to
a joint session of Congress May 25, 1961, saying we’re going to
send a man to the Moon and return him safely to Earth before the
end of the decade; people see that as merely competition.  What a
lot of people don’t know and don’t recognize is that after
Kennedy made that very clear vision directed the nation toward a
national mission, it was two years later in September of 1963,
only two months before he was assassinated, that President John F
Kennedy offered cooperation for a joint mission with the Soviet
Union, at a time when tensions had started to fade out, that
there was a move toward mutual cooperation and development.
Those people in the United States who say that the United States
can’t work with Russia, or that Russia is the enemy, these are
the same people who were denying the vision of President John F
Kennedy; who didn’t want the cooperation that he had set forth.
We could have had a joint mission on the Moon with the Soviet
Union at the time that would have completely changed the concept
and the scope of the relationship with the United States and
Russia. Also today, it’s the same thing, because when we talk
about missions for developing the Solar System, developing the
Moon as the first step for developing the fusion technology and
energy for getting to Mars and developing colonies on Mars, as
Mr. LaRouche lays out in his “Woman on Mars” speech, which he
made over 30 years ago, that we would get there in 39 years and
have this woman speaking back to us on this great accomplishment
for the project and benefit of all mankind.  That’s what we have
to restore right now, and that is the next phase and mission of
cooperation as was clearly laid out by Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche, and
also is already being taken up by nations that have developed and
have joined the Belt and Road Initiative.  The question at hand
is the creative development of mankind and the best conception to
do that is through cooperation in space, cooperation in creating
new sciences, new technologies.  We very much understand how to
do that, and we can move forward with that initiative.

ROSS:  Right; and I think in terms of way that this is
really being moved on right now, you brought this up in science
and in projects that clearly demonstrate common aims and have a
universal character in that way.  I’d just like to bring up one
of the developments that came out of this forum on the strategic
or the geopolitical front; which was the cooperation that was
announced by President Duterte from the Philippines.  President
Duterte has been under attack for a variety of reasons.  People
say he’s too tough on the drug dealers in the Philippines, etc.
What he announced, in collaboration with Vietnam and China, was
that they would work out a way to collaboratively use the
resources of the South China Sea; essentially eliminating that as
a geopolitical factor, if the parties involved can agree to
common development.  This is very much like the détente and the
agreement reached between Japan and Russia, which have not fully
in a formal way worked out the ownership of some of the contested
islands — the Kurile Islands — between Russia and Japan; but
agreed as two countries working together, to exploit the
resources together in a common way.  So that the hang-ups that
allowed conflict to fester are being overcome by looking at ways
of working together in a collaborative way.
While all of this is happening — and this is something that
the US most certainly ought to join, because we have a tremendous
need for infrastructure here; we’re in desperate need of an
economic recovery.  President Trump has called for the spending
of $1 trillion on infrastructure; which is nowhere what’s fully
required in the United States, although it’s certainly moving in
the right direction.  When you would think that patriotic
Americans would all be saying, “Look at these opportunities
around the world.  An opportunity to overcome the Wall
Street-type of finance that’s characterized our economy and move
towards real physical building of things and cooperating on
projects that undoubtedly improve people’s lives; like having
high-speed rail, like creating jobs and business in this way.”
Instead, there is a total tempest-in-a-teapot going on in the
United States around President Trump and all things related to
Russia.
Diane, I was hoping that you could share with us your views
on what this means about our ability to act politically in the
United States as a nation in its own interests.

DIANE SARE:  Sure.  I think first of all, I’ll share the views of
Lyndon LaRouche, who was briefed this morning on some comments
from the British intelligence operative, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,
who we remember from his efforts to get President Bill Clinton
thrown out of office.  He’s basically saying that they’re not
going to be able to impeach President Trump; which is true.
First of all, because Trump has not committed any impeachable
offenses.  He didn’t say that, of course, but he said that with a
Republican Congress and so on.  So, let’s just harass him; let’s
tie his hands, let’s prevent him from doing anything that he
wants to do.  When Mr. LaRouche was presented with this, he said,
“It won’t work.  The transformation of the world is too large.
It’s bigger than the British Empire.”  If you think about the
size of the investments that you showed on that chart, think
about the size of China — 1.4 billion or so people.  There are
already 61 or more nations involved in the Belt and Road, who
have experienced a massive increase in trade and prosperity as a
result of this collaboration.  Even in the United States, while
the media is doing their very best job to prevent Americans from
getting the faintest whiff of the potential in the world, the
{Wall Street Journal} two days ago was forced to admit that the
China Investment Corporation was planning to move their offices
from Toronto into Manhattan; and that they wished to change $50
billion of their holdings in US Treasuries into investment of new
infrastructure in the United States.  I think you can ask
yourself from the Chinese perspective, they’re holding $1.4
trillion of US Treasuries; if the United States is a collapsing
giant with water crises, roads and bridges collapsing, heroin
overdoses, that’s not really a viable investment.  If they’re
holding, or invested, as Mrs. LaRouche pointed out in her speech
in Beijing, that President Trump is calling for a return to the
American System which would create a pathway using Hamiltonian
credit; he’s referred to Henry Clay and others — Hamilton, we
are referring to; this creates the means for China to actually
make this kind of investment in the United States which
transforms everything.  I think you can ask anybody if they would
prefer to be stuck in traffic for five hours, risking losing
their entire car in a giant pothole, when they could be riding a
train that goes 300mph and getting to their destination in 15
minutes, what they would prefer; I think the choice is obvious.
So, what has occurred is just a spectacular witch-hunt;
President Trump is 100% correct when he refers to this as a
witch-hunt.  He has no intention of giving it up.  I’d like to go
right now to a video clip of him speaking to the commencement
ceremony of the Coast Guard so that people have a sense of that.
And then I have a few more things to say about who is behind this
attack and why.

TRUMP

:  Now, I want to take this opportunity to give
you some advice. Over the course of your life, you will find that
things are not always fair. You will find that things happen to
you that you do not deserve and that are not always warranted.
But you have to put your head down and fight, fight, fight.
Never, ever, ever give up. Things will work out just fine.
Look at the way Iâve been treated lately â (laughter) â
especially by the media. No politician in history â and I say
this with great surety â has been treated worse or more unfairly.
You canât let them get you down. You canât let the critics and
the naysayers get in the way of your dreams. (Applause.) I guess
thatâs why I â thank you. I guess thatâs why we won.
Adversity makes you stronger. Donât give in. Donât back
down. And never stop doing what you know is right. Nothing worth
doing ever, ever, ever came easy. And the more righteous your
fight, the more opposition that you will face.

SARE:  So, as I think you can see, this is not a President
who is going to turn tail or run, or cower.  Happily, he’s a New
Yorker who enjoys fighting.  I just want to remind people,
because those of you who have been following LaRouche and been
familiar with LaRouche, there was an earlier witch-hunt in this
country, which was the witch-hunt against Lyndon LaRouche; with
the result that shortly after he collaborated with President
Reagan and the Strategic Defense Initiative came into being, at
the time that the Berlin Wall — which Mr. LaRouche had forecast
would come down — came down, LaRouche was being carted off to
prison.  This witch-hunt was orchestrated not only by the same
apparatus, but in many cases, the exact same individuals that are
targetting President Trump now.
One of the key players in the early, initial trial against
Mr. LaRouche in Boston — which fell apart — was none other than
Robert Mueller.  He did such a brilliant job of covering up the
evidence of the Saudi royal family role in 9/11, he’s now been
assigned to investigate President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia,
etc.  As was pointed out by Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS) Bill Binney and Ray McGovern in an article that
appeared a couple of days ago in the {Baltimore Sun}, Comey
absolutely was legitimately fired; it was the right thing for
President Trump to do.  Comey had refused to investigate the
actual serious crime which was committed, which was the unmasking
of Michael Flynn; who had a telephone conversation with the
Russian ambassador and, according to US law, the American end of
that conversation should never have been recorded.  That was
illegal.  The fact that that not only was recorded, but then was
leaked to the press, is two crimes committed for which people
could and should be prosecuted; and it would be relatively easy
to discover who did it.  That actual crime was not investigated.
Instead, we are supposed to believe that somehow Russian
hacking changed the vote of the American people; which no one has
yet explained even how that would work even if they could prove
that the Russians hacked into the DNC computers — which they
can’t even prove.  Especially since it’s been revealed now that
you can change the IP address; you can make it look like Russians
hacked into a computer, when in fact the hacking was done right
from someplace in Iowa.  So, this whole thing is completely a
fraud; and Julian Assange has made the point that there was no
hacking, as Binney and Ray McGovern said.  Assange explicitly it
was a leak; McGovern and Binney also said that this absolutely
could have been a leak.
There’s another breaking story — which we have not
confirmed independently — of interest, of Seth Rich, the 27-year
old DNC staffer who turned up dead.  There’s now some question as
to whether or not he was sending tens of thousands of emails to
Wikileaks.  As I said, that has not been yet confirmed by other
sources, but it just underscores that there was no crime
committed in terms of collusion between Trump and Russia.  The
Russians did not determine the outcome of this election.  I think
every sane American knows this; and frankly, most of the
Democratic Party knows this, they’re just completely gutless in
the face of this McCarthy-ite kind of witch-hunt against the
President, to tell the truth about what they know.  Which is that
the Democratic Party abandoned its traditional base; the
forgotten men and women who voted in large numbers for President
Trump.  The people who have skills who are currently unemployed;
who should be working for $50, $60, $70 an hour producing things
for the nation and the world; who are now either working at
McDonald’s or Walmart or are unemployed.  These are the people
that Trump’s campaign inspired to turn out in large numbers; that
was simply not being offered by the Democratic Party.
I will say that if you think about two times in history
which Mr. LaRouche talks about frequently: one is 1945, where the
British — through certain military tactics or failures —
delayed the end of World War II; they delayed the victory because
they were hoping that Franklin Roosevelt would be dead by the
time the war ended.  Because what FDR envisioned was a world
without a colonial empire; where the British, the French, the
Dutch, the Portuguese would give up their colonies, and nations
would have the right to develop.  Very much like what President
Xi Jinping is talking about at this time.  Mr. LaRouche was a
veteran of World War II; he was in the Pacific theatre at that
time — I believe in Burma — when Franklin Roosevelt died.  He
often describes his fellow troops coming to him and saying, “What
do you think is the meaning of this?”  And he said, “A very great
man” — FDR — “has been replaced by a very little man.”  That is
Truman, who was a complete lackey of the British; who presided
over the only use of nuclear bombs so far, which was done by the
United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  This was completely
unnecessary, because Japan was already preparing to surrender.
He also presided over the new Cold War; the division of the world
between these spheres of influence — geopolitics, which has so
much colored the way people think about things.
So LaRouche determined that, in a sense, his life’s work
would be to bring into existence a higher ordering state of
mankind; governments worthy of what it means to be truly human.
That has been his life’s mission.  And to that end, he
collaborated with others to create the conditions for the Reagan
Presidency, where with the Strategic Defense Initiative and
LaRouche’s forecast that the Soviet Union was going to
disintegrate economically, you had the collapse of the Berlin
Wall.  Now that was 28 years ago.  That changed the world; and
yet, you have people today — 28 years later — trying to act
like Russia is our enemy.  The British, who truly are the enemy
of the United States, are allies.  This is completely backwards.
Happily, the British Empire is right now operating from the
standpoint of complete strategic weakness.  The trans-Atlantic
financial system is totally bankrupt; they have shut down their
ability to produce.  They have tried to squash and stifle every
scientist in the trans-Atlantic world with this Green agenda,
this fear of global warming and climate change and all of this
baloney; which happily hasn’t worked.  We still have a lot of
creative people in the United States.  I think Kesha knows many
of them in the space program in Texas.  And what you have is that
China, with this Beijing conference, has consolidated a process
that has been underway and coming together for a very long time.
So, I would like to just urge everybody who is viewing this,
to take advantage of the material on the website.  I think Jason
was involved in producing a short video and a petition basically
saying let’s suck it up and tell the Congress to suck it up and
move on; that no one is interested in this witch-hunt against
President Trump.  What people {are} interested in, is organizing
an economic recovery, and we are very much on the brink of
success.  So, I would urge everyone to not be demoralized or
fearful.  We have to take the same approach as Lyndon LaRouche,
as President Trump has said now, to absolutely not give up; and
insure the United States joins this potential which has been
opened up.

ROSS:  Absolutely!  Part of the irony of this idea of a
Russian takeover of United States policy, is that if Russia took
over US policy, what are the policies that Russia is forcing
through?  Russia is not opposing Glass-Steagall.  The reason we
don’t have Glass-Steagall right now is because of Wall Street and
because of Presidents who capitulated to it; it’s not because of
Russia.  Joining the Belt and Road Initiative would make the most
possible sense for the United States right now.  Offering what we
have to offer to that; being part of an international development
program of infrastructure, that’s clearly in America’s best
interests.  Would that be some sort of a Russian plot?  The whole
thing just doesn’t make any sense.  The idea that people are
debating this and arguing whether or not Trump said something
inappropriate to Comey, while people are dying of opioids, while
communities are being devastated by unemployment and by a
collapsing economy in many parts of the country.  The idea of
worrying about this stuff, or making it an issue, makes it very
clear that these “facts” aren’t driving an investigation. What it
is, is an attempt to prevent a shift in policy in the United
States, and the fear that Trump would, indeed, play a role in
making that happen, is what has these people completely unhinged
and making up all sorts of complete nonsense and conspiracy
theorizing in order to throw him out.
I think if we look at what is being offered right now with
the initiative from the Belt and Road Forum, and you contrast
that with some empty platitudes about human rights and rights for
all coming from the West, you can’t protest unemployment; you
have to create development.  You need policies that are going to
make it happen; you need projects that are going to make it
happen.  You need a path towards a better future.  For us, this
requires overthrowing a concept of economics that we have had for
decades now, and replacing it with LaRouche’s concept of wealth
— not as money, but as the creation of an increased power of the
human species around its surroundings.
So, let me just wrap up by quoting the end of Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s presentation at the Belt and Road Forum.  She
said: “When we organize our societies around scientific and
artistic discovery, we will perfect our knowledge on how we can
continuously advance the process of self-development of mankind;
intellectually, morally, and aesthetically.  And we will find our
freedom in necessity — doing our duty with passion!”
As Diane had mentioned, we have a petition; I’ll put it up
on the screen here.  The webpage that we’d like you to go to;
it’s lpac.co/rebuild.  It is a petition; it begins with the video
that Diane had referred to, and then a call on the Congress to
focus on making this country a better place, revitalizing our
manufacturing and infrastructure, exploring space, working on
science, and ending the concept of regime change warfare.  That’s
something that should be our policy.  So, please go to
lpac.co/rebuild.  Sign and circulate the petition.  Our goal is
to get 100,000 signatures on this to force a response from the
White House, among other effects.  The primary effect, of course,
being Congress to whom the petition is directed.
Go there; do that; and let’s get to work!




Seneste mediedækning i USA af Bælt & Vej Forum.
Uddrag af LPAC webcast, 12. maj.

Vært Matthew Ogden: Som vore seere vil vide, er der nu mindre end 24 timer til det verdenshistoriske Bælt & Vej Forum, der afholdes i Beijing, Kina, med start søndag morgen. Som det vil være vore seere bekendt, har LaRouche PAC og den internationale LaRouche-bevægelse krævet, at medlemmer af Trump-administrationen deltager personligt i dette topmøde. Seneste nyt er, at det i går aftes blev meddelt, at der faktisk vil blive en delegation, der deltager Bælt & Vej Forum. Trump-administrationen har besluttet at sende en officiel delegation til denne verdenshistoriske begivenhed.

Jeg vil gerne vise en artikel på skærmen fra Xinhua News, der bærer overskriften, »USA sender delegerede til at deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum«. Den lyder:

»USA vil sende delegerede til at deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde i Beijing den 14.-15. maj, sagde den amerikanske regering torsdag aften. USA ’anerkender betydningen af det af Kina foreslåede Bælt & Vej-initiativ og vil sende delegerede til at deltage i Forummet’, iflg. en udtalelse fra USA’s Handelsministerium.«

Ved det forestående forum vil alle parter fastlægge store samarbejdsprojekter, etablere arbejdsgrupper og etablere et center for investeringssamarbejde. De vil også underskrive finansieringsaftaler til støtte for deres samarbejdsprojekter.

Under et møde på Mar-a-Lago-ejendommen i Florida i sidste måned sagde den kinesiske præsident til sin amerikanske modpart, Donald Trump, at Kina byder USA’s deltagelse i Bælt & Vej-initiativet velkommen. I løbet af den månedstid, der fulgte efter dette møde mellem de to ledere, har USA og Kina opnået tilsagn til indledende forpligtende engagementer inden for områder som handel med landbrugsvarer, finansielle ydelser og energi for at styrke det økonomiske samarbejde under en 100 dages plan, iflg. Handelsministeriet.«

Dette er selvsagt en betydningsfuld udvikling på vejen, hvor USA tager imod tilbuddet fra Xi Jinping til officielt at tilslutte sig dette verdenshistoriske initiativ. Delegationen vil blive ledet af hr. Matt pottinger, der er særlig assistent til Donald Trump og seniordirektør for Østasien i det Nationale Sikkerhedsråd. Han vil, sammen med den amerikanske delegation, slutte sig til de p.t. 29 statsoverhoveder, der vil deltage i dette topmøde; disse omfatter bl.a. Ruslands præsident Putin og en minister fra Nordkorea – og netop meddelt – den nyvalgte præsident fra Sydkorea. Så meget står på spil på dette topmøde. Hr. LaRouche indskærpede, at dette må lykkes for den menneskelige civilisations fremtids skyld.

Den første, større dækning af dette Bælt & Vej-topmøde, der er fremkommet i USA, er netop kommet her til morgen fra, af alle medier, NBC News. Dette er meget signifikant, og jeg tror, I vil finde det meget interessant og ikke tilfældigt, at denne dækning af det forestående Bælt & Vej-topmøde omfatter ekstensive citater fra hr. Chas Freeman; som vore seere vil huske, var en fremtrædende hovedtaler under en Schiller Institut-konference sidste år i Tyskland, med Silkevejen og Bælt & Vej-initiativet som emne, og hvor hr. Freeman sad på et panel sammen med fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Jeg vil gerne vise lidt af denne dækning fra NBC News. Som I ser, er titlen, »Bælt & Vej-initiativet: Kina planlægger ’Ny Silkevej til $1 billion’«, med et vidunderligt kort over de forskellige Silkevejsruter. Det lyder:

»Kina tilsigter at genskabe Marco Polos gamle »Silkevej«, der forbandt Europa med Asien. Men, i stedet for de kameler og karavaner, der transporterede krydderier og silke for hundreder af år siden, vil et for $1 billion moderne netværk af handelsruter blive bygget.

Søndag vil den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping være vært for 28 statsoverhoveder ved åbningen af et todages topmøde med fokus på det såkaldte ’Bælt & Vej-initiativ’.

Analytikere fremfører, at projektet kunne ændre centrum for den globale økonomi og udfordre den amerikanskledede verdensorden …

Xis kolossale program er 11 gange større end USA’s Marshallplan, der genopbyggede Europa efter Anden Verdenskrig. Det omfatter nye veje, højhastighedsjernbaner, kraftværker, pipelines, havne og lufthavne og telekommunikationsforbindelser, der ville styrke handel mellem Kina og 60 lande i Asien, Europa, Mellemøsten og Nordafrika …

Tidligere amerikansk viceforsvarsminister Chas Freeman beskrev Bælt & Vej-projektet som ’den potentielt mest transformerende ingeniørindsats i menneskets historie’. Han pointerede, at de involverede lande udgør omkring 55 % af det globale, økonomiske resultat, 70 % af verdens befolkning og skønsmæssigt 75 % a kendte energireserver.

’Amerikanere tænker i øjeblikket på magt i næsten udelukkende militær sammenhæng, hvilket er ironisk, for vi hævder at tro på markedernes magt til at danne begivenheder, og Bælt & Vej-initiativet beror på markeder’, sagde Freeman til NBC News.

’Amerikansk fjernhed’ er ikke et svar på den strategiske udfordring, som initiativet udgør, fremførte han. ’Hvis vi ikke griber eksportmulighederne dér, hvor de findes, vil beskæftigelsen gå til andre, ikke amerikanere’, tilføjede Freeman. Bælt & Vej er stadig en vision, men, hvis en virkeliggøres på signifikant vis, vil alle veje i Eurasien ’føre til Beijing’ … Kina vil blive det økonomiske tyngdecenter i takt med, at landet bliver verdens største nationaløkonomi’, tilføjede han. ’»Bælt & Vej«-programmet indeholder intet militært element, men det har tydeligvis potentialet til fuldstændig at ændre verdens geopolitik, så vel som verdens økonomi’. …

Med 12.500 miles kan Kina allerede prale med verdens længste højhastigheds-jernbanenet – med planer om en nær-fordobling frem til 2025. Under Bælt & Vej er i alt 50.000 miles projekteret. Det er planen at gøre det muligt at rejse fra London til Beijing ’på blot to dage’, iflg. Freeman.«

Som I ser, så er dette en meget betydningsfuld artikel, med disse lange citater af Chas Freeman. Som jeg sagde, så var Chas Freeman (indsat foto) en af hovedtalerne på en konference i Tyskland for nylig, som var sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet. Dette er altså den første betydningsfulde, amerikanske mediedækning af dette ekstraordinært signifikante projekt og ditto topmøde i kommende weekend.

(Afsnittet med den kinesiske video med Xi Jinping findes særskilt oversat til dansk, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=19502

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet.)

So, as you can see, this is a very major article, with these
extensive quotes from Chas Freeman.  As I said, Chas Freeman was
one of the keynote speakers at a recent conference sponsored by
the Schiller Institute in Germany.  So, this happens to be the
first major U.S. media coverage of this extraordinarily
significant project and extraordinarily significant summit this
weekend.
Now, I also just want to give you a selection of a number of
different quotes from other world leaders around the world, who
are recognizing the extraordinary significance of the Belt and
Road Initiative.  While Americans are distracted by domestic
politics here at home and the narratives of the mainstream U.S.
media, the rest of the world has become very attuned to the fact
that China, with this Belt and Road Initiative summit this
weekend, is inaugurating a new era in global politics and in
world history.  So, let me give you a taste of some of these
quotes.
You’re going to see quotations from the chief of the United
Nations; this is Secretary-General António Guterres, and he was
interviewed by Xinhua. Look at what he says:  “China plays a very
central role” in uniting the world and tackling development
challenges.  He said, “When we look at the Belt and Road
Initiative, we see a very important contribution to this
solidarity in addressing global problems with international
cooperation, where China plays a very central role.  So,” he
said, “I am very happy that I have the chance to participate in
the Belt and Road summit.”  He will be attending in person.
“[The initiative] is exactly doing the projects that are uniting
countries, benefitting countries; namely infrastructure that
links different regions in the world.  We are creating exactly
that kind of shared prosperity that your President [Xi Jinping]
was offering,” he said.  He went on to say, “This reveals a very
important strategic breakthrough, and I think the Belt and Road
Initiative is demonstrating that new vision that China has
brought to global development.  We are in the beginning of its
implementation, but I think that there is now an enormous amount
of enthusiasm, and I must say that I have high expectations.”
The next article is an interview with the Consul-General to
Düsseldorf, Germany from China, whose name is Feng Haiyang.  He
says, “Chinese Jobs-Motor for Rhineland”; you can see in the
German-language coverage there in {Rheinische Post}
[http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/duisburg/chinesischer-
job-motor-fuer-das-rheinland-aid-1.6811298].
He said, “We should take the idea of a new Silk Road as a win-win
situation for all countries that participate in it.  We are
experiencing an era of crises: terrorism, wars, and refugee
streams, plus a shrinking world economy.  Hardly a country in the
world still has the will, nor the courage, to think for the
future and act accordingly.  The Chinese idea of a new Silk Road
can, therefore, also be seen as a hope-promoting answer for this
new era.  That is exactly why this initiative is welcomed by more
and more countries in the world.”
Then the next quote I want to read to you is from the
delegate from France who will be attending, Jean-Pierre Raffarin.
He said, “I expect, with this great summit, the entire world will
learn about this project, which involves not only Central Asia,
but also West and East Asia as well as Europe and even Africa.
What I would like is a world mobilization.”
Then he went on to say, “The world is very dangerous….  In
that dangerous world, China has projects and strategies, it seeks
multilateralism, defends the UN and UNESCO and thereby
contributes to peace in a dangerous world….
“Thus, we have the vision of a world which in the process of
erecting a new framework and a new organization.  The Belt and
Road Initiative is the framework of a new world; a world that is
a grand alliance between Europe and Asia, with a grand opening
towards Africa….”  China is contributing to the connectivity of
most of the world, and is “creating links, creating relations,
and creating development.
“France and China have the same peaceful vision of the
world.  We are countries that want peace in the world in order to
have development.”
Then he made an important historical point: “Since General
de Gaulle, we have always insured that the Franco-China relation
should prevail above political parties, and the ongoing
Presidential election would not play any role in the
deterioration of those relations.  We want a good relationship;
there is consensus on that question.”
This is very significant in the aftermath of the French
Presidential elections, that it’s Jean-Pierre Raffarin who will
be attending this summit, representing France.  And the
extraordinarily positive statements that he had in terms of the
importance of the Belt and Road framework.  As he called it, “the
framework for a new world”; very much along the lines of what
Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been saying about how this is
inaugurating a New Paradigm for mankind.  Speaking on behalf of
France, but also speaking on behalf of the better impulses inside
Europe, his point about how Europe should have a very close
relationship with China in bridging Eurasia and in inaugurating
this new era of global development as the means towards peace and
stability in a very dangerous and unstable world, is exactly the
point.  It’s those kinds of statements that we would hope that
President Trump takes a page from.
What you have coming out of China, as you could see from the
statement by the Consulate General to Düsseldorf, and we had also
seen from the Consulate General to New York City at the recent
Schiller Institute conference in Manhattan about a month ago, are
repeated statements that it’s in the best interests of all
countries to join in this “win-win” cooperation with China.  That
this really is the future; and as the Consulate General to
Dusseldorf made the point, there are very few countries on the
planet right now which have the courage to think in terms of a
future vision.  Most countries are now stuck in crisis-management
mode, just trying to resolve crises as they occur; wars,
terrorism, economic collapse, famine, starvation.  When you have
a nation like China, which is able to actually think 50 years
into the future, and to inaugurate this kind of future vision,
and to invite other countries to become a part of that; that’s
something that countries should take up the opportunity to be
participants in.
There’s a very inspiring press conference that was just held
on May 8 by the head of the Chinese Rolling Stock Rail
Corporation [CRRC], and they’ve announced some exciting
initiatives in terms of new trains and new rail capabilities that
are coming out of China.  I have a little animation about that.
This is the clip from the Chinese Rolling Stock Company press
conference May 8, and the chairman, Liu Hualong, had some
exciting announcements.  He said that the CRRC is developing new
high-speed trains, capable of speeds reaching 400 kilometers per
hour [kph].  They will have the ability to change track width to
utilize different gauges found along the Belt and Road; and it’s
these different track gauges that remain the greatest bottleneck
in rapid transit along the routes of the Silk Road.  And, they
have announced that CRRC is working on a maglev capable of
achieving speeds of 600 kph; which would make the 1100-km trip
between Shanghai and Beijing something that you can achieve in
less than two hours.  So, this is a very exciting new initiative
from China; and it’s this kind of thing that the Silk Road and
the World Land-Bridge would bring to the entire world.  If you
think about what China has been able to accomplish in just the
last ten years in terms of high-speed rail connectivity inside
China — which has lifted 500 million people out of poverty, as
Secretary Rex Tillerson very aptly made the point during his
speech to the State Department just last week that we covered
extensively on our webcast here last Friday.
This is the opportunity that the United States has to
participate in.  When Donald Trump talks about $1 trillion for
infrastructure, we should compare the state of infrastructure in
the United States to the state of infrastructure in China.  It’s
these kinds of high-speed rail projects and so forth, that we
would be very well advised to initiate in the United States with
direct collaboration in investment and know-how from China.
A colleague of mine found a very inspiring and entertaining
video that was just issued by China, with quotes from President
Xi Jinping where he discusses why he initiated the New Silk Road,
or the Belt and Road Initiative in the first place.  It goes
through some wonderful examples of how different areas of the
world are being lifted up by these great projects that are
spin-offs and initiatives from the New Silk Road.  So, I just
want to play this five-minute video for you right now, and allow
you to be inspired by it.

[BEGIN VIDEO, subtitles are transcribed]
President Xi Jinping:  Why I proposed the Belt and Road

The world is watching China as it gets ready to host the
Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in mid-May
2017.
PRESIDENT XI JINPING: While visiting Kazakhstan and
Indonesia in 2013, I proposed jointly building the Silk Road
Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk road, respectively.
Shaanxi, my home province, is situated at the starting point of
the ancient Silk Road.  Standing here and looking back on
history, I feel I can hear the sound of camel bells ringing in
the mountains and see plumes of smoke rising over the desert.
This all feels so familiar.  Since ancient times, peaceful
development has been a shared goal of mankind.

[Captions:]
War
Famine
Wealth Gap
Economic Recession

XI: Today’s world is filled with uncertainties.  People have
hopes for the future, but at the same time, feel perplexed.

[Caption:] Some lands once prosperous and bustling are now
synonymous with difficulty, conflict and crisis.

XI: What has become of the world? What should we do?  The
whole world is pondering over these questions and I am thinking
of them all the time.

[Captions:]
Policy Connectivity
Trade Connectivity
Infrastructure Connectivity

XI: I proposed the Belt and Road Initiative in the hope that
with a focus on connectivity, the free and convenient flow of all
elements of production will be encouraged, multidimensional
cooperation platforms developed, and mutual gains and shared
development achieved.
The Belt and Road Initiative draws inspirations from the
ancient Silk Road, and aims to help realize the shared dream of
people worldwide for peace and development.
Shining with the wisdom from the East, it is a plan that
China offers the world for seeking common prosperity and
development.
The Belt and Road Initiative is based on the principles of
extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits.

[Caption:]
Uzbekistan: Qamchiq Tunnel, Part of the Angren-Pap Railway
Line

XI: It is not exclusive, but open and inclusive.  The
initiative will not be a solo for China, but a chorus of all
countries along the routes.

[Captions:]
Belarus: China-Belarus Great Stone Industrial Park
China-Russia Cooperation Projects
Maldives: China-Maldives Friendship Bridge
Malaysia: Sea Freight
Greece: Piraeus Port
Sri Lanka: Puttalam Coal Power Plant
Britain: China-Europe Freight Trains
Ethiopia-Djibouti: Addis Ababa-Djibouti Railway
Kazakhstan: Light Railway Transportation System in Astana

XI: For more than three years, over 100 countries and
international organizations have responded positively and offered
support for the initiative.
The “friend circle” of the initiative has kept widening.

[Captions:]
Fiji: Nabouwalu-Dreketi Highway
Pakistan: Karakoram Highway

XI: A great cause should be pursued for common good.  Let us
more closely join hands in forging new partnerships characterized
by win-win cooperation and build a community of shared future for
mankind.
History is made by the brave.  Let us show confidence, take
action and forge ahead, hand in hand.
[Caption:]
“Belt and Road”
[END VIDEO]

OGDEN: …Now obviously, this is a wonderful and inspiring
vision of a new era for mankind, and that era means the end of
the British Empire world, the era of divide-and-conquer, of
colonialism, of enforced poverty, backwardness, lack of
development.  It’s an entirely new concept of what the world can
share in terms of progress, prosperity, development and peace.
And, as we know, and as we reported extensively, there is an
unrelenting assault against not only those countries that have
initiated this vision of a new world, China, others who are
participating in this, but there is an unrelenting assault
against President Donald Trump in the United States, for even his
willingness to consider, that this would be something that the
United States could participate in, and to usher in a new
relationship between the United States and China, and especially
the United States and Russia.  That would be his willingness to
overturn this geopolitical world that has reigned since the
conclusion of World War II, with the United States-U.K. “special
relationship” in a war against these developed and developing
countries.
Now, a very significant development has occurred just in the
last two days along those lines, and it has definitely occurred
among a tumultuous political situation in Washington, D.C.  But
perhaps the most significant development, aside from all of the
media hysteria around the firing of James Comey, and Trump’s
decision to remove the Acting Director of the FBI, was the fact
that on that very day, Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov
made a visit to the White House, where initially he was scheduled
to only meet with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on his way to
the Arctic Council ministerial in Alaska, but at the very last
minute, it was announced that President Trump would be in on that
meeting with Sergey Lavrov.
And we don’t have the direct transcript yet, but we do have
some paraphrases of the reports of that discussion, and I’m going
to read you a few of the very significant statements that were
made by Sergey Lavrov.  And you can see, that despite the
concerted efforts to drive a wedge between the United States and
Russia, and to try to disrupt this thawing of relations and the
potential for a collaborative relationship, this is moving
forward steadily.
What Sergey Lavrov said is that the United States and Russia
can and should contribute to a settlement in Syria and that this
is moving along well.  He said: All government and opposition
parties will be constructive in the next Geneva meeting.  Now, he
was questioned as to why U.S. and Russia relations had sunk to
such a low level, and this is a quote from Sergey Lavrov [as
interpreted]: “The previous Administration bent over backwards to
undermine the solid foundation of our relations. Now we have to
start from a very low level between Russia and America.”
He went on: It is clear “the Obama Administration in its
last days in power resorted to petty actions against both our
property and our diplomats. … The President of the Russian
Federation Vladimir Putin [is] … not going to follow those who
are trying to destroy our relations. I hope we will be able to
resolve the situation without our relations deteriorating.”
And he went on to say: “The dialogue between Russia and the
U.S. is now free from the ideology that characterized it under
the Barack Obama Administration. … U.S. President Donald Trump,
his Administration, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are the
kind of people who want to maintain a dialogue not as a means of
demonstrating what they can achieve in the area of ideological
preferences, but rather as a means of solving particular
issues….”  [https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6082]
And then he said, that “The presidents reaffirmed during
their recent telephone conversation that they would meet on the
sidelines of the G20 meeting in Germany in the first 10 days of
July” and that meanwhile discussions will be continuing at a very
high level with Secretary Rex Tillerson.
And as I reported, just today now, following that meeting,
Secretary Tillerson and Minister Lavrov are meeting on the
sidelines of the Arctic Council Ministerial in Alaska, and
they’re discussing what has been characterized as the “Arctic
Silk Road.”  So this is yet one more aspect of the connectivity
of the world, as we’ve repeatedly made the point, and that should
absolutely include the extension of the Eurasian Land-Bridge
across the Bering Strait to become the World Silk Road, with rail
connectivity between the Americas and Eurasia.
But look, this kind of very high-level and very friendly
dialogue that occurred at the White House on Wednesday, during
the whole hoopla around Comey and so forth, is exactly what this
British coup attempt has been trying to derail, against Trump, to
try to derail this potential for a warm and collaborative
relationship between the United States and Russia.  And it really
is an all-out battle for the future of the U.S. Presidency, and
for the future of what will come of these great potentials, in
terms of this cooperative relationship between the United States
and these other countries around the world, and an abandonment of
this Obama-era regime change ideology.
So, finally, what we have for you tonight is two clips from
a very timely and I think important interview between {EIR}
Contributing Editor Will Wertz and Virginia State Senator Dick
Black.  And Senator Black, as you’ll see from these two short
clips had had a very unique, ground-floor view of this fight,
particularly some of the leading parties involves and in
particular Andrew McCabe  who is now Acting Director of the FBI,
who succeeding James Comey after he was fired by President Donald
Trump.
[https://larouchepac.com/20170511/fbi-s-mccabe-attacks-anti-
isis-senator]
So I’m just going to play two very short clips from that
interview, back to back.  And then we’ll come back and I’ll let
you know what you can expect from LaRouche PAC in the coming
days.

[BEGIN VIDEO]
WILLIAM WERTZ:  So, if you look at this, you opposed Obama’s
policy of regime change, which was also backed by the British,
the French, the former colonial powers in Syria, let alone,
Libya, Egypt, and so forth.  So the point here is, what we’re
talking about here is your letter to Assad was posted on his
website — this was back on May 28, 2014.  Soon after that you
get visitations from the FBI, in a very fishy operation, and at
least two of those agents are coming from the Washington, D.C.
field office which is run by Andrew McCabe.  This is ten months
before his wife is recruited, in a meeting that he attends, with
[then Virginia Gov. Terry] McAuliffe, to run against you.
So the point here that I would like to raise is, whereas
some has looked at this from the standpoint merely of, there was
sort of an agreement here that she was backed to run involving a
conflict of interest in which then Andrew McCabe ends up involved
in various cases involving Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party
and eventually against Donald Trump; but the point that I would
make is, that you had identified yourself as an opponent to the
policy which was being carried out by the Obama administration
and by the FBI, the CIA and the State Department in terms of
regime change and the promotion of terrorists.

SEN. RICHARD BLACK:  Well and worldwide, I was the first one
to break the wall of silence.  Since then, we have Rep. Tulsi
Gabbard, we have Sen. Rand Paul, we have several who have come
out and who have taken a stand; our own Virginia Rep. Tom
Garrett.  But up until this time there was total censorship.  It
was wartime censorship, it was censorship that was the equivalent
of what we saw in the Second World War, when we were at war.
We’re not at war, and yet, we have this same type of censorship
going on.  And I think there was a feeling that this individual,
this Senator from Virginia has to be just beaten into dust as an
example to the world that if you dare to stand up and to tell the
truth about what we’re doing in Syria, and in other countries,
then you’re going to be crushed, your life is going to be
destroyed. …

WERTZ:  Now in that same time period when you endorsed, now
President Trump, there were two interventions into the U.S.
political scene, by British intelligence.  The first was a
dossier that was compiled by an MI6 British intelligence officer,
Christopher Steele.  And the indications are that he actually
worked on this dossier, after being paid by the Clinton campaign,
Hillary Clinton’s campaign, to present this dossier.  One of the
issues that Senator Grassley has raised is — this was reported
in the {Washington Post} — the FBI was prepared to pay
Christopher Steele to continue his research to try to prove that
Trump was somehow working with the Russians.

SENATOR BLACK:  Amazing that the FBI was involved in paying
for opposition research.  Now, I’ve done a little opposition
research:  You know, we paid companies and of course it’s been
done on us, endlessly.  But, I’ve read a little bit about the
dossier and if I paid someone and he gave me that, I would be so
furious, because it is so transparently fallacious.  It’s just
ridiculous!  You know, unbelievable the things that he says. It
has no air of credibility in my view, from my experience, and
I’ve seen a lot of this stuff before.  I think it was a total
creation….
[END VIDEO]

OGDEN:  So as you can see that is a very explosive story and
it’s one that will continue to develop, especially now that
McCabe is right in the spotlight.  He was, in fact, one of the
testifying witnesses at a Senate committee hearing just
yesterday, which originally Jim Comey was supposed to be involved
in.
So you can watch for more developments on that, and I think
that’s a unique view from on the ground of what, really, this
grouping has been willing to engage in in terms of activities, to
try to enforce the fact that there can be no breaking, there can
be nobody calling this for what it is.
So to conclude, I would just like to announce that we will
have a new petition, available for you to sign on LaRouche PAC.
The title is “We Agree with Senator Grassley: Suck It Up, Move
On, Let’s Rebuild the Country!” And this goes through the fact
that Donald Trump was elected, not because of Russian
interference but because in fact, the American people have been
beaten down and have become desperate in terms of the economic
collapse that they’ve been subjected to, over not just the last
eight years, but over the last fifteen years and even more; that
he spoke to that; and that they were also against the insane
regime change agenda, to try to drive a wedge between these great
powers that should be collaborating for the mutual benefit and
stability of world peace, not at each other’s throats in terms of
thermonuclear war, and potential for setting off World War III.
That this was rejected, and in fact, the logical consequence
of that overturning the geopolitical applecart would be for the
United States to reciprocate President Xi Jinping’s offer and use
the opportunity for this Belt and Road Forum this May 14-15,
which we can announce the happy news, there will be an official
U.S. delegation attending that Forum in person, to use the
opportunity of that to inaugurate an entirely new era, a new
framework for international relations, a new paradigm of peace,
economic development, stability and mutually beneficial relations
among nations.
So please stay tuned to larouchepac.com over the coming 24,
48, 72 hours:  A lot is going to change between now and the
beginning of next week.  And we, I think as we’ve demonstrated,
uniquely, are your unique source for the real news about what’s
happening around the world and in fact, you can participate in
helping us change the course of world history.
Please sign up for http://www.larouchepac.com.  If you have
not, already, go to the LaRouche PAC Action Center; also sign up
for the daily email updates.  You will receive this updates in
your in-box, and please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Thank you very much for tuning in today, and we look forward
to seeing you again, soon.  Good night.




USA annoncerer delegation til
Verdenshistorisk topmøde i Beijing.
LaRouche PAC Internationale
Webcast, 12. maj, 2017.
(dansk uddrag følger senere)

Med lidt over 24 timer tilbage til åbningen af Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, har USA officielt annonceret, at en delegation vil deltage som repræsentant for USA og Trump-administrationen. Aftenens webcast fremlægger flere spændende og hurtige udviklinger, med vores verden, der er i færd med at blive transformeret af en vision om win-win-samarbejde og fred gennem udvikling, som de britiske imperialister så desperat har forsøgt at køre af sporet, inklusive med et igangværende politisk kupforsøg imod Trump-administrationen.

Se afsnittet med kinesiske video med Xi Jinping, dansk udskrift, engelske undertekster, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=19502

Se uddrag af webcast i oversættelse, her:

 

 

 




Det britiske Imperium er fjendens sande
ansigt; dette er en kamp, vi skal vinde.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
5. maj, 2017; Leder

I en tale for Udenrigsministeriets personale for to dage siden, forklarer han virkelig, på en meget rolig, omfattende og klarhjernet måde, udenrigsminister Tillersons synspunkt og – må man antage – også præsident Trumps, om, hvordan udenrigspolitik vil blive ført af Trump-administrationen, med udsigten til samarbejde mellem USA, Kina og Rusland. I Tillersons tale foretog han en slags spadseretur rundt til hele verden; og han forklarede, hvad Trump-administrationens politik ville være i disse forskellige områder. … 

Det, udenrigsminister Tillerson sagde, er, at vi ikke længere vil bruge såkaldte »vestlige værdier« som påskud for vores udenrigspolitik. At vi selvfølgelig støtter menneskerettigheder og alle de vigtige værdier, som den Amerikanske Revolution blev udkæmpet for, og som findes indbygget i Uafhængighedserklæringen og USA’s Forfatning. Men, vi vil føre vores udenrigspolitik med den idé for øje, at vi har betydningsfulde partnerskaber, og at det ikke er vores opgave at diktere, hvilke værdier, de skal have i deres indenrigspolitik. Men derimod, at vi har meget reelle interesser, og at de også har meget reelle interesser.

Matthew Ogden: Det er 5. maj, 2017, og jeg er Matthew Ogden. Med mig i studiet i dag har vi Jason Ross, der i dag har gennemført et meget vigtigt interview, som vi vil vise nogle klip fra under aftenens udsendelse, med hr. William Binney, en meget betydningsfuld person. Jason Ross vil introducere ham senere i udsendelsen.

Men før vi kommer til det, så befinder vi os stadig i en nedtælling til konferencen om Kinas Bælt & Vej-initiativ, der starter ni dage fra i dag – 14. og 15. maj – i Beijing, Kina. Foreløbig har 28 statsoverhoveder meddelt, at de deltager i forummet, som Kinas præsident Xi Jinping vil være vært for. Vi ved, at Ruslands præsident Putin vil deltage som æresgæst. Og USA’s præsident Trump kan stadig nå at meddele, at, ikke alene vil han deltage i dette forum, men han vil også tage imod den invitation, Xi Jinping flere gange har overrakt ham, om, at USA tilslutter sig denne nye udvikling med Bælt & Vej-initiativet, eller den Nye Silkevej.

Lad mig gå direkte til sagen og fortælle jer, at der er en meget signifikant artikel, der blev udgivet i China Daily for blot et par timer siden. Det er en af de førende, kinesiske, engelsksprogede aviser i USA. Denne artikel har titlen, »Trump opfordret til at deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum«. Jeg viser artiklen på skærmen for jer; og I kan se, at dette er et interview med fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Hendes billede ses her i nederste hjørne, og artiklen indledes med det følgende:

»USA’s præsident Donald Trump bør deltage i det forestående Bælt & Vej Forum for internationalt samarbejde i Beijing, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifter af Schiller Instituttet, en politisk og økonomisk tænketank.« Artiklen fortsætter med at citere Helga LaRouche:

»’Det bedste ville være, hvis præsident Trump personligt ville deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing’, sagde Zepp-LaRouche i et interview til China Daily.

’Det næstbedste ville være endnu et personligt topmøde mellem ham og præsident Xi Jinping umiddelbart efter, i Kina’, sagde hun. [Det første var i Mar-a-Lago for et par uger siden.]

Zepp-LaRouche foreslog, at den økonomiske samarbejdsmekanisme, en af de fire søjler, der blev etableret under det første møde mellem de to ledere i Mar-a-Lago i Florida, kunne arbejde på konkrete forslag til gensidige investeringer, både bilateralt og i tredjelande, i sammenhæng med Bælt & Vej-initiativet …

Zepp-LaRouche sagde, USA må tilslutte sig initiativet, der har udviklet ’en gigantisk dynamik’ og er ’historiens største’ infrastrukturprogram.

’Kun, hvis USA går med i dette initiativ, vil der være en måde, hvorpå geopolitik, der har forårsaget to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, kan overvindes’, forklarede hun. ’Når de institutionelle kræfter i USA først indser, at det er mere i amerikansk industris, jobs’ og samfundets interesse generelt, end det er at stå uden for initiativet, kan en potentiel Thukydid-fælde, eller en krig over brændpunkter, undgås.’«

Artiklen fortsætter dernæst med at sige, »’Kinesisk samarbejde i opbygning af USA’s infrastrukturbehov ville være med til at forynge den amerikanske økonomi’, sagde hun.

’For de kinesiske og amerikanske nationaløkonomier er gensidigt komplementære’, og Zepp-LaRouche sagde, de gensidige investeringer på dramatisk vis kunne stige med samarbejdet inden for initiativet.

Et sådant win-win-samarbejde ville ikke være begrænset til bilaterale investeringer, men kunne helt naturligt føre til joint ventures stort set i hele verden, i betragtning af opsvinget for økonomiske forventninger, forårsaget af initiativet, tilføjede hun.«

 

Så dette er altså en signifikant artikel, der blev udgivet i dag i China Daily, og det sker i sammenhæng med denne nedtælling til Bælt & Vej-topmødet. Men det er vigtigt, at Helga Zepp-LaRouches ord samtidigt nu også bliver læst af de engelsktalende læsere i USA – læserne af China Daily, der er en meget læst publikation; og der har også været en meget signifikant udvikling fra udenrigsminister Rex Tillersons side. I en tale for Udenrigsministeriets personale for to dage siden, forklarer han virkelig, på en meget rolig, omfattende og klarhjernet måde, udenrigsminister Tillersons synspunkt og – må man antage – også præsident Trumps, om, hvordan udenrigspolitik vil blive ført af Trump-administrationen, med udsigten til samarbejde mellem USA, Kina og Rusland. I Tillersons tale foretog han en slags spadseretur rundt til hele verden; og han forklarede, hvad Trump-administrationens politik ville være i disse forskellige områder. Men han startede med at gøre noget meget signifikant, og han har virkelig fået en masse kritik fra nogle af den transatlantiske, atlanticist-presse, kunne man kalde det. The Atlantic havde faktisk en lang artikel, der angreb udenrigsminister Tillersons verdenssyn. Men det, han gjorde, var, at han, i meget klare vendinger, afviste den ’humanitære interventionisme’, der er blevet en del af amerikansk politik under både Bush’ og Obamas administration. Man kunne kalde dette for »Tony Blair-doktrinen«; Tony Blair forklarede, i en særdeles berygtet tale i slutningen af 1990’erne, verden efter tiden for den ’Westfalske Freds principper’. Dette blev Bush- og Obama-administrationens doktrin; at gennemtvinge såkaldte »amerikanske demokratiske værdier« over resten af verden, som et påskud for at gennemføre regimeskifte og ’farvede revolutioner’. Det blev til det, som Susan Rice og Samantha Powers gennemførte i FN, og det var i realiteten påskuddet for, eller ideologien bag, utallige operationer for regimeskifte og hemmeligt finansierede farvede revolutioner, der er blevet ført i hele verden i løbet af de seneste 10-15 år.

Det, udenrigsminister Tillerson sagde, er, at vi ikke længere vil bruge såkaldte »vestlige værdier« som påskud for vores udenrigspolitik. At vi selvfølgelig støtter menneskerettigheder og alle de vigtige værdier, som den Amerikanske Revolution blev udkæmpet for, og som findes indbygget i Uafhængighedserklæringen og USA’s Forfatning. Men, vi vil føre vores udenrigspolitik med den idé for øje, at vi har betydningsfulde partnerskaber, og at det ikke er vores opgave at diktere, hvilke værdier, de skal have i deres indenrigspolitik. Men derimod, at vi har meget reelle interesser, og at de også har meget reelle interesser.

(Udskriftet fortsætter på engelsk:)   

So, I’m going to play for you this short clip from the
beginning of Secretary Tillerson’s speech; and you’ll see that it
sets up a very important context in which, in a second clip which
I’ll introduce to you, he discusses the future and the hopeful
potential future of our relationship with China.  But first,
here’s the first clip from Secretary Tillerson’s speech:

[begin video]
SECRETARY REX TILLERSON:  Guiding all of our foreign policy
actions are our fundamental values.  Our values around freedom,
human dignity, the way people are treated.  Those are our values;
those are not our policies, they’re values.  The reason it’s
important I think to keep that well understood, is policies can
change; they do change, they should change.  Policies change to
adapt to the circumstances.  Our values never change; they’re
constant throughout all of this.
So, I think the real challenge many of us have is, [as] we
think about constructing our policies and carrying out our
policies, is how do we represent our values?  And in some
circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on
somewhat adopting our values, we probably can’t achieve our
national security goals or our national security interests.  If
we condition too heavily that others must adopt this value that
we’ve come to over a long history of our own, it really creates
obstacles to our ability to advance our national security
interests and our economic interests.  It doesn’t mean that we
leave those values on the sidelines.  It doesn’t mean that we
don’t advocate for and aspire to freedom, human dignity, and the
treatment of people the world over; we do.  We will always have
that on our shoulder everywhere we go.
But I think it’s really important that all of us understand
the difference between policy and values.  In some circumstances,
we should and do condition our policy engagements on people
adopting certain actions as to how they treat people; they
should.  We should demand that.  But that doesn’t mean that’s the
case in every situation.  So, we really have to understand in
each country, or each region of the world that we’re dealing
with, what are our national security interests?  What are our
economic prosperity interests?  Then, as we can advocate and
advance our values, we should; but the policies can do this.  The
values never change.
So, I would ask you to just, to the extent you could think
about that a little bit, I think it’s useful.  Because I know for
me, this is one of the most difficult areas as I’ve thought about
how to formulate policy. To advance all of these things
simultaneously is a real challenge.  I hear from government
leaders all over the world, “You just can’t demand that of us. We
can’t move that quickly, we can’t adapt that quickly.”  So, it’s
how do we advance our national security and economic interests;
and on this hand, our values are constant over here.
So, I give you that as kind of an overarching view of how I
think about the President’s approach of America First.
[end video]

OGDEN:  So, with that, Secretary Tillerson brought an end to
the Blair-Bush-Obama doctrine of color revolution, regime change,
and so-called “humanitarian interventionism.”  This is the
beginning of a new doctrine which is still being defined, but
coming out of the Trump administration foreign policy.
Now Secretary Tillerson did make very significant trip a few
weeks ago to China; where he met with Xi Jinping and other very
high-level officials.  And this was in the weeks preceding Xi
Jinping’s visit to the United States, where he had his bilateral
summit with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago.  It’s very
significant, as we count down the days between now and this forum
for the Belt and Road Initiative in Beijing, that there is a new
policy doctrine being formed in the Trump White House, in terms
of the relationship that the United States will have towards
China.  Obviously, none of this is yet determined, but there are
definite changes in process.
I’m going to play for you now another clip from Rex
Tillerson’s speech; where he begins by talking about the North
Korea situation, but as you’ll hear, he immediately brings up the
role that China and also Russia are playing in terms of
collaborating with the United States to resolve that situation
and also other situations around the world.  Then, you’ll hear
him get a little bit more into detail about what the potential
for a relationship between China and the United States over the
coming half century, as he discusses it, can become.

[begin video]
SECRETARY TILLERSON:  So, as all of you clearly understand,
when we came into the State Department, the administration came
in, was sworn in, and was immediately confronted with a serious
situation in North Korea.  In evaluating that, what was important
to us and to me to understand was, first, where are our allies.
So engaging with our allies and ensuring that we and our allies
see the situation the same.  Our allies in South Korea, our
allies in Japan.  Secondly, it was to engage with the other
regional powers as to how do they see it.  So, it was useful and
helpful to have the Chinese — and now the Russians — articulate
clearly that their policy is unchanged.  Their policy is a
denuclearized Korean peninsula.  Of course we did our part years
ago; we took all the nuclear weapons out of South Korea.  So now
we have a shared objective; and that’s very useful, from which
you then build out your policy approaches and your strategies.
So many people are saying, “Gee, this is just the same thing
we’ve tried over and over.  We’re going to put pressure on the
regime in Pyongyang; they’re not going to do anything, and then
in the end, we’ll all cave.”
Well the difference, I think, in our approach this time, is
we’re going to test this assumption.  When folks came in to
review the situation with me, the assumption was that China has
limited influence on the regime in Pyongyang, or they have a
limited willingness to assert their influence.  So, I told the
President, we’ve got to test that; and we’re going to test it by
leaning hard into them, and this is a good place to start our
engagement with China.  So, that’s what we’ve been doing, is
leaning hard into
China to test their willingness to use their influence,
their engagement with the regime of North Korea.  So, that’s
North Korea.
Then if I pivoted over to China, because it really took us
directly to our China foreign policy, we really had to assess
China’s situation — as I said — from the Nixon era up to where
we find things today.  We saw a bit of an inflection point with
the Beijing Olympics; those were enormously successful for China.
They kind of put China on the map, and China really began to feel
its oats about that time; and rightfully.  They have achieved a
lot.  They moved 500 million Chinese people out of poverty into
middle class status.  They’ve still a billion more that need to
move.  So, China has its own challenges, and we want to work with
them and be mindful of what they’re dealing with in the context
of our relationship.  Our relationship has to be one of
understanding that we have security interests throughout
Northeast Asia and security interests throughout the Pacific, and
we need to work with them on how those are addressed.  So, that
gets to the island building in the South China Sea, the
militarization of those islands, and obviously we have huge
trading issues to talk with them about.
So, we are using the entre of the visit in Mar-a-Lago, which
was heavy on some issues with North Korea, but also heavy on a
broader range of issues.  What we’ve asked the Chinese to do is,
we want to take a fresh look of where is this relationship going
to be 50 years from now?  Because I think we have an opportunity
to define that.  So, I know that there have been a lot of
dialogue areas that have been underway for the last several years
with China; we have asked China to narrow the dialogue areas and
elevate the participants to the decision-making level.  So, we
outlined four major dialogue areas with China; and we’ve asked
them to bring people who report directly to the decision maker,
which is President Xi.  So for the first time, we are seeking —
and it so far appears we will get — people at the Politburo
level and at much higher levels of the government in China to
participate in these dialogues, so we can reframe what we want
the relationship to be and begin to deal with some of the
problems and issues that have just been sort of sitting out there
stuck in neutral for a while.  It’s a much narrower — as we make
progress, those things will result in working groups where we can
get after solving these things.
We’re going to have the first meeting of the diplomatic and
security dialogue, which is chaired by myself and Secretary
Mattis with our counterparts here in Washington in June.  We’ve
put it up as kind of top priority.  The second one is economics
and trade, which is chaired by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and
Commerce Secretary Ross, and it’s well underway also.
So, that’s kind of the new approach we’re taking with China,
is elevate; let’s kind of revisit this relationship and what is
it going to be over the next half century.  I think it’s a
tremendous opportunity we have to define that.  And there seems
to be a great interest on the part of the Chinese leadership to
do that as well.  They feel we’re at a point of inflection also.
So, that’s China.
[end video]

OGDEN:  Let me just reiterate a couple of the points that
you heard Secretary Tillerson just make.  He said it’s time for
us to take a fresh look at where this relationship is going over
the next 50 years.  What will that relationship be 50 years from
now?  We have the opportunity to reframe what that relationship
will be, to revisit that relationship, and to examine what it’s
going to be over the next half century.  We have a tremendous
opportunity to do that, he said, and there’s great interest on
the part of the Chinese leadership to do that as well.  They feel
that we’re at a point of inflection.
Now, just because this is a significant point to always
include the role that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have played in
creating the vision, in laying out the vision which is really
creating the pathway forward for what is the future, in 2005,
Lyndon LaRouche published a book which was titled {Earth’s Next
Fifty Years}.  Not coincidentally, Mr. LaRouche’s point in this
book, which he presents in a very profound and philosophically
developed way, was that we’ve really reached the point where we
need to view the potential for a great powers relationship.
Between whom?  The United States, China, and Russia; and also
India, but most importantly this three-power relationship between
the United States, China, and Russia as a potential collaboration
to begin to envision a system of inter-relationship between
nations based on mutual benefit between those countries.  And the
development of the planet through — and he lays this out in
detail in this book — the Eurasian Land-Bridge, or the New Silk
Road as he calls it, has the potential to bring mankind into a
new mode of history.  A new chapter of history where wars are
something of the past; great wars are no longer fought between
countries over narrow national interests.  In fact, the mutual
benefit of these great projects, which are represented by what
China is now doing, is the potential for peaceful coexistence
between all cultures; a dialogue between civilizations, and as
the opportunity to pave the road towards a new chapter of human
history.
So again, this was {Earth’s Next Fifty Years}; this was
published in 2005 by Lyndon LaRouche.  So, it’s the ability to
envision what the future must become which creates the
opportunity for competent and clear-minded leadership.  I think
you saw in a very real way the influence of that on what you’re
now seeing at least in an exploratory way from the U.S. State
Department and Secretary Tillerson.  What he also brought up
which is very important, is that China has succeeded in lifting
500 million people out of poverty in just a very short amount of
time; through great projects and investment into their own
population.  That’s half a billion people.
What Helga Zepp-LaRouche had to say earlier, when we were
speaking to her and Mr. LaRouche, is that we have to continue to
beat the drum in terms of President Trump reciprocating what has
been offered by President Xi Jinping in terms of the United
States participating in this New Silk Road dynamic.  This is the
logical and obvious answer to President Trump’s question:  How
are we going to spend $1 trillion in the United States on
developing the infrastructure and putting people back to work
with real skilled, productive, high-paying manufacturing jobs?
Well it must be done in collaboration with China.  There’s no way
that can be done without reciprocating Xi Jinping’s offer to join
this New Silk Road dynamic.
So, I’m going to remind people that about a month or two
ago, the LaRouche Political Action Committee issued a pamphlet.
I’m going to display that on the screen for you right now.  It
was titled “America’s Future on the New Silk Road.”  So, you can
see the cover of that pamphlet right here.  The subtitle is
“LaRouche’s Four Laws: the Physical Economic Principles for the
Recovery of the United States.”  You can see in the Table of
Contents what this pamphlet includes.  So, there’s an
introduction, which is called “A New Era for Mankind”; then you
have Lyndon LaRouche’s document, the “Four New Laws to Save the
United States Now.”  Then you have four chapters which elaborate
each of those four points.  One is, restore Glass-Steagall; this
is a fight we’re really in the midst of right now, and it’s
coming to a head.  Two, a new Hamiltonian national bank.  Three,
credit for increased productivity; and four, a crash program for
fusion and space.
That pamphlet has several full-spread maps included in it;
and I’m going to just show you a few of those. [pages 4-5] First
you have “China’s New Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative:
First Steps towards the World Land-Bridge” And this sort of shows
what the elements of the Belt and Road Initiative as it exists
right now are across Eurasia.  It includes the
China-Mongolia-Russia corridor, the China-Pakistan corridor, the
New Eurasian Land-Bridge, the China-Indochina corridor, the
Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) corridor, the Maritime Silk
Road, including ports and shipping lanes and so forth; and then
also China-Central and West Asia.
So those are the projects, as Helga LaRouche called it, the
biggest infrastructure project in human history, that’s what is
now on the table.  And those are the heads of state and
government that are going to be attending this summit in Beijing
next weekend.  This affects the entirety of the populations of
this area of the world.  So that’s what exists now.
If the United States wished to join this, there are several
very concrete projects which could be included: This map [pages
8-9] is titled “U.S.A. Joins the New Silk Road: An International
Recovery, Working with China To Build America.” Very
significantly, high-speed rail and magnetic levitation — look at
what China has done with high-speed rail development in China,
and compare that with the pathetic state of rail in the United
States.  It also includes reviving our industrial corridors, the
so-called “rust belt” development corridors, which include not
only transportation but also energy development and so forth.
Along those development corridors, you could have new cities.
It’s called “New Renaissance Cities,” because the cities have to
be centers of culture and education and art, and science and
research. And then very importantly, the Bering Strait
connection.  So as we develop the high-speed rail in North
America, it can connect to what’s being built in Eurasia.
And then finally, the third full-spread map in that pamphlet
[pages 20-21], is called, “The Full World Land-Bridge:  Expanding
China’s New Silk Road, A Global Infrastructure Economic
Platform.”  And these are some other projects which are sort of
third-party projects, which the United States and China could be
working together on for the benefit of other areas of the world:
Very importantly, a new Marshall Plan for the Middle East, this
is how we should resolve the crisis in Syria and Libya and Iraq.
In South America, a new inter-oceanic canal:  This is on the
books through Nicaragua.  Also a South American transcontinental
railroad.  The canal through the Isthmus of Kra, in Thailand, we
had a special presentation on that just a few weeks ago; this is
really moving forward, the Kra Canal.  Refilling Lake Chad with
the Transaqua Project.  This is one of the most important
projects for the future of Africa; and then also in Africa, a
Europe-Strait of Gibraltar tunnel.
So that’s the pamphlet, “America’s Future on the New Silk
Road” and it’s available on the LaRouche PAC website, and this is
something which we should be coming back to right now.  It’s very
important.
But as Helga LaRouche said, in our discussion, we have not
yet reached the point of safety:  We are still in the danger
zone.  There are so many hotspots which could blow up around the
world, and there continues to be a very real attempt, from the
British Empire and from their allies inside the United States to
undermine and to destabilize the Trump administration for the
very reason that you saw Secretary Tillerson state — we are no
longer going to be the country which is the “dumb giant”
implementing British Empire, divide-and-conquer policies in the
world.  No longer East against West, but we are going to seek
dialogue and we are going to seek cooperation with these
countries.
So I think with that said, it sets up, I think, what we’re
going to discuss with Jason and I’d like to just let Jason pick
it up from there.

Jason ROSS: These projects you’ve discussed, this is
something that can transformed mankind, like going to the Moon.
This is that kind of scale of change, in relations among people.
Ever since Trump was elected, there has been an ongoing attack
against him of people whom you’d think had lost their minds, or
you were having a bad dream, except that it’s really happening;
people who are repeatedly saying, they’re not attacking trumps
policies per se, — that happens too, of course, but what I’m
talking about is the drumbeat about “Russia, Russia! {Russia,
Russia! Russia!}”  People saying that “Russia elected Donald
Trump.” That “Russia hacked the Democratic Party,” “Russia hacked
John Podesta, Russia hired internet trolls; Russia has
compromising blackmail material on Donald Trump — Russia,
Russia, Russia!”  “Russia caused Democratic candidates to shy
away from the TPP.”  It’s just complete nonsense!
Now, this is being done for two reasons.  One as an attempt
to delegitimize and throw Trump’s administration out entirely,
or, failing that, attempt to box him into an anti-Russia
provocative type of policy, to show that he’s not a shill or a
stooge for the “man who’s directing the entire world, Vladimir
Putin,” if you would listen to some people on MSNBC or other
places.
So today I had the wonderful chance to speak with William
Binney about this.  Bill Binney was a covert, three-decade
employee at the NSA.  He resigned in 2001 as a top-level
executive there; he resigned over the fact that safeguards
against spying on American citizens were being overlooked, and
that a setup was being made to allow a totalitarian, and as he
put it, “an Orwellian state.”
So, let’s just go ahead and jump right in to hear what Bill
Binney has to say about whether Vladimir Putin runs the whole
world.

[begin video]
JASON ROSS: Let me ask you, Mr. Binney: What do you think
about these claims. Did Russian hackers elect Donald Trump?

WILLIAM BINNEY:  I wrote an article that was published in
{Consortiumnews} on Dec. 12th of last year, that said this was
all a big fabrication, simply because they weren’t saying exactly
where the hack came from, and where the data out of the hack went
to!  I mean, that’s the whole point of what NSA has set up, in
terms of copying and collecting everything in a fiber network
inside the United States, and virtually everything in the world
on those fibers.
So that means — and they’ve got trace route programs by the
hundreds, scattered all over the world.  That means that they can
follow the [data] packets as they move through the network.  Now,
if somebody hacks into the DNC or Hillary or Podesta’s email or
something, and they want to find out who it is, all they have to
do is use the IP address with XKeyscore as Edward Snowden said,
and they’ve got all the data to find out where the packets went!
But they haven’t done that, you see.  And even NSA who’s the only
one that can do this — the rest of them are meaningless — if
NSA says they’ve got data on it, then it’s meaningful.  If the
rest say that we have high confidence, that’s just pure
speculation. And it’s something that’s just pure garbage, that
doesn’t mean anything.  Produce the evidence, they haven’t
produced any at all, so that’s what I called it back in December
of last year.
[end video]

ROSS: Well, that’s a pretty straightforward response on
that, isn’t it?  Let’s take up now the topic of the control over
the domestic political apparatus that’s exerted by an
uncontrolled intelligence apparatus that collects material on
everybody.

[begin video]
ROSS:  More recently about a little over a month ago you
co-authored an article with Ray McGovern in which you wrote about
Trump’s response to this, that “his choice may decide whether
there is a future for this constitutional republic. Either Trump
can acquiesce to or fight against a deep state of intelligence
officials who have a myriad of ways to spy on politicians and
other citizens.  And thus amass derogatory materials that can be
easily transformed into blackmail.”
[https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/28/the-surveillance-state
-behind-russia-gate/]
That’s a strong claim.  Tell us, how do you see the Trump
response to this attack on elected government?  And what should
ordinary people do, to prevent such a policy coup?

BINNEY:  Well, first of all, I think President Trump
realizes what’s been going on. A recent statement he made about,
“there’s an awful lot of spying going on on U.S. citizens and we
really don’t know the extent of it, and we really have to find
out what the heck”  — he used the word “hell” — “what the hell
is going on.”  Well, that means they’re even keeping him in the
dark.
Now, as the President of the United States, he’s supposed to
know all the sources of information that the intelligence
community is using to produce intelligence for him, and he
obviously doesn’t know about this.  But I’ve made it perfectly
clear that the “Fairview program, Stormbrew programs, and Blarney
programs* for the tapping of fiber networks inside the United
States are the sources of information on everybody in the United
States, including representatives in the House and Senate; you
know, even judges on the Supreme Court, Generals on the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, all Federal judges, all senior lawyer firms all
around, and all the journalists and everything; all that stuff is
being captured and stored.
And what they’re not talking about is, I’ve seen some
arguments where they said, “well, as long as we’re only using it
for intelligence and law enforcement isn’t involved, you know,
it’s OK for us to do that.” That was the argument I think that
Judge Napolitano put forward, that they were using with the FISA
Court to dupe them into doing what they want.
And that’s really what’s happened: They’ve been duped, and
so have the Congress, most of Congress. I mean the Intelligence
Committees I think were more aware of what was going on than the
rest of Congress.  But they duped the rest of Congress!  They
made them all just play along like a bunch of sheep, “here’s
bell, follow the bell,” you know?  So our democracy basically
doesn’t really exist the way it was originally intended.  And the
law enforcement, FBI, DEA, and others in the law enforcement
community had direct access into the NSA data — they’ve had it
all along! Director Mueller at the FBI said he’d been using the
Stellar Wind, which is the domestic spying data, since 2001, he’d
been using that, so; and that’s direct access through their
technology data center in Quantico, Virginia into the NSA data
bases where they could look all the content and metadata of
everybody in the country! And they could retroactively research
them any time they want.
And they’re using it to arrest people for common crime
inside the United States.  so, I mean, this is simply a
destruction of the entire judicial process in our country and
it’s a fundamental violation of the constitutional rights.  And
they’ve scrapped the Constitution, fundamentally.
I mean, that’s why I said, when the Iraqis were struggling
to put together a Constitution, I said, “well, why don’t we give
’em ours, we’re not using it.” [laughter]
[end video]

ROSS:  The discussion continued; we covered a lot of topics.
The interview will be available tonight for you who are
subscribing to our audio podcast, it’ll be up this weekend on the
website.
The other aspect to take from it, is, as he said in that
article that he co-wrote with Ray McGovern, this is not something
that will go away.  Unless this apparatus is taken on and
removed, cleaned out, this ongoing cloud of blackmail potential
and political coercion that exists above the level of elected
government will continue putting pressure to oppose the kinds of
developments that we saw with what Tillerson put out, and with
the pamphlet that Matt just went through.  So it’s not a fight
that will go away.  This isn’t something that will simmer down
and go cold on its own.  It’s a fight that’s got to be won.

OGDEN:  Absolutely.  It’s heating up right now.  It’s
definitely not going away. Just earlier this afternoon, Sen. Rand
Paul  sent out a tweet, where he said, “I have formally requested
from the White House and the Intelligence Committees, info on
whether I was surveilled by the Obama administration or the
intelligence community.” So, to the extent that people are trying
to write off the claim from the Trump White House that, in fact,
Trump was wire-tapped or surveilled by the Obama administration,
now Sen. Rand Paul is asking the same question.  He went on to
say, “Did the Obama administration go after Presidential
candidates, members of Congress, journalists, clergy, lawyers,
federal judges? Did the Obama administration use warrantless
`wiretapping'” — in quotes — “on other candidates besides
Donald Trump?”
So, this is a real question. This makes Watergate seem pale
in comparison.

ROSS:  And some of the other specifics that have come out
about this. There’s the report that Susan Rice was the person,
Obama’s National Security Advisor, who outed Michael Flynn, or
who made an “unmasking” request to get from the recorded calls
with the Russian diplomat that, oh, that the person he was
speaking with was Gen. Michael Flynn.
So you don’t get much higher level in the political and
intelligence world than Mike Flynn, and if even his conversations
are being listened to and unmasked in this way, you know, who
isn’t?  Are the members of the intelligence community, are they
being blackmailed in this way?  This is the sort of thing that
you say, what would Hoover have been doing if he all of these
tools at his disposal?
And the numbers back it up:  A report just was released that
there were almost 2,000 incidents of unmasking of American
citizens, whose identities and communications were collected in a
foreign or other intelligence collection process, that the Obama
administration made that there were almost 2,000 requests to
unmask and find out who were the Americans involved in these
conversations.

OGDEN:  And this continues to go back to the question of the
role that British intelligence is playing, and obviously now it’s
been publicly admitted that, in fact it was GCHQ that was
conducting the surveillance and channeling all of this
intelligence into the U.S. because it’s illegal under U.S. law to
spy on your own citizens — so just ask the British to do it!
And vice versa.
So, this continues to be the persisting question.  And the
point that has to be asked, and this is the question:  Will
Donald Trump recognize that this the true face of the enemy, and
that the British Empire have been attempting to stonewall and
bulldoze the United States into becoming their “dumb giant,” in
their attempts to set the world against itself and to continue to
manipulate the international politics through this geopolitical
model which they’ve been using since the end of World War II; or,
will we say this is the end of that so-called British-U.S.
“special relationship” and now is the time that we are going to
initiate a New Paradigm of international relations.
So I think that question gains more relevance as we look at
this speech that we played earlier today from Secretary
Tillerson, where he really did bring an end to this Blair
doctrine of using so-called “Western values” as the pretext for
regime change and color revolutions, and we see a potential for a
new relationship between the United States and China, new
relationship between the United States and Russia, and a new
attitude in terms of what our goals are in terms of our
relationships with the rest of the world?
So it’s a war which continues, and this interview that you
conducted today, Jason, with William Binney is an important tool
for people to use.  So I think people can watch the website for
that to come out, and as you said, it will be available to
podcast subscribers tonight in audio form.
So let’s wrap up today’s broadcast by saying that we are
nine days away from the opening of this Beijing conference.  This
begins one week from Sunday: The heads of state and government
will be arriving a week from today, a week from tomorrow in
Beijing.  I guarantee you that the accommodations can be made for
President Trump to attend that summit if he so makes the decision
in the next few days.  And as Helga LaRouche said, even if that
doesn’t occur, the next best option would be for another
bilateral summit between President Trump and President Xi in the
days and weeks following the Belt and Road Initiative summit.
So we have that to look forward to, and over the coming
days, we ask you to stay tuned to larouchepac.com, and continue
to do what you can do, to educate the U.S. population about the
possibility of what would be our opportunities, were we to join
this Belt and Road Initiative. That pamphlet that I gave you a
guided tour of is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  We’ll
make that available as a link
[https://larouchepac.com/20170225/four-laws-pamphlet]  in the
description of this video here today. And also you can watch the
full speech from Secretary Tillerson that’s available on YouTube
and we’ll make that link available as well.
[https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/05/270620.htm]
So thank you very much for joining us, and please stay tuned
to the LaRouche PAC website and the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel
for the full interview with William Binney, you can find the
interview that Helga Zepp-LaRouche conducted with {China Daily}
on their website [http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2017-05/05
/content_29219579.htm]
— chinadaily.cn and that link is also provided in the
description of this video.
So thank you very much. Thank you Jason for joining me here
today, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
                         

 




Vi befinder os midt i en kamp for USA’s sjæl.
»Hvorhen, USA:
Ny Silkevej, eller Atomkrig?«
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
28. april, 2017

Vi befinder os midt i en kamp for USA’s sjæl, for det amerikanske præsidentskabs sjæl. Vi ser denne kamp blive mere intens over spørgsmålet, »Hvorhen, USA?«, med den titel, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav den nylige Schiller Institut-konference i New York City – »Hvorhen, USA: Ny Silkevej, eller Atomkrig?«. Der er i løbet af den seneste måned, siden det meget ukloge angreb, som Trump-administrationen beordrede mod Syrien, sket det, at det er kommet offentligt frem, at der rent faktisk finder et britiskanført kup sted i USA imod Trump-administrationen. Indholdet er de løgne, de fabrikerede efterretninger, der er kommet fra britisk efterretning og er blevet bulldozet hen over præsident Trump; meget på samme måde, som Tony Blair brugte løgnene om maseødelæggelsesvåben i 2003 for at bringe USA ind i Irakkrigen.

Vi må bruge det bedste fra alle kulturer og skabe en virkelig universel renæssance!

Vært Matthew Ogden: God aften; det er 28. april, 2017; jeg er Matthew Ogden; velkommen til vores LPAC webcast fredag aften, her på larouchepac.com. Med os i studiet i dag har vi en særlig gæst, Mike Billington fra Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), som vi har inviteret i dag pga. af den aktuelle, strategiske situations ekstraordinære natur.

Vi står naturligvis blot to uger fra det meget betydningsfulde Bælt & Vej-topmøde, der finder sted i Beijing, Kina, den 14. og 15. maj; og det er altså præcis to uger fra i morgen. Flere dusin statsoverhoveder fra lande i hele verden har bekræftet deres deltagelse. Som vi har rapporteret, så er den russiske præsident Putin inviteret som æresgæst til at deltage i Bælt & Vej-topmødet. Vi fortsætter vores kampagne for at opfordre præsident Donald Trump til at deltage i dette topmøde, som særlig gæst; og for at bruge det som hans mulighed for at gengælde præsident Xi Jinpings tilbud om, at USA kan gå med i det nye paradigme for udvikling og fred, som repræsenteres af Bælt & Vej, eller den Nye Silkevej.

Vi befinder os midt i en kamp for USA’s sjæl, for det amerikanske præsidentskabs sjæl. Vi ser denne kamp blive mere intens over spørgsmålet, »Hvorhen, USA?«, med den titel, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav den nylige Schiller Institut-konference i New York City – »Hvorhen, USA: Ny Silkevej, eller Atomkrig?«. Der er i løbet af den seneste måned, siden det meget ukloge angreb, som Trump-administrationen beordrede mod Syrien, sket det, at det er kommet offentligt frem, at der rent faktisk finder et britiskanført kup sted i USA imod Trump-administrationen. Indholdet er de løgne, de fabrikerede efterretninger, der er kommet fra britisk efterretning og er blevet bulldozet hen over præsident Trump; meget på samme måde, som Tony Blair brugte løgnene om maseødelæggelsesvåben i 2003 for at bringe USA ind i Irakkrigen.

Men dette var ikke et enestående tilfælde for Irak i 2003, eller for Syrien i 2017. Dette er den måde, hvorpå briterne har spillet deres imperiespil i det ene årti efter det andet; de har brugt USA som deres dumme kæmpe, med det formål, fortsat at holde verden opdelt. Denne del-og-hersk-strategi har været en britisk imperiestrategi i århundreder, og tiden er inde til, at USA bliver intelligent og siger, »Det er slut! Vi vil ikke lade os bruge på denne måde; og vi vil tage imod det Nye Paradigme med ’win-win’-samarbejde«. Briterne og deres rejsekammerater i USA har sandelig været meget ligefremme i deres forsøg på at destabilisere og vælte Trump-administrationen, fordi de var meget bange for, at han ville gennemføre, hvad han har sagt. Ikke flere regimeskift; ikke flere imperialistiske krige, og vi vil samarbejde med Rusland og med Kina. Det sidste var lidt mere komplekst, men det om Rusland var meget klart. Men som vi ved, så har præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping fra Kina, siden topmødet med præsident Xi, haft meget tætte, personlige relationer og har regelmæssigt haft samtaler. Denne kommunikationskanal er afgørende, især med det brændpunkt, som nu er vokset frem direkte på Kinas grænse, i tilfældet Nordkorea.

Vi vil bruge tilfældet Nordkorea som en case study, men i sammenhæng med denne meget bredere opfattelse af opgøret over, hvilket system, der i fremtiden vil styre verden: det imperialistiske del-og-hersk, eller et nyt ’win-win’-paradigme for fred og udvikling. I denne sammenhæng har vores gæst her i dag, Mike Billington, netop udgivet en ny artikel, som er en meget vigtig artikel, I bør læse . Den er meget klar. Den har den provokerende titel og stiller spørgsmålet, »Hvorfor er Korea ikke allerede genforenet?«.

(Artiklen findes i EIR’s seneste nummer, men er kun tilgængelig for abonnenter. Andre artikler kan læses gratis – se knappen EIR på vores hjemmeside. Du kan henvende dig til vores kontor mht. at tegne abonnement på EIR, tlf. 35 43 00 33 – red.) 

Hermed giver jeg ordet til Mike og lader ham gennemgå lidt af indholdet, de aktuelle udviklinger, og så spørgsmålet, som han fremlægger i sin artikel:

(engelsk):

MICHAEL BILLINGTON:  Thank you, Matt.  In fact, the purpose
of this article was to show that the answer to that question is
that there is {no} legitimate reason that Korea is not peaceful
and at least on the way to reunification already.  I’ll review
some of that material here.  But let me start.  There were some
extraordinary developments today; so let me give a short update
on the crisis.  It has to be noted that this is a very serious
crisis, in the sense that were something like what happened with
Syria, where Trump was — as Matthew said — lied to coerced into
carrying out an attack against Syria for absolutely no reason; on
totally false intelligence.  Were that to happen in Korea, this
would not be like an attack on an airbase in Syria.  This would
lead to a total disaster throughout all of East Asia and perhaps
even global nuclear war.  Whether or not they could take out
North Korea’s nuclear capacities, North Korea — as I’m sure
people know, because it’s all over the press — they have massive
conventional capacity.  Their armaments lie a total of 30 miles
from the capital [of South Korea] Seoul, this beautiful,
developed, advanced city; which could be just absolutely wiped
out if there were a war.  And they could possibly attack even
Japan, let alone US bases within South Korea; so this would be a
move of insanity.  The Japanese and the South Koreans know this
very well.  I should point out that our friends in South Korea
note that there is no panic in South Korea; because they’ve been
through these kinds of things before, and they simply assume that
nobody is crazy enough to launch a preemptive attack on North
Korea.
But, because of what happened in Syria, a lot of people —
including all of us — were very concerned that the British might
pull off another stunt and get Trump to go with this.  What
happened today is extremely important.  Trump himself did an
interview with Reuters, in which he said on North Korea, “We’d
love to solve things diplomatically, but it’s very difficult.
But Xi Jinping is playing a crucial role in this.  I believe he’s
trying very hard.  I know he would like to be able to do
something.  Perhaps it’s possible that he can’t, but I think he’d
like to be able to do something.”  Then, most extraordinarily, he
said about Kim Jung-Un, the leader in North Korea and grandson of
the founder of North Korea, Kim Il-Sung, he said, “He’s 27 years
old.  His father dies; he took over a regime.  So, say what you
want, that’s not easy; especially at that age.  Now I’m not
giving him credit, or not giving him credit.  I’m just saying
it’s a very hard thing to do.  As to whether or not he’s
rational, I have no opinion, but I hope he’s rational.”  So, this
is useful.  He then returned again to the fact that he has very
good personal relations with Xi Jinping: “I feel that he’s doing
everything in his power to help us with a big situation.  I
wouldn’t want to be causing difficulty right now for him; and I
certainly would want to speak to him first before taking any
action.”  Very useful.
Then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who chaired a meeting
at the UN Security Council this morning of ministers, taking the
place of that wacky lady we have in there right now speaking for
the US too often.  But Tillerson was not wacky; not at all.  He
was very clear in his presentation to the UN Security Council.
He said, “For too long, the international community has been
reactive in addressing North Korea.  Those days must come to an
end.  Failing to act now on the most pressing security issue in
the world may bring catastrophic consequences.”  Now, what does
he mean to act now?  The press headlines all over the world are
“Trump and Tillerson Are Threatening War on North Korea; They
Want To Act Now.  It’s the End of Strategic Patience”, which was
the policy of Obama.  But keep in mind, “strategic patience” was
not being patient; it was saying “We will not talk to North
Korea.  We refuse to talk to North Korea; we simply sit back and
constantly increase the sanctions, increase the military build-up
around their border until they do what we say.”  Which, of
course, they won’t do as long as they’re being threatened.
So, the question is, what does it mean to act now?  Does it
not mean, let’s get back to talks, let’s negotiate.  What the
President said about Kim Jung-Un is a very serious comment.
Here’s somebody who’s in a difficult position.
Then, Tillerson said the following: “Our goal is not regime
change.  Nor do we desire to threaten the North Korean people, or
destabilize the Asia-Pacific region.  Since 1995, the US has
provided $1.3 billion in aid to North Korea; and we look forward
to resuming our contributions once the country dismantles its
weapons program.”  Now that 1995 is a reference to something
called the Agreed Framework, which I’m going to mention when I go
through some of the history on this.
Even more powerful, Tillerson — in an interview with NPR
before he went into the UN Security Council — said the
following:  “You know, if you listen to the North Koreans, their
reason for having nuclear weapons is that they believe it is
their only pathway to secure the ongoing existence of their
regime.  We hope to convince them that you do not these weapons
to secure the existence of your regime.  We do not seek a
collapse of the regime.  We do seek an accelerated reunification
of the peninsula; we seek a de-nuclearized peninsula, and China
shares this goal with us.”
Now these are very positive steps; and they refute the
British headlines and the {Washington Post} and {New York Times}
headlines that say “Get ready. We’re going to have a war in
Korea.”  So, this I think is extremely important.  Let me go
through a bit, some of the history of this; because even in my
reviewing to write this article, I was a bit astonished at how
close we were, twice before, to having a peaceful relationship in
the Korean peninsula and potentially even being reunified or
being on the course to reunification.
The key point, I think, is that the British assets in the
White House over the last 16 years — Bush and Cheney, and then
Obama, who served the British purpose of keeping the world
divided East and West, as Matthew was pointing out.  The key to
doing that was making sure the US did not have good relations
with Russia, and making sure the US did not have good relations
with China.  They used the South China Sea, they used Ukraine,
they used Syria; all of these really had nothing to do with the
South China Sea or Ukraine or Syria.  They had to do with
preventing any potential for the US and Russia to work together,
and the US and China to work together.  This is empire; that’s
the way empire works to keep the world divided, especially the
East-West divide.
Let’s go back to what Tillerson was referring to in 1995.
What happened was that the North Koreans were part of the UN
Non-Proliferation Treaty and non-nuclear development agreements;
that they wouldn’t develop nuclear weapons.  Then in the early
’90s, the IAEA — the International Atomic Energy Agency —
believed that they were using small test reactor at Yongbyon.  It
was a graphite-moderated reactor which produces plutonium as a
side-product of producing energy.  So, they believed that they
were hiding the plutonium being produced at the Yongbyon plant
and using it produce weapons.  This led to a very serious crisis.
The Clinton administration and their Defense Secretary at the
time, William Perry — and I’ll mention Perry a couple of times
here — were very seriously considering a strategic take-out of
the Yongbyon plant.  Would that have been as serious as now?  I
don’t think so, but it would have been very serious.  What
happened is quite interesting.  Former President Jimmy Carter
went to North Korea — supposedly on his own; I’m sure this was
very carefully worked out with President Clinton.  But he went on
his own; he met with Kim Il-Sung who was still alive at that
time, the original head of North Korea.  Out of that meeting,
[they] came to an agreement that they would, through
negotiations, come up with an agreement to solve the crisis;
which they did.  It was called the Agreed Framework of 1994.
This was quite extraordinary.  The North Koreans agreed to
dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear plant and to stop construction on
two other plants that also were graphite and could produce
plutonium.  In exchange, the US built a nuclear plant for North
Korea.  The US and the South Koreans were, and they began — they
didn’t get very far — to build a large 1000-megawatt nuclear
plant; but it was going to be a light water reactor that didn’t
produce fuel for nuclear weapons.  It was a safer form of a
nuclear plant.  In the meantime, they did provide oil, until they
got the nuclear plant going, for heating.
They agreed to start negotiations toward a peace agreement.
The US and North Korea are officially still at war.  After the
Korean War, there was not a peace agreement, but just an
armistice to stop the fighting.  Officially, there is no peace
agreement; we do not have normal relations with North Korea.
We’re actually in a state of war with North Korea.  Clearly, the
North Koreans want to have a normal relationship with the US, not
to be constantly threatened.  It was agreed that that would
happen.  This was moving forward quite well; it was slow, there
were problems.  The US didn’t live up to all its agreements; but
it was moving forward.
Then, extremely importantly, in 1998, Kim Dae-jung was
elected President of South Korea.  Kim Dae-jung was a very
interesting character; he had been a very strong opponent of the
military regimes in South Korea.  He had been thrown in jail
several times, and there was a point where he was about to be
executed; the US intervened and saved his life at that time.  By
1998 things had changed; there was more of a move towards getting
away from military regimes.  They weren’t exactly dictatorships;
they were elected, but they were military regimes.  Kim Dae-jung
was elected.  He immediately began to not only democratize
domestic policies, but he set up something called the Sunshine
Policy, which was we will work with North Korea on development;
on opening up economic collaboration as the basis over the long
term to establish peace between us and long-term reunification.
So, Kim Dae-jung was in power.  William Perry, the Defense
Secretary — he had left being Defense Secretary by that time —
but in a recent article on his history in all of this, said that
towards the end of the Clinton administration, they were working
to take that agreement even further.  To have the North basically
swear that they were giving up all weapons programs, in exchange
for having a peace agreement and setting up normal relations
between the two countries.  It was so close that they had
actually planned a Presidential visit to North Korea; that
Clinton would visit North Korea.
Unfortunately, as William Perry points out, the Clinton
administration ran out; and Bush and Cheney came in.  You may
remember that the Defense Secretary under Bush and Cheney was
Colin Powell, a general; a fairly wise gentleman.  He, in his
first press conference, said we intend to engage with North
Korea, and pick up where Clinton left off.  Very important.  The
{next day}, Bush — with Cheney behind him and Paul Wolfowitz
around — said “There will be no engagement with North Korea.
They’re a dictatorship.”  Sounds familiar, right?  Dictators.
“We will not talk to them.  There will be no engagement.”  And
Colin Powell was basically put in his place, and the whole
process began to fall apart; at least in terms of the US working,
collaborating, and playing a key role in collaboration with North
and South Korea, and Russia and China and Japan.
In any case, Kim Dae-jung and the others — Russia, China,
Japan, North Korea, South Korea — continued the process.  They
basically said OK, that’s what Bush and Cheney are saying; but
this is the future lives of our country and really of the world.
They moved forward.  Kim Dae-jung, by 2002, was successful in
setting up an extraordinary process.  I should mention here that
Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas through that period — 2000-2002 — were
all over South Korea.  One of our members, Kathy Wolfe, was going
back and forth; she was meeting with people in the government,
around the government, cultural people in South Korea.  You may
remember that 1992 was when Lyndon LaRouche first came up with
the idea at the time of the fall of Soviet Union, that we should
build a New Silk Road; we should have a Silk Road which would
bridge Europe, Russia, China, and bring them together around a
development process by building the New Silk Road — what the
Chinese called the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
So, Kim Dae-jung, the South Korean President, built a
process he called the Iron Silk Road.  I can assure you there was
an influence there; that term didn’t come out of nowhere.
LaRouche had always said that the New Silk Road should go from
Busan to Rotterdam.  Busan is at the southern tip of South Korea.
In other words, it had to go through North Korea, through Russia,
and also through China into Europe.  So, this idea of the Iron
Silk Road was taking shape.  It was taking shape so much — put
that first map on [Fig. 1].  This is the map.  The plan was to
reconstruct two rail lines from South Korea into North Korea,
which of course had been shut down.  There was an armed
Demilitarized Zone [DMZ] with fences on either side; and a no
man’s land in between.  The idea was to build rail connections as
you can see on the map.  One of them going through the West, that
would go up through Pyongyang and then into China.  One that
would head out towards the West and go up towards Russia into
Vladivostok and hit the trans-Siberian railway in both
directions, actually.
Indeed, they began this process.  Kim Dae-jung went to the
North and met with Kim Jong-Il, who was the son of Kim Il-Sung;
who was in power.  Kim Il-Sung literally died the year they
signed the Agreed Framework; but his son continued it.  They made
this process; they built this process up.  By 2002, they
literally opened up the Demilitarized Zone fences in both of
those spots.  Both the North-South and the [inaud; 21:43]; they
cut the DMZ fences.  Soldiers from both the North and South went
into the DMZ and began clearing the mines that were all over the
place in the DMZ.  They reconstructed the rail line between the
two countries.  In 2002 [Fig. 2] you had the extraordinary event
of a railroad going across the DMZ; going from South Korea into
North Korea.  Symbolic, because there had to be a lot of
construction on the rail lines to make them connect all the way
through.  But as you can see here, they had a big banner in the
front; the Reunification of the Koreas.  This was an
extraordinary event, which we reported in {EIR} at some length;
these pictures were in those articles back in 2002.
It wasn’t just the railroads.  At the same time, Kim
Dae-jung began an industrial park in North Korea — the Kaesong
Industrial Park.  This was across the border in North Korea with
South Korean companies setting up factories in the North with
North Korean labor.  This grew to the point where recently there
were 123 South Korean companies working in the North.  This was
obviously in the direction of setting up collaboration between
the South Korean industry and the skilled but very poor workforce
in the North.  So, this was proceeding forward.
They also set up six party talks.  You’ve probably heard of
the Six Party Talks.  This was where Russia, China, Japan, North
and South Korea, and the United States began a series of talks to
try to regroup from the failure, the collapse, the shutdown by
Bush and Cheney of the Agreed Framework.  These meetings began.
I won’t go through the details of what happened; it’s tedious,
because every opportunity that Bush and Cheney had to say that
the North Koreans were cheating, the North Koreans are lying; you
can’t trust these vicious dictators.  Every opportunity they had
to sabotage forward direction; there were some positive
agreements made.  If you read the history of it from the US
press, it’ll say the North Koreans reneged.  Well, it wasn’t that
way.  It was sabotage by Bush and Cheney every chance they got.
It went into the Obama administration and Obama continued
sabotaging it every chance he got.
So eventually, these fell apart under Obama.  Obama then
began this so-called “strategic patience”; which meant no talks,
build up your military, impose sanctions.  They might have said
that the purpose was that they expected the North Korean regime
to collapse; but that wasn’t it at all.  Bush and Cheney and
Obama {wanted} North Korea to build nuclear weapons.  Now why
would somebody be so insane as to want North Korea to have
nuclear weapons?  First of all, they knew that they wouldn’t use
them, or they’d be blown off the face of the map.   William
Perry, in his recent article, said the North Korean regime is
reckless, but they’re not crazy; they’re not suicidal.  If they
were to use a nuclear weapon preemptively, they know that the
country would be obliterated overnight and their leadership
entirely killed.  They’re not crazy.  But why would the West want
them to have nuclear weapons?  Because the target is not North
Korea; it’s China.  As long as you have this bugaboo of North
Korea threatening the world with their nuclear weapons, you can
go ahead and build up a massive force around China, the way they
were in Europe where they’re building anti-ballistic missiles and
moving NATO right up to the Russian border.  Sending troops,
tanks, planes right up to the Russian border.  And in Asia doing
the same thing, supposedly to counter North Korea.
Most people have read about what’s going on with these THAAD
missiles.  Literally just a couple of days ago, they actually set
up the THAAD missiles in South Korea; claiming that these are
needed for the defense of South Korea against the North.  THAAD
— this is Terminal High Altitude missiles.  North Korea is 30
miles from Seoul; they don’t need to send 8 ICBMs up into space
and back down onto Seoul.  The THAAD is useless against North
Korea; it may be useless in general.  But it’s a threat to China
and to Russia, because with that you have the X-band radar, which
sees deep into Chinese territory and Russian Far East territory.
Which thereby gives them an advantage in a potential first
strike, where they could take out — they fantasize — they could
take out the counterstrike capacity of China.  The Chinese and
Russians are saying this destroys the balance; we’re going to
have to put something together to counter this.
The other thing to point out is the obvious fact that North
Korea sees very clearly what happened to Iraq; what happened to
Libya.  Two countries that voluntarily gave up their nuclear
weapons program with all kinds of praise and promises from the
West, although they lied about Iraq.  But as soon as they did,
their nation was bombed back to the Stone Age, their leaders
killed, and their country turned over to warring terrorist
forces.
So, the North Koreans are not crazy!  And they’re aware
that, were they to give up their nuclear weapons program
preemptively, they’d probably get the same regime change
statement.  Which is why it’s so important Tillerson is saying we
are not going for regime change; which is what Trump had said
throughout the campaign — that they weren’t going to have regime
change.  They also see that the targetting of China, they’re
aware of this, is part and parcel of this operation.  You should
point out that the Obama administration had this TPP — this
Trans-Pacific Partnership — which was also a part of the attempt
to isolate China.  It didn’t work; largely because the countries
there recognized that this was an attack on China, and they
absolutely depend upon and appreciate the infrastructure
development coming from China through the New Silk Road the New
Maritime Silk Road.
That’s where this stood.  And the last thing I’ll bring up
here is that the last administration in South Korea — Park
Geun-hye; I’m sure that everybody has seen that she was recently
impeached and thrown out of office.  The impeachment was upheld
by the Constitutional Court, and there’s now an election which is
taking place in less than two weeks on May 9; which makes it all
the more absurd that the US deployed this THAAD missile system,
literally few days before an election in which the candidates are
both against the THAAD missile system.  They rushed this in, in
order to make it — hopefully, they think — make it impossible
to be reversed.  But we’ll see.  It was a foolish move by the US
to ram this through.
But in any case, Park Geun-hye started her administration —
this is the daughter of Park Chung-hee, who was the brilliant
leader who brought Korea out from being one of the poorest
nations on Earth to being one of the great industrial, nuclear
power producing and exporting countries in the world.  His
daughter, Park Geun-hye, was elected President.  But
unfortunately, she was elected mostly on her name.  However, she
began her administration with what she called the Eurasian
Vision.  This was, in fact, part of the New Silk Road process.
She saw working with Russia, China, and Japan, that Korea
belonged to Eurasia; which obviously meant that it had to work
through North Korea.  Officially, the regime in the South under
her and her predecessor were not allowed to have relations with
North Korea, except for the Kaesong Industrial Park.  But, Park
Geun-hye allowed three major South Korean companies — Hyundai
Merchant Marine, which is their biggest ship company; KoRail,
which is their state rail company; and POSCO, a huge steel
company — to have a consortium with Russia and North Korea.
Literally, a consortium; a business agreement where the Russians
rebuilt a port in the north of North Korea; rebuilt the railroad
from Vladivostok down to that port.  They were shipping Russian
coal into North Korea, where it was picked up by a South Korean
Hyundai ship; shipped to the South, put on South Korean rail and
shipped to a South Korean steel mills.  This was, again like the
Kaesong, it was a model for the kind of collaboration which could
lead towards long-term economic progress and development and
trust; and lead towards a reunification.
Then, without going into details, the North Koreans tested I
think it was the fourth of their nuclear tests.  Everybody knew
it was going to happen for the reasons I said.  They’re not going
to give this up unless they can get an honest pledge that there’s
not going to be a war, a regime change against them.  They did;
and unfortunately, Park Geun-hye who was weak, capitulated
entirely to Obama.  She shut everything down; shut down even the
Kaesong Industrial Plant which had been up for 15 years, which
killed their own industries.  Shut down the [inaud; 31:25]
process of the rail, and basically cut off all ties to the North
all together on behalf of Obama, on behalf of a war against
China.  Despite the fact that in 2015, she had gone to Beijing on
the 70th anniversary of World War II’s victory against the
Japanese and the Germans.  She’d gone there and stood on the
podium with Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin; the three of them
standing together, honoring the war victory.  Then she comes back
and basically pulls the plug on the whole thing.
She wasn’t impeached because of that; she was impeached
because of a corruption case within South Korea.  But I’m certain
to this led to the loss of any trust in her; that she’d
undermined her own industries; that she’d capitulated to an
American policy, that she was going ahead with this THAAD
deployment.  She lost the industry, she lost the left factions
that were about to win the election, the more liberal side.  So,
this was a real disaster for South Korea, and potentially for the
world.
Now, we have Trump; we have Xi Jinping; we have Abe in Japan
working very closely with Putin.  And we’re going to have a new
regime in South Korea.  I won’t go into exactly who these guys
are; but in general, both the leading candidates want to work
with Russia and China and want to open up better relations with
the North.  So, you have the geometry.  If Trump goes with the
Silk Road process, you have a geometry which is going to end this
last British outpost of destabilization and instability — this
North Korea monster.  The monster issue; it’s not that North
Korea is a monster.  But this has served the British imperial
purpose of keeping the US at a point of conflict with Russia and
China.  If we can solve that, then all of Asia is now unified,
except for the North Korea issue.  With the election in the
Philippines of Duterte, his rejection of the war policy in the
South China Sea, it basically united all the Southeast Asian
countries; all ten of them are now united around working with
China.  Not cutting off ties to the US, but working with China.
So, you have tremendous potential; and it’s all really
coming down to the next very short period.  Weeks, months at
most.  A lot of this is going to be determined in the very near
term.  As LaRouche has always insisted, to look at any particular
crisis — like the North Korean crisis — you have to look at it
in the context of the entire world; and certainly in the context
of the Eurasian potential of the New Silk Road.  I think there’s
every reason to be confident that some sort of talks are being
discussed privately; not just threats.  That this is going to
move forward in the context of the Silk Road.  As Matthew
mentioned, if Trump were to go to this meeting on May 14 and 15,
Abe would probably then go from Japan; and there’s no question
that we would have a peace process that would be almost
unstoppable, no matter what the British claim they’re going to
unleash.
So, this is a very great moment in history.  A dangerous,
but potentially great optimism is in hand.

OGDEN:  And you can tell that the British are definitely
very anxious of what could be lurking around the corner for the
future of their divide and conquer strategy.  I know we were
talking before the show, Mike, about the very appropriate and
incisive statements that were made by the Russian representative
at that meeting at the United Nations Security Council.  Here’s
the quote.  This is the Russian Deputy Permanent Representative
to the UN, Vladimir Safronkov, and he turned to Matthew Rycroft,
who is the British Permanent Representative at the United Nations
Security Council, and he said the following:  “The essence is,
and everyone in the United Nations knows this very well, is that
you are afraid.  You have been losing sleep over the fact that we
might be working together with the United States; cooperating
with the United States.  That is your fear.  You are doing
everything to make sure that this kind of cooperation be
undermined.”

BILLINGTON:  This has had a tremendous impact, because
people know that LaRouche has argued all the last 50 years, that
the problem is the British Empire.  Almost nobody of stature has
ever acknowledged that continuing role of the British Empire
until this, really.
I learned today that Ambassador Rycroft, who was a close
ally and advisor to Tony Blair, and was one of the authors of the
“dodgy dossier” which started the Iraq War in the first place.  I
learned today from our friends in England, that Rycroft was
meeting today with the head of the White Helmets; the terrorist
so-called “humanitarian” group that works with al-Qaeda and
al-Nusra, and who provided the fake evidence of Assad carrying
out a chemical weapons attack.  So, this is confirmation that
this open collaboration with a terrorist organization funded by
the British, and functioning to try to start a war in Syria for
which we can and must prevent that in league with this overall
fight to bring about the New Silk Road, not a new war.

OGDEN:  Let me end with this, and I’ll let you respond to
it.  I think as everybody knows, a very significant personality
in Korea and that area of the world, was the great US General
Douglas MacArthur.  In the aftermath of the original Korean War,
Douglas MacArthur came back to the United States, and he reported
back to Congress.  This is a quote from MacArthur’s speech to a
Joint Session of Congress in 1951.  I think it gets directly at
the much broader point that Helga and Lyndon LaRouche have been
making at the present time about what is really at stake, and
what is necessary if we’re going to move civilization into a new
paradigm of survival.  This is what Douglas MacArthur said:
“Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations,
all in turn fail; leaving the only path to be by way of the
crucible of war.  The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out
this alternative.  We have had our last chance.  If we will not
devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be
at our door.  The problem, basically, is theological and involves
a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that
will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science,
art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of
the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save
the flesh.”
So Mike, you were one of the speakers at the conference the
Schiller Institute sponsored in New York City two weeks ago.  The
subject of that conference was not only the diplomatic and
strategic cooperation which is necessary between the United
States and China right now, the United States joining the New
Silk Road and the Belt and Road Initiative.  It was also a
dialogue of civilizations; a dialogue of the greatest parts of
these two great cultures — European culture and Chinese culture.
In a form where Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in a really profound way,
stretching across generations, across centuries, across millennia
really put the great German poet, the revolutionary poet and
philosopher Friedrich Schiller in dialogue with the poet and
philosopher who really is the basis of all of modern Chinese
civilization — Confucius.  That dialogue she set up between
Friedrich Schiller and Confucius, speaking to each other across
the span of millennia and across literally two sides of the
world, created the kind of image of mankind, the possibility of a
mankind which could emerge if we were to finally put an end to
this imperial system of dividing the East and the West and
bringing these two great cultures into a dialogue with each
other.
So, you presented at that conference, and maybe just in that
context

BILLINGTON:  Those are available now.  The new {EIR} that
came out today has Helga’s speech and a speech by Patrick Ho, who
is a very good friend of ours from China, from Hong Kong, who is
campaigning all over the world for the New Silk Road.  It’s three
conferences now that we’ve done together.  He gave a presentation
then on Confucian thought and Western thought; but in that
presentation, he showed a very serious problem which I had
addressed over my long years of sabbatical leave in prison, where
I studied extensively the Chinese culture and the relationship
between Confucian culture and the Western Christian Renaissance.
Patrick didn’t take up that challenge for this speech; so he gave
a speech which fell prey to exactly what I then spoke about.
That speech is also in the {EIR} this week; or you can watch it
on the Schiller Institute website.  It’s very important, because
what I learned in studying this, is what the British set about —
as they do in every colony that they took over — in profiling
the backward tendencies within that culture and then grasping
those backwards tendencies that want to stay primitive, stay
backwards; and defining those to be the natural ideology of that
country.
In the case of China, they recognized that Confucianism was
a very great threat to their ability to control and keep China
backwards; because it’s a vision like Platonism in the West.  And
as Helga had brilliantly shown, like the Renaissance thinking in
Europe that professed progress.  It valued the mind of the
individual as that which made him human; it’s the creative power
of the human mind.  Against that, the British said no, no,
Confucianism is keeping you backwards because it’s formal and
it’s structured.  You have to go back to the roots of Taoism,
which basically tells the peasant that he’s a happy peasant; he’s
happy not knowing about science and technology.  Stay backwards.
Or the so-called “legalist” ideology which was punishment and
reward; you treat people like animals.  You punish or reward them
like you do a dog, to make them do what you want them to do.
The unfortunate reality is that the British deployed their
top guns — especially Bertrand Russell — into China; especially
when Sun Yat-sen came along promoting the American System.  They
sent Bertrand Russell in to poison that system; to denounce
Confucianism; to promote the happy peasant and the Taoist
ideology.  Unfortunately, this was deeply ingrained into the
Chinese culture, so that even today, Xi Jinping, who is fighting
to bring that country forward, is faced with this kind of thought
in China.  And, what they presented to the Chinese as “Western
thought” so-called, was not Leibniz and Schiller and Nicholas of
Cusa; the people who gave us the Renaissance, who gave rise to
modern science.  But rather, they said, “We, the British,
defeated you because we have wealth and power.  How do we have
wealth and power?  It’s that we believe in Darwinism, social
Darwinism; that the strong must crush the weak.  That’s the way
you get strong.  So, if you want to be strong, then you should be
like us and believe that Western thought — i.e., British
empirical anti-human thought — is what you should aspire to.
I won’t go into more details, but I encourage you to read
it; because these are fundamental debates.  This question of how
can we create a renaissance, which crosses every great culture;
because every great culture has great moments and bad moments,
bad tendencies.  Weak tendencies, and strong tendencies which
honor the human creative power; the other which tries to keep
people enslaved as master and slave.  We have to pull out the
best of every culture throughout the world.  Islam; Judaism;
Christianity; Confucianism; the Muslim tradition of the Baghdad
Caliphate.  All of these are there — the Indian Gupta period.
We can pull these together and have a Renaissance which is not
this part of the world as opposed to that part of the world; but
is truly universal.  Of man with a common aim for mankind as
Helga likes to say.
This is within our grasp; this could truly be the end of war
for all mankind.  People say, “Oh, that’s naïve; because human
nature is war-like.”  Well, {human nature} is not; human nature
is creative.  It’s the bestial imposition of this backward
ideology on peoples which leads to wars.  If we had a true,
global renaissance based on science and technology, great culture
and great music, there’s no reason to think we could not end the
scourge of war once and for all; as that beautiful quote from
Douglas MacArthur — which I’d never heard — clearly indicates.
These are philosophic and theological issues; but they’re in our
grasp today.  This is what the LaRouche Movement has been about
since its inception; and it’s now literally within our grasp.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much, Mike.  This material is
available; Mike’s article is going to be published.  This is in
the {Executive Intelligence Review}, and it will be made
available through LaRouche PAC as well.  As Mike said, all of the
proceedings of that Schiller Institute conference in New York are
also available.  LaRouche PAC also made a video a couple of years
ago on the question of the reunification of Korea and some of
these initiatives from the 1990s and these reunification efforts.
So, we’ll make that video also available; it will be linked in
the description of this video.  But I think that’s a wonderful
discussion; and it’s extraordinarily valuable for people to have
this view, this depth of background.  But also this vision of
what is possible.  Douglas MacArthur’s point that in essence this
is a spiritual, this is a theological question.  Will mankind
come to know himself as a creative species?  Will we change the
way that man views himself, which is what is necessary if we are
to survive?  The vehicle for doing that is this type of “win-win”
development projects; that’s the true name of peace.  So, I think
we have a wonderful microcosm in what we just used as a case
study in Korea; but this type of thinking is what is so urgently
necessary for the entire world.  That’s absolutely the value of
what the LaRouche Movement has done over the last several
decades, and continues to represent on this planet today.
So thank you, Mike.  And thank you all for tuning in, and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.




USA må tilslutte sig det Nye Paradigme;
Trump må ikke gå i briternes
’under falsk flag’-fælde!
LaRouche PAC Internationale
Webcast, 21. april, 2017; Leder

… LPAC’s mål  stadig er det samme. Et meget klart mål, der har to sider:

1) At befri USA fra det britiske imperie-systems forsøg på at bruge USA til at bulldoze verden ind i Tredje Verdenskrig; en fare, der netop nu er særdeles reel, med situation i Syrien, der er ved at blive hed efter Trumps-administrationens meget ukloge angreb mod den syriske regering dér, og som var baseret på ukorrekt efterretning. Samt den krigeriske, aggressive optrapning omkring situationen i Nordkorea.

2) Men på den anden side, også at fortsætte kampagnen for at bringe USA ind i det Nye Paradigme, der netop nu vokser frem i hele verden.

 

Indledning:

Matthew Ogden: Godaften, det er den 21. april, og dette er vores fredag aften webcast.

For blot nogle få timer siden havde vi en diskussion med både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche; og de understregede begge, at vores mål, som LaRouche Politiske Aktions-komite (LPAC), stadig er det samme. Et meget klart mål, der har to sider:

1) At befri USA fra det britiske imperie-systems forsøg på at bruge USA til at bulldoze verden ind i Tredje Verdenskrig; en fare, der netop nu er særdeles reel, med situation i Syrien, der er ved at blive hed efter Trumps-administrationens meget ukloge angreb mod den syriske regering dér, og som var baseret på ukorrekt efterretning. Samt den krigeriske, aggressive optrapning omkring situationen i Nordkorea.

2) Men på den anden side, også at fortsætte kampagnen for at bringe USA ind i det Nye Paradigme, der netop nu vokser frem i hele verden.

Vi befinder os naturligvis i nedtællingen til Bælt & Vej-konferencen, der afholdes i Beijing i maj, om under tre uger; Kinas præsident Xi Jinping er vært for konferencen, men tæt ved 28 forskellige statsoverhoveder fra hele verden vil deltage. Vores kampagne er selvfølgelig stadig, at præsident Donald Trump personligt bør deltage i dette topmøde; og bør gengælde præsident Xi Jinpings tilbud om, at USA går med i Bælt & Vej-initiativet og bliver en del af dette Nye Paradigme for økonomisk udvikling og fred, versus det gamle, døende paradigme med Det britiske Imperiums geopolitiske del-og-hersk-strategi, der har bragt verden på randen af Tredje Verdenskrig.

Kineserne handler nu, har optrappet deres organiseringskampagne, for at organisere verden til denne forestående begivenhed. Det er af stor betydning, at der i USA vises øget opmærksomhed over for dette, i kølvandet på Schiller Instituttets konference, der fandt sted sidste torsdag og fredag, den 13. og 14. april, med titlen: »USA og Kina: Samarbejde om Bælt & Vej-initiativet«.

Der er nogle meget betydningsfulde citater, som vi vil afspille for jer her. Det begynder med et besøg, som formanden for den Nationale Kinesiske Folkekongres’ Stående Komite, Zhang Dejiang, havde, da han rejste til Moskva for at mødes med præsident Putin i onsdags, for at lægge fundamentet for præsident Putins besøg i Beijing. Han sagde:

»Under præsident Xi Jinpings strategiske lederskab har vore bilaterale relationer og omfattende strategiske partnerskab nået et meget højt punkt. Kina ser frem til, og byder velkommen, Deres besøg i maj i år, for at deltage i Ét Bælt, én Vej Internationale Samarbejdsforum. De vil være den højeste æresgæst dér. De vil mødes med præsident Xi Jinping på sidelinjen af forummet, og dette har stor betydning for styrkelse af venskabet og samarbejdet mellem vore lande, og for promoveringen af bilateralt samarbejde inden for alle områder, i særdeleshed i dagens situation.«

Zhangs besøg i Moskva er en del af et større organiseringsfremstød for Bælt & Vej-topmødet, som også inkluderede bemærkninger af præsident Xi Jinping under en turné i Sydkinas autonome region, Guangxi Zhuang, i onsdags. Han sagde:

»Bælt & Vej-initiativet har fået stor anerkendelse i det internationale samfund, siden det blev fremsat; hvilket viser, at det er i overensstemmelse med folkenes vilje. Vi vil fremme Kinas store politik for åbenhed og udvikling inden for rammerne af Bælt & Vej, og vi vil yderligere fremme virkeliggørelsen af Kinas mål gennem to hundrede år, og den kinesiske drøm om den kinesiske nations store foryngelse.«

Sidste del af udskriftet på engelsk:

(Se også: Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale på konferencens første dag: (Fuld dansk tekst.)
»Samarbejde mellem Kina og USA om Bælt & Vej-Initiativet«. 

Together with this, there has been a press conference which
was sponsored by the Transportation Ministry of China, and the
spokesman stated that “Transportation connectivity is the
founding priority of the implementation of the Belt and Road
Initiative.”  This press conference was hosted by the
Transportation Ministry in order to highlight the growing scope
of the Belt and Road projects.  The Transportation Ministry
spokesman stated that more than 130 regional and bilateral
transport agreements have already been signed; 56 international
road routes have been opened.  He said that 4200 direct flights
now connect China with 43 different Belt and Road Initiative
countries.  And finally — and most significantly — 39
China-Europe freight train routes are now currently in operation.
So, this is clearly highlighting the extraordinary scope and
growing magnitude of the Belt and Road Initiative as the paradigm
which is sweeping the planet.  Also, just this past Wednesday,
Xinhua.net published an interview with the President of Greece,
where he said, “The upcoming high-level forum on the Belt and
Road Initiative is of global significance.  The forum is
important not only to China, but also to the rest of the world.
The forum will prove that in the new historical era, China will
play an important role in promoting the harmonious co-existence
of countries in the world.”
Now this theme of the “harmonious co-existence of countries
in the world” is a theme that the Chinese President and the
Chinese government have highlighted on multiple occasions;
comparing the Silk Road Initiative to a kind of symphony
orchestra, where not one voice is more prominent than another;
but the voices of all the instruments mix together in one
harmonious co-existence.  This is a metaphor for the New
Paradigm; not a unilateral world where one country’s, or one
bloc’s, values and system are imposed on another country; but
that the best of what every country has to offer is brought to
the table in dialogue — culturally, economically, strategically.
And that the New Paradigm is based on this kind of “win-win”
cooperation.
Now this was a theme that Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder
of the Schiller Institute, took up in multiple ways in both her
keynote on the first day of the international Schiller Institute
conference which I referenced, up in New York City, on US-China
cooperation; but also in a very beautiful way in her speech on
the second day of that conference.  We’re not going to play the
full speech for you here; it’s available on the Schiller
Institute website.  But the theme that she brought up was a very
beautiful theme of the cultural dialogue between the best of what
Western European culture has to offer, and the Confucian
tradition in China.  She compared the writings of Friedrich
Schiller, who is obviously the namesake of the Schiller
Institute, and one of the leading thinkers of revolutionary
Europe at the time of the American Revolution — he was called
the Poet of Freedom; compared to the writings of the thousands’
year old philosopher of Chinese civilization, the philosopher
Confucius.  Both of these two philosophers’ writings converge on
the idea that it is the aesthetical education and the aesthetical
development of the citizens of the country, which allows for
peace and prosperity to become the reigning order of that nation,
or of that land.  She read several extensive quotes from
Confucius in which he developed the idea that the music reflects
and reciprocively reflects back on the state of development of
the mind of the people.  An organized and developed form of music
reflects and organized and developed form of society.  She
compared this to the writings that Friedrich Schiller had in his
writings on {The Aesthetical Education of Man}, which he
published in the wake of the failed French Revolution.  Schiller
elaborated that a republican form of government must make as its
number one priority the aesthetical development of its people.
She said that it’s not a surprise for a country such as China,
where President Xi Jinping has put a premium on the revival of
this Confucian idea.  She said that there’s a renaissance of
Confucian ideas and Confucian philosophy that is now taking place
inside China.  That this metaphor of a symphony orchestra, or of
a chorus of voices joining together, should be one that the
President of China uses in his discussion of what this new
international paradigm of “win-win” mutually beneficial
relationships between countries should be; that this is what is
now organizing the world as an almost gravitational force towards
this upcoming Belt and Road Initiative that’s going to be hosted
in Beijing by China in May.
Now obviously, many countries around the world are now
realizing what time it is; that in fact, China is emerging as the
world’s leading economic power and economic leader, and is
bringing that kind of development perspective that it has already
applied domestically for its own people, to countries around the
world.  Former colonial countries in Africa building trains,
building water projects there.  Bringing this as part of a
dialogue in South America for canal and rail projects there; and
obviously, along the entire Belt and Road Initiative corridor.
What is happening is that many countries are now saying, “We’re
on board!”  The latest is Belarus.  President Lukashenko there is
saying that Belarus is going to become a hub of the One Belt, One
Road Initiative inside Europe.  Helga Zepp-LaRouche joked that
Germany is now being surrounded by countries that wish to become
a part of the New Silk Road.  Whereas those countries are hubs of
development, Germany is a hole of development right now.  But you
have also the announcement in recent weeks that many countries
are now joining the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank.  This
was an offer that President Xi Jinping directly put on the table
during the APEX summit years ago in a joint press conference with
President Barack Obama.  Obama rejected it.  Xi Jinping offered
that the United States could enter into the Asia Infrastructure
Investment Bank as one of its founding investors.  This obviously
remains an offer which is open, and these offers have been
reiterated in the recent weeks surrounding President Xi Jinping’s
trip to the United States during his bilateral summit meeting
with President Trump in Mar-a-Lago, Florida.  Very significantly,
this was reiterated during the LaRouche Movement’s Schiller
Institute conference in New York City by the Deputy Consul
General representing the Chinese Consulate in New York City.
We’re going to play a very short clip from her speech.  It’s
very clear; she says “President Xi Jinping offers the United
States to join China in cooperation in the Belt and Road
Initiative framework.  This is an opportunity that should be
seized, and it’s an opportunity that will be mutually beneficial
to both countries involved.”  So, here’s that clip:

CHINESE DEPUTY CONSUL GENERAL:  “Last by not least, I want to
quote President Xi as saying that China welcomes the United
States to participate in cooperation within the Belt and Road
framework.  President Xi stressed that both countries have become
each other’s first largest trading partners, and both peoples
have benefitted a lot from it.  China’s economy will maintain a
sound development momentum and enhancement of economic and trade
cooperation between the countries enjoys broad prospects.  Both
countries should really seize the opportunities.”

OGDEN: During that conference, it was very significant that
this representative of the Chinese government attended that
conference, which was on the subject of US-Chinese cooperation
around the Belt and Road Initiative; and again formally extended
the offer to the United States and to President Trump to join
this initiative and to cooperate with China around this New
Paradigm of economic development for the planet.  As the Deputy
Consul General stated during the rest of her speech, and as Helga
Zepp-LaRouche reiterated, this upcoming mid-May meeting of the
Belt and Road Initiative that’s being hosted in China is the
opportunity.  This is the inflection point for the United States
to change its policy.
Very provocatively, at that conference, Helga Zepp-LaRouche
began the entire conference with her keynote presentation that
she has stated that if President Trump were to decide to join
this New Silk Road and to join this New Paradigm, he could become
one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the United
States.  She said that shocked a lot of people when she said that
several weeks ago; and despite the fact that a very ill-advised
action was taken by President Trump to enter into this
confrontational stance with North Korea and also to take the
initiative the Syrian air base in Syria, she said that statement
and characterization still stands.  Because if he were to make
that choice, that would mean that he was deciding to abandon the
British geopolitics of unilateral imperial war and confrontation,
and to become a part of this New Paradigm; which would mean an
end to the British imperial system once and for all.  Since that
point, it’s been very clear that the British Empire has been
involved directly in trying to bulldoze Donald Trump into this
kind of World War III confrontation and away from the kind of
cooperation that was clearly part of his campaign.
At the same time that the Chinese representative at that
conference in New York City made that statement, that formal
offer once again for the United States to join the Silk Road;
also in attendance was the chargé d’affaires for the Permanent
Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations.  He made
a very significant point which was similar.  He said the Russian
people do not wish for confrontation with the United States of
America; but wish instead for bilateral cooperation, a
relationship of friendship, of mutual understanding and mutual
development.  And that this is, in fact, the opportunity which is
posed by the types of initiatives that were being discussed at
that conference in New York City; this Schiller Institute Belt
and Road Initiative conference.
Unfortunately, as we’ve documented and as we’ve continued to
document, the Trump administration has been taken in by the kinds
of false propaganda drumbeat that is now being propagated from
many of the leading media organizations in the United States, and
very profoundly from the British government.  From Boris Johnson,
from the military layers inside Great Britain, and so forth.
However, since the time that President Trump made the decision to
launch the airstrikes against the Syrian government, based on the
supposed intelligence that Assad had used chemical weapons
against his own people, increasingly there has been evidence that
has been coming out from very credible sources, that in fact that
intelligence was flawed; and perhaps was even faked as a false
flag initiative in order to pull Trump into this war.  Very
similar to the type of lies that came out of Tony Blair in 2003
in order to pull the United States into the war against Iraq with
the so-called “weapons of mass destruction”.  There was a very
significant interview that was delivered by President Assad to
Sputnik News just yesterday, which is now being circulated today.
We’re going to read a few clips from that interview for you.
What President Assad had to say in this interview, as you
can see on the screen, with Sputnik News, was that this was a
false flag.  He said, “We formally sent a letter to the United
Nations, asking in that letter to send a delegation in order to
investigate what happened in Khan Sheikhun.  Of course until this
moment, they didn’t send anyone, because the West and the United
States blocked any delegation from coming.  Because if they come,
they will find out that all their narratives were a false flag.
So for us, there was no gas attack and no gas depot.  It was a
false flag play, just to justify the attack on Syria.  That’s
what happened.  The attack was already prepared.  They didn’t
want to listen; they didn’t want to investigate.  They only
wanted to launch the attack.  We believe it was a false flag for
one reason and a simple reason.  If there was gas leakage or an
attack, and you’re talking about 60 dead in that city; how could
the city continue its life normally?  They didn’t evacuate the
city.  Even if you look at the pictures, you can see the
rescuers, the presumable rescuers were rescuing people without
masks, gloves.  They were moving freely; how?  This is against
all specifications of sarin gas.  You can fake this image; it’s
very easy.  So you cannot just base your judgment on images and
videos, especially made by al-Qaeda.”
Now this was also reiterated by the Russian Defense Ministry
spokesman, General Igor Konashenkov on April 20, in a similar
argument where he points to the fraud that’s being perpetrated.
He said, “In the past two weeks, not a single OPCW representative
was seen there” at the site of the supposed attack in Syria.
“Where do these samples come from, that the OPCW claims prove
that there was a sarin gas attack?  Who of the OPCW members was
able to study them so fast, while standard procedures stipulate a
complex research which requires time; as we can see in the case
of the mustard gas use in Aleppo.”  Konashenkov ironically then
went after the “charlatans from the White Helmets organization,
who were hustling and bustling inside sarin gas clouds with no
protective gear on. Although independent experts do not believe
that anyone could have remained unharmed in a sarin gas attack,
nevertheless, maybe the head of the OPCW,” he said, “has created
his own periodic table of the elements instead of Mendeleyev’s
one.”
Then over the course of this week, a qualified source, a
professor emeritus from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, the former professor Ted Postol, released a series of
very detailed exposés on the facts surrounding this Syrian sarin
gas attack; which prove, according to him, that the White House
intelligence assessment blaming the Syrian government is simply
false.  Professor Postol, who — as I said — is a professor
emeritus at MIT, received his PhD in nuclear engineering from
MIT; and he’s worked at the Argonne National Laboratory; he’s
worked in the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment; he’s
worked as a scientific advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations;
and also at Stanford University to train scientists studying
weapons technology.  He stated in this exposé about the alleged
Syrian sarin gas attack, he said first of all, the details of the
location being cited, the weather patterns at the time, other
things conclude “Without a doubt, the sarin dispersal site
alleged at the April 4, 2017 sarin attack in Khan Sheikhun, was
not a nerve agent site.  It also shows beyond a shadow of a doubt

that the only mass casualty site that could have resulted from
this mass attack, is not in any way related to the sites, which
are shown in video following a poisoning event of some kind at
Khan Sheikhun.”  He continues by saying, “The allegedly high
confidence intelligence assessment issued on April 11th that led
to the conclusion that the Syrian government was responsible for
the attack, is not correct.  For such a report to be so
egregiously in error, it could not possibly have followed the
most simple and proven intelligence methodologies to determine
the veracity of its findings.”
So there you have from several different sources, a
qualified questioning of the facts of the attack on the ground.
None of these obviously is conclusive one way or another, and as
has been stated, an independent, non-biased, United Nations
investigation should take place; and OPCW personnel should be on
the ground.  But the point is, as was realized after the fact,
the lies that came out of the British Empire and from Tony Blair
in 2003, which brought the United States into a completely
unjustified and aggressive war in Iraq, are being repeated at
this point.  There was a story earlier this week which we will
cover more extensively, that in fact, the Chilcot Commission
report which found that Tony Blair was at fault in those lies
that were perpetrated around the 2003 attack; a lawsuit has been
brought against Tony Blair.  But the UK Attorney General has
determined that although aggressive warfare might be against the
law in international law, might be illegal in international law;
in fact, there are no laws on the books in the United Kingdom,
inside England, that say that aggressive war is illegal.  That
aggressive war is a crime.
There you can see that in fact, the British do not believe
that the crime of aggressive war is actually one that should be
prosecuted.
To conclude, there has been an initiative this week from
{Executive Intelligence Review} to begin producing a series of
video shorts which expose the crimes of the British government at
this point to try to steamroll the United States into this kind
of World War III; and to prevent the United States from
participating in the kind of international cooperation that you
see around the New Silk Road.  There is definitely a countdown, a
showdown in these 21 days between now and this Belt and Road
Initiative conference in China; and it should be seen as such.  A
fight for the soul of the United States — what direction with
the US go?  What direction will the Trump administration go?  As
the inaugural video in that short video series, {Executive
Intelligence Review} published a 90-second clip from the
conference presentation by Helga Zepp-LaRouche from last week in
New York City; where she lays out very clearly that what is
happening here in the United States is, in fact, a British
intelligence coup against the Trump administration.  The point
has got to be made: Americans should know their history and
realize that over the course of our entire history, ever since
the American Revolution, the British have been trying to
reconquer the United States to use the United States as its dumb
giant in these wars; in order to assert this imperial agenda.
Now is the time for the American people to recognize this
history; to recognize what is happening, to know who the enemy
actually is; and to say that we will no longer be a tool of this
imperial system.  We are now deciding to become part of this New
Paradigm and to return to our roots — Alexander Hamilton,
Abraham Lincoln, Henry Carey, Henry Clay — and the American
System of Political Economy that Donald Trump, less than three
weeks ago was talking about his model for economic policy for the
United States.
So, I’m going to conclude with this short clip from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, and encourage you to please tune in to this new
video series that is coming from {Executive Intelligence Review}.
It can be found on the EIR YouTube channel, which you can
subscribe to.  We are also going to be sharing some of these via
social media.  So you can subscribe to these social media pages
— Facebook, twitter, and so forth.
So, thank you very much; and let me conclude with this clip
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  What happened is, de facto, a coup d’état
inside the United States; which has two elements.  One is the
false flag operation in Syria, combined with what one could call
a palace coup inside the administration.  Now, this coup is a
British intelligence operation; and it must be recognized as such
in order to liberate President Trump from this great danger.
Remember that the American War of Independence, that which
created the United States, was made against the British Empire;
and the British Empire never gave up the idea to reconquer the
United States.  The first time they did that was in the War of
1812; then the British Empire allied with the Confederacy —
British banks financed the Confederacy in this war through their
affiliates in Boston and Philadelphia and so forth.  The British
Empire totally got upset when Trump announced that he wants to go
back to the American System of economy — Alexander Hamilton,
Henry Clay, Lincoln.      




Video: Hovedtale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
»Samarbejde mellem Kina og
USA om Bælt & Vej-Initiativet
Schiller Instituttets konference i Manhattan, New York,
13. – 14. april, 2017

I disse meget urolige tider er evnen til at koncentrere sig og fokusere på, hvad menneskehedens sande mål er, og hvad menneskehedens fremtid er, af yderste vigtighed. Det er især vigtigt for amerikanere at høre dette perspektiv, set med de amerikaneres øjne, der anser sig selv for at være amerikanere af natur, og i princippet. Det har været Schiller Instituttets tankegang, lige fra dets start; og det har, fra dengang og frem til i dag, altid været mig en stor ære, ved enhver lejlighed, hvor det behøvedes, at introducere grundlæggeren og lederen af Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Læs hele Helgas tale på dansk.




Angrebet på Syrien er Trumps
’Svinebugt’! Udrens krigs-
magerne og støt potentialet
for det Nye Paradigme.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast, 7. april, 2017; Leder

Jeg må begynde aftenens udsendelse med at sige, at, for 24 timer siden, da jeg sad og forberedte denne udsendelse, tænkte jeg, at emnet skulle være de ekstremt positive udviklinger, der fandt sted. Både introduktionen af Glass/Steagall-lovforslaget i USA’s Senat, S881, fremsat af Elizabeth Warren, Maria Cantwell, John McCain og Angus King; som følger direkte i kølvandet på udtrykt støtte til Glass/Steagall-princippet fra et ledende medlem af Trump-administrationen – Gary Cohn, direktør for det Nationale Økonomiske Råd – hvilket fandt sted på nøjagtig samme tidspunkt som et topmøde på højeste niveau, der nu netop er afsluttet, i Mar-a-Lago, Florida, mellem præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping; mødet var blevet forberedt af udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson under dennes nylige besøg i Kina, hvor han udtalte sin støtte til dannelsen af et »win-win«-samarbejde og ingen konfrontation, ingen konflikt, mellem USA og Kina.

Matthew Ogden: Det er 7. april, 2017, og dette er vores fredags-webcast fra larouchepac.com. Benjamin Deniston er med i studiet, og via video har vi Diane Sare fra Manhattan, New York City, og Kesha Rogers fra Houston, Texas – begge medlemmer af LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.

Jeg må begynde aftenens udsendelse med at sige, at, for 24 timer siden, da jeg sad og forberedte denne udsendelse, tænkte jeg, at emnet skulle være de ekstremt positive udviklinger, der fandt sted. Både introduktionen af Glass/Steagall-lovforslaget i USA’s Senat, S881, fremsat af Elizabeth Warren, Maria Cantwell, John McCain og Angus King; som følger direkte i kølvandet på udtrykt støtte til Glass/Steagall-princippet fra et ledende medlem af Trump-administrationen – Gary Cohn, direktør for det Nationale Økonomiske Råd – hvilket fandt sted på nøjagtig samme tidspunkt som et topmøde på højeste niveau, der nu netop er afsluttet, i Mar-a-Lago, Florida, mellem præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping; mødet var blevet forberedt af udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson under dennes nylige besøg i Kina, hvor han udtalte sin støtte til dannelsen af et »win-win«-samarbejde og ingen konfrontation, ingen konflikt, mellem USA og Kina.

Men desværre, mellem tidspunktet for 24 timer siden og nu, traf præsident Trump beslutningen om at lancere et militært missilangreb mod en flyvebase, tilhørende den syriske regering, som respons på den syriske regerings angivelige angreb med kemiske våben imod syriske civile. Så jeg vil indlede aftenens udsendelse med at læse for jer, i parafrase, nogle af de bemærkninger, som både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche havde om denne situation. Det vil vi følge op på med en opfordring til en mobilisering for at få sandheden at vide om, hvad det virkelig var, der skete, i løbet af disse 24 timer.

Det, Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde her til morgen, da nyheden netop kom, om, at dette angreb havde fundet sted, var følgende:

»Dette var dumt; et resultat af forvirring i administrationen, og af neokonservative elementer, der ikke ønsker at se de nye relationer mellem magter, som kunne komme ud af en alliance mellem USA, Rusland og Kina.«

Under en senere telefonsamtale med Helga og Lyndon LaRouche, sagde Helga:

»Hvordan skete dette? Der er tilsyneladende et stort slagsmål internt i Trump-administrationen. Det er afskyeligt. Der er en historie her, som vi ikke kender. Nogen må have manipuleret Trump til at gøre dette; eller løjet for præsident Trump. Hvordan kom han frem til dette standpunkt? Vi må anstrenge os for at finde ud af det.«

Helga refererede direkte til en artikel, der blev udgivet på en ledende militær efterretningseksperts blog – en mand ved navn Pat Laing, der har forbindelser til nogle ledende, både aktive og pensionerede militær- og efterretningsnetværk i USA. Denne blog indledte med at sige følgende:

»Donald Trumps beslutning om at lancere angreb med krydsermissiler mod en syrisk flyvebase, var baseret på en løgn. I løbet af de kommende dage vil det amerikanske folk opdage, at efterretningssamfundet vidste, at Syrien ikke smed et kemisk militærvåben på uskyldige civile i Idlib. Her er, hvad der skete«, sagde han.

Han forklarer dernæst flere punkter, inkl.

»3. Det syriske luftvåben ramte målet«

– som man mente var et våbenlager for eksplosiver for islamiske oprørere –

»med konventionelle våben. Alle de involverede forventede at se en massiv, sekundær eksplosion. Det skete ikke. I stedet begyndte røg, kemisk røg, at bølge ud fra stedet. Det viser sig, at de islamiske oprørere har brugt stedet til oplagring af kemikalier, som var dødbringende; ikke sarin. Kemikalierne inkluderede organiske fosfater og klorin, og de blæste med vinden og dræbte civile.«

Dernæst siger han,

»Der blæste en stærk vind den dag; og skyen drev ind over en nærliggende landsby og kostede liv.«

Så siger han,

»Vi ved, det ikke var sarin. Hvordan? Meget enkelt. De såkaldte ’førstehjælpsfolk’ håndterede ofrene uden handsker. Havde det været sarin, ville de være døde. Sarin på huden dræber.«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche citerede direkte fra denne erklæring ved at læse følgende:

»Dette er Tonkinbugten II. Hvor ironisk! Donald Trump kom korrekt med en alvorlig kritik af George W. Bush for at lancere et uprovokeret, uretmæssigt angreb mod Irak i 2003. Og nu gør præsident Donald Trump den samme, forbandede ting. Det er faktisk værre, for efterretningssamfundet havde information, der viste, at der ikke var noget kemisk våben, der blev lanceret af det syriske luftvåben.«

(Her følger udskrift af resten af udsendelsen på engelsk:)

Now, I’m going to let Diane elaborate a little bit more the
mobilization which we’re now calling all viewers of this webcast
to engage in.  But the question is, who in the intelligence
community withheld the truth from President Donald Trump?  Who
lied to the President, and influenced him to make this very bad
decision?  So, Diane, let me hand it over to you.

DIANE SARE:  Good.  I’ll just say the Mr. LaRouche stressed that
this is a fraud; that people on the ground in Syria, from all
accounts we could get, were aware of what happened; which was a
Syrian Army strike on a rebel-held what they believe to be
weapons depot, which turned out to be a chemical weapons
facility.  That Assad did not do this; that Assad would have no
interest in doing this.  This intelligence was kept from the
President deliberately.
As Matt said at the beginning, you have this occurring
precisely at the moment that Xi Jinping is meeting in the United
States to meet with President Trump.  We know that the British
Empire, the cities of London and Wall Street, are clinging
desperately with their fingernails to a bankrupt system.  The
last thing that they want is for the United States to join into
win-win collaboration with China and Russia.  We also know that
there is a history of British operations to bring the United
States into war.  I guess the first one in people’s memories
today might by Maggie Thatcher’s visits to Bush to put so-called
“iron in his spine” to go to war in Iraq.  Then we had Tony
Blair, who has been investigated in the Chilcot Inquiry, having
lied about weapons of mass destruction to start a war.
And now, I’ll just read you an interview with the British
Defence Secretary, published in something called the {East
Lothian Courier}.  Sir Michael Fallon told Sky News, “We’ve been
in close contact with the American government over the last
couple of days following the gas attack.  There have been
intensive consultations in London, in Washington, and the United
Nations.  The American Defense Secretary called me to discuss the
various options early yesterday evening, and once the President
had made his decision, then the American Defense Secretary called
me again to give us advance notice of the strike.  The Prime
Minister has been kept informed throughout.”  Britain is running
American military decisions?  Then he was asked, did this action
catch you by surprise; and the British Defence Secretary said,
“No.  We’ve seen the first test of the Trump administration
here.”  Then I think we have there a tweet from a BBC
correspondent, Katty Kay — I guess that’s an appropriate name
for her.  It says, “On a side note, how to undermine a major
summit with China.”  So, just in case you weren’t clear that the
target of this is actually Donald Trump, the target of this
operation is to destroy his ability to make America great again;
which is what collaborating with China and Russia would do.  The
truth of the matter is, as everyone who has been following this
for some time would know, that President Assad had absolutely no
reason, no motive; not to mention that the chemical weapons were
eliminated three years ago, which was the arrangement that Putin
established which prevented Barack Obama from doing the same
thing at that time.  The President was lied to; the crucial
intelligence was prevented from getting to him; and the actions
taken can jeopardize the success of his administration and the
potential for a global economic renaissance.
We are urging that everybody — we’ll repeat this again, I’m
sure; but people should call the White House, you should contact
Trump on twitter and make the point that we know that lied were
told to the President about the situation on the ground.  The
truth has to come out, and the perpetrators of this
disinformation should be exposed and fired from the Trump
administration.

OGDEN:  I’m going to put on the screen right now the contact
information that you can do just that.  This is the way to
contact the White House:  call 202 465-1111.  You can also tweet
at President Donald Trump; either @POTUS or @realDonaldTrump.
We’re going to elaborate more of the contents of that
mobilization as we proceed with this discussion.  We’ll put that
contact information on the screen for you a few more times during
this broadcast.

DENISTON:  I think that’s a critical thing our viewers need
to understand.  This isn’t a settled thing. There have also been
references to power plays and shifts inside the administration;
there’s obviously conflicting interests coming in from all side,
trying to influence it one way or the other.  So I think this is
indicative of an undetermined process; we’re not just observers
watching history before our eyes.  We need to think of ourselves
as active in this process.  Trump very clearly resonated with the
American people in making it very clear we want to end this
regime change policy; we don’t need these foreign wars.  We also
want a serious effort against terrorism; real terrorism — the
kind of stuff Obama was supporting explicitly — that the British
had been running for decades.  This is clearly a turn in a
different direction.  People who want that policy, who supported
him on that basis, need to become active and vocal and say “We
need this real shift in American foreign policy” as we’ve
discussed.
I think the other point is the irony that people need to
get.  You’re not going to understand the reality of the
situation, what the forces are at play in creating this operation
to get this strike to go through, unless you understand the
significance of these contrary positive developments that we just
referenced.  The meeting between the head of the United States
and China; this is huge.  All the prior discussion about
potentially alleviating tensions with Russia, and having a
positive relationship with Russia, which drove people nuts to
revive the spirit of Joe McCarthy with a new red-scare propaganda
campaign; just shows you how desperate certain factions are to
keep this US Anglo-American unipolar world alliance alive,
requiring the suppression and keeping down of China.  The fact
that that is being legitimately threatened, means that we’re
seeing the potential of real active motion towards a new global
alliance with the United States, China, and Russia cooperating on
a positive basis.  This is showing the signs of potentially
completely changing world history; and Glass-Steagall is
obviously a part of that.  So, all these motions, and then you
have this happen right in the middle of that, that tells you
what’s going on.  You’ve got to understand where things are going
in this positive direction, to understand what a real wrench this
operation is and what forces would be behind trying to completely
up-end this and re-ignite tensions with Russia; and do this at
the exact time Trump is meeting with Xi Jinping.  Blowing this
thing up.
It’s an ongoing fight; and people need to get active and
vocal, and express their support for this real policy shift
underway.  In a sense, this could be an opportunity to rat out
who are the real forces that are running these kinds of
operations.  Who didn’t tell the President the real intelligence?
Who pushed the line that this was Assad running a chemical attack
on his own people?  Just to say it; people know that’s insane.
Assad would have no motivation for launching a small chemical
attack at this point in the situation in Syria.  He’s already
winning the war; he knows that’s going to be the most decisive
thing. He knows that what’s going to draw the most aggression
against him would be any kind of chemical attack.  To think that
this would something Assad would be motivated to do is just nuts.
It’s clear that this is intended to completely up-end a
process that could go in a very good direction.  Whatever
happened, we need to figure that out, and we need a mobilization
to put the pressure on who was behind this.  Who was really
pushing this crazy line that got the President to go with this
thing?  That needs to be uprooted and taken out immediately and
get back on track in the direction that we know we could be going
in.

OGDEN:  The way that you’re going to establish peace on this
planet is through a new power relationship which is completely
diametrically opposite to what has dominated geopolitics for the
last 40-50 years.  That comes in the form of a relationship
between China, Russia, and the United States.  Any effort to
drive a wedge between that, should be seen as an effort to
re-ignite the fires of World War III.  We were right on the verge
of that during the Presidential campaign, during the concluding
years of Obama’s administration.  It was made very clear during
the Presidential debates that Hillary Clinton’s policy of
military intervention into Syria would bring us right up against
the potential for a direct conflict between the United States and
Russia.  President Trump himself made that point, along with
other candidates for President during the Presidential debates.
As has now been repeated by various people, Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard, for example, put out a statement this morning, [saying]
any military intervention into Syria threatens to bring us into a
direct conflict with Russia, which is a nuclear power, and would
threaten direct nuclear confrontation.  This is a very dangerous
and very fast moving situation.  We have to get to the truth of
the matter here; and it’s obviously a very complex picture and
something that is not yet clear.  As Helga LaRouche was saying,
what’s clear is that confusion is reigning; and there is an
effort by whatever element in the administration or elsewhere, to
interrupt the potential for new power relationships that could
come out of a US-Russia-China alliance.

KESHA ROGERS:  I think Mr. LaRouche has continued to draw
the line in the sand and identify time and time again, the enemy
of mankind as this British imperial faction; the British Empire.
People have to be very clear, because there are a lot of people
out there who would say “Well, the British are not our enemy; you
have to make compromises with the British.”  We see where this
has gotten us.  Mr. LaRouche, in his statement today, also
emphatically made the point that we have to shut down Wall Street
and all the bastards who do this kind of thing; including Barack
Obama, the apparatus that’s made it number one prerogative to
stop the forward-moving progress and potential that was set into
motion by this President.  When you’re talking about what the
President has made clear his intention, as we saw with the
discussion between Rex Tillerson just last week and China, on
non-confrontation, mutual respect; also the intention that was
stated beforehand.  This was a direct blow already to the control
by the British Empire against the United States; and what they
have continued to keep under their control to stop the alliance
between the United States, Russia, and China.  As Mr. LaRouche
has made very clear on a number of occasions, once you have these
powers come together and form the type of alliance toward the
common aims of mankind, toward economic development; this is the
end of the British Empire, this is the end of the British system.
So, what’s their only recourse?  To create chaos, to create war.
We’ve seen this more than once, as we’ve already expressed here.
So, I think the key right now is, we go back to what we have
emphasized over the recent period; that what we’ve put out as the
immediate standard with Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws, bring down
Wall Street once and for all, bring down this British apparatus
that is completely infiltrating against this positive direction.
Start to mobilize the population right now, as we’ve already put
out the numbers on the screen here.  This mobilization is
absolutely critical, because we need to move at a rapid pace to
get everybody to call into Congress to go after those neo-con
warmongers who have been pushing — people like Adam Schiff and
John McCain and others — who have been continuing to push
towards this effort to get the United States into a nuclear
confrontation with Russia.  I think it’s very important that
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is coming out and saying these types
of actions can lead to nuclear war; but we cannot sit back and
wait for this to happen.  We have to directly identify and define
the enemy; and define what they’re absolutely opposed to:  the
United States joining in the New Silk Road; collaboration with
Russia, China, India and creating the four powers of the world
will eliminate the British Empire once and for all.  Again, it is
important that at the moment that you have this escalation taking
place, you have — as Matt mentioned — a bill in the US Senate
for the restoring of Glass-Steagall.  I think this comes at a
very important time, but it really has to be escalated around
that fight.  The mobilization for Glass-Steagall, for LaRouche’s
Four Laws, and for our understanding of what the fight of the
American System truly is; that is the fight to destroy and bring
down this British Empire once and for all.  There’s no other way
around that.

SARE:  I just want to underscore, one, the damage to the
relationship with Russia or potential.  According to coverage, a
Russian spokesman said this stuff deals significant damage to
US-Russian ties, which are already in a deplorable state.  Putin
has suspended the Memorandum of Understanding on deconfliction;
which greatly increases the danger in Syria of a military
conflict between Russia and the United States.  So, people should
be very clear on the intent of the British.  I also want to
remind people what the {London Spectator} said the day that Trump
was inaugurated, or the day after.  They had a headline article
that said, “Will President Trump be removed by assassination, in
a coup, or by impeachment?”  We know the British Empire is
determined to undermine and destroy the potential of this
Presidency.  I also should say that you see the potential —
there was an interview with President Xi Jinping during this
summit which has just ended, between him and Donald Trump.
Obviously, China is very determined, in spite of all these
difficulties, to hold a steady course and bring about the success
of this. What Xi Jinping said, according to {Xinhua News} is that
there are “a thousand reasons to make the China-US relationship
work, and no reason to break it.”  They say it takes “political
resolve and historical commitments from leaders of both countries
to enhance the bilateral relations in the 45 years to come.”  It
should be noted that Xi Jinping invited President Trump to come
to China; and President Trump accepted the invitation for
sometime this year, the time is not clear.  So, the situation
couldn’t be more clear, if you think about the tweet from British
broadcasting that this is a great way to undermine a strategic
summit between the US and China, is to have this sort of thing
happen.  We have to be on a total mobilization to smoke out and
destroy the British Empire faction that misinformed the President
of the actual situation, and would argue for such an
ill-conceived action against a sovereign nation.

OGDEN:  Let me go back and refer again to the blog that I
raised in the beginning from the website of Mr. Pat Lang.  What
he continued to say was “This attack was a violation of
international law. Donald Trump authorized an unjustified attack
on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing is that
people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike
Pompeo, and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this
charade. Front line troops know the truth. These facts will
eventually come out.”  You can’t help but be reminded of what
happened when John F Kennedy was double-crossed by his own
intelligence advisors in the attack on the Bay of Pigs; a very
ill-advised attack which he launched.  It was when he realized
that he had been double-crossed by the intelligence community,
that he decided that drastic action must be taken.  He cleaned
out that entire apparatus; firing the Dulles brothers, and
proceeded from there.  One can’t help but be reminded of that
historical precedent; but the question here is to get the facts,
to penetrate through what in fact did happen; to find out who it
was who propagated these lies or withheld the truth from the
President; how this decision was made, and what the intention of
those actions were.
So, I’m going to put on the screen one more time the contact
information.  Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Mr. LaRouche both
personally called for a direct mobilization of the American
people to raise this very question.  You can contact the White
House at 202 465-1111; or just go ahead and tweet directly
@realDonaldTrump.  Also, the same thing should be done with all
the members of Congress; both sides of this issue.  A total
mobilization should take place from the American people.  This
does not detract, but this feeds directly into the mobilization
that we already have underway to restore the Glass-Steagall Act;
to put this corrupt Wall Street element away for good; to protect
the American economy; and to bring the United States decisively
into this new power relationship.
I think what this situation makes more clear than anything
is that the responsibility is our; the responsibility is yours.
It’s not going to come from sitting back, cheerleading any
political faction or leader; it’s only by keeping a clear-eyed
focus on what the realities of the present situation are, and
what the principles are.  What do you stand for?  What do you
know must be done?  What is the leadership that LaRouche PAC has
provided and continues to provide?  To set a straight and narrow
course along exactly those principles and to mobilize
accordingly.
So, I would like to invite Ben, Diane, Kesha, if you have
anything to add, we can do so briefly and then bring this
broadcast to a conclusion.

ROGERS:  I think this mobilization is very important in the
context that next week it has been confirmed that US Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson is scheduled to go to Russia.  We have to
make clear that we cannot allow for anything to get in the way of
the forward-moving progress of the potential for the US to
actually collaborate as they’ve said; and this is with Russia, to
defeat ISIS, to stop this terrorist network; to collaborate on
economic development and cooperation, as we’re seeing with the
potential of China and the United States.  But it also has to be
made clear that these types of actions cannot be tolerated; and
we have to again make the point that this is an operation that
has been run against the Presidency of the United States.  The
intention has been made clear from the very beginning that it was
the intention of the British Empire to stop this President from
moving in a positive direction.  We have to not sit back — as
you said — and continue to escalate.  Everybody should be
calling their Congress members, calling the White House, and
doing everything that you can.  Those who are leading this fight
in terms of some of the statements that have come out, really
have to continue to make the point that there has been an
operation that has been run against the Presidency with the
intent to create total chaos.

OGDEN:  OK.  Keep your eyes on the LaRouche PAC website.  We
will have more printed and video material as the situation
develops.  Report back to us on the results of your phone calls,
your tweets, your mobilization; we need tight coordination on
this and a very clear focus.
So, thank you very much all of you for tuning in.  Thank you
to Ben, Kesha, and Diane for joining me here today.  Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.       




Overvind staten i staten for at sikre det nye paradigme.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
31. marts, 2017; Leder

Aftenens udsendelse falder i to dele. Første del handler om det, der kaldes Trumpgate; eller ideen om, at Vladimir Putin ikke alene satte Trump ved magten, men rent faktisk styrer Trump-administrationen og bestemmer politikken. Vi havde tidligere på dagen et interview med pensionerede CIA-analytiker Ray McGovern, som har arbejdet for CIA i mange årtier og er en af medstifterne af VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionels for Sanity). Lad os starte med det første klip fra interviewet med Ray McGovern:

Jason Ross: Godaften. Med mig i studiet i dag er chef for EIR’s Washington-afdeling, Bill Jones.

Aftenens udsendelse falder i to dele. Første del handler om det, der kaldes Trumpgate; eller ideen om, at Vladimir Putin ikke alene satte Trump ved magten, men rent faktisk styrer Trump-administrationen og bestemmer politikken. Vi havde tidligere på dagen et interview med pensionerede CIA-analytiker Ray McGovern, som har arbejdet for CIA i mange årtier og er en af medstifterne af VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionels for Sanity). Lad os starte med det første klip fra interviewet med Ray McGovern:

Udskrift af webcast, engelsk:

DEFEAT THE DEEP STATE TO ENSURE THE NEW PARADIGM!

        JASON ROSS:  Hello.  It is March 31, 2017; and you're
joining us for the weekly Friday LaRouche PAC webcast.  My name
is Jason Ross, and I'm joined in the studio today by {EIR}'s
Washington DC Bureau Chief Bill Jones.  We're going to have two
main parts to the discussion tonight.  The first aspect we're
going to be dealing with is what's called Trumpgate; or the idea
that Vladimir Putin not only put Trump in power, but is actually
running the Trump administration and setting policy.  To discuss
that with us, we had an interview earlier today with retired CIA
analyst Ray McGovern; who worked in the CIA for multiple decades
and is one of the co-founders of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity).  So, let's go ahead and get the first
clip from the interview with Ray McGovern.

        ROSS : First off, setting the stage, ever since Trump
was elected, and especially since his inauguration, there has
been a growing chorus of claims about Vladimir Putin putting
Trump in office by directing the election; and of even directing
Trump's policy.  That, in effect, Vladimir Putin is running the
United States government.  So, first off, is this true?

        RAY MCGOVERN:  Well, if it is, then I don't know anything
about Russia or the Soviet Union.  I was counting up the years
that I've been immersed in Russian studies; it goes back 59 years
when I decided to major in Russian, got my graduate degree in
Russian.  Taught Russian; was the head of the Soviet foreign
policy branch at the CIA; briefed Presidents on Gorbachev.  I
like to think I learned something about how Russian leaders look
at the world.  When I heard this meme going around that Vladimir
Putin clearly preferred Donald Trump, my notion was, well, here's
Vladimir Putin sitting with his advisors, and he's saying "That
Trump fellow; he's not only unpredictable, but he's proud of it.
He brags about it, and he lashes out strongly at every slight;
whether it's real or imagined.  This is just the guy I want to
have his finger on the nuclear codes across the ocean."  It
boggles the mind that Vladimir Putin would have had any
preference for Donald Trump.  That's aside from the fact that
everyone — and that would include Vladimir Putin, unless he's
clairvoyant — knew that Hillary was going to win.
        So, just to pursue this thing very briefly, if the major
premise is that Vladimir Putin and the terrible Russians wanted
Trump to win; then you have a syllogism.  Therefore, they tried
to help him; therefore, they did all kinds of  But if you don't
accept that major premise, the whole syllogism falls apart; and I
don't accept that major premise.   Putin said it himself: "I
don't have a preference."  And I didn't have any preference; I
happened to be in Germany during the election, in Berlin.  It was
exciting, because the German anchors didn't know what to say, to
make of it; and my German friends were saying "We have a German
expression here; the choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton is
eine wahl zwischen Pest und Cholera."  That means it's a choice
between plague and cholera.  I said, "You know, I kind of agree."
That's why I not only voted for Jill Stein; but was proud to —
on the environment, on all the major issues, she had it right.
The others did not.  That's the way I looked at it.  I kind of
think that's the way Putin looked at it; and when he said "I
don't have any preference," he probably meant he didn't have any
preference.  So, that syllogism falls down.
        Now, just pursue that one little bit here.  Everyone
expected Hillary to win; everyone.  We're talking Summer; we're
talking Fall as Trump disgraced himself in one manner or another.
He could never win, right?  And nobody thought that Hillary was
such a flawed candidate that nobody trusted her; that she might
lose.  So, you hear what I'm saying?  "Well, it looks like
Hillary is going to win.  Looks pretty sure she's going to win.
So, why not hack into her mechanism there in the Democratic
National Committee?  If I get caught, well she may be angry with
me, but what's to lose?"  I don't think so.  Putin is a very
cautious fellow.  If he thought Hillary was going to win, like
the rest of us did, the last thing he would want to do is hack
into their DNC apparatus and be caught; because he would likely
be caught.  And have an additional grievance for Hillary to
advertise against him.  So, it falls down on logic alone.
        Now, luckily, you mentioned Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.  We are the beneficiary of a membership
whose expertise in intelligence matters just won't quit.  This
includes four former high officials in the National Security
Agency — retired; one of whom devised all of these collection
systems that NSA is still using.  His name is Bill Binney.  He
and I are very close.  He writes for us; and he helps me write
things.  What he has said from the outset — and this is five
months ago — is that this could not be a hack; it had to be a
leak.  And for your listeners or your viewers, a hack goes over
the network.

        ROSS:  You're speaking of the DNC?

        MCGOVERN:  Yeah, I'm talking about the Russians — thanks
for interrupting; the Russians are accused, of course, of hacking
into the Democratic National Committee emails and they're also
accused of surfacing the Podesta emails.  Bill says, "Look, I
know this network; I created pretty much the bones of it.  And,
I'm free to talk about it.  Why?  Here are the slides that Ed
Snowden brought out; here are the trace points, the trace
mechanism.  And there are hundreds in the network.  So,
everything that goes across the network, Ray, and I know this is
hard for you to believe, and you're looking at me real strange,
but {everything}.  You know where it starts and you know where it
ends up; everything."  So, if this was a hack, NSA would know
about it. NSA does not know about it.  As a matter of fact, the
CIA and the FBI said "We have high confidence that the Russians
did this."  The NSA, which is the only real agency that has the
capability to trace this, said "We only have moderate
confidence."  In the Army, we called that the SWAG factor — it's
a Scientific Wild-Assed Guess.  So, NSA doesn't have the
information.  If they had the information, I'm pretty sure they
would release it; because this is not rocket science.  Everybody
knows how these things work, particularly since Ed Snowden
revealed the whole kit and caboodle.

        ROSS [live]:  This is part of the interview; the entirety of
which will be available on the website coming soon.  It was an
hour-long discussion with Ray McGovern.  Just to follow up on
that, or continue, the British origin of the attacks on Trump
were seen in the dossier that was compiled by former MI-6
operative Christopher Steele; who put together the large dossier
of supposedly compromising material on Donald Trump that was
first published in its entirety on Buzzfeed, but which had been
spoken of in anonymous sort of way by press outlets before that.
The incredible assault on Trump here, this doesn't represent a
Democrat versus Republican type of conflict; what this represents
is whether we're going to have the elected government.  Donald
Trump is the elected President of the United States; he was
elected.  He won the election; he was elected.  Whether we're
going to have an elected government run the United States, or
whether the Deep State — the intelligence agencies in the United
States and in Britain, very significantly — are going to have
their way in determining what our policy will be.  Specifically
in seeing the Trump openness in resetting the relationship with
Russia, with an openness towards China and with an increasing
adoption of the American System outlook, this is not the type of
policy orientation that this Deep State apparatus; hence, the
attacks.
        Ray McGovern and Bill Binney co-authored an article three
days ago, called "The Surveillance State Behind Russia-gate".  I
just wanted to read a very short part of this.  They write:
        "Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy
and further befogged by politics  it appears House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about
invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government
officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President
Trump.
        "This news presents Trump with an unwelcome but unavoidable
choice: Confront those who have kept him in the dark about such
rogue activities or live fearfully in their shadow.
        "What President Trump decides will largely determine the
freedom of action he enjoys as president on many key security and
other issues. But even more so," write Ray McGovern and Bill
Binney, "his choice may decide whether there is a future for this
constitutional republic."
        Very strong words.  In the past month, on March 4th, we saw
Trump's announcement that he was surveilled by the outgoing Obama
administration; he used the word "wiretap" at times, for which he
was attacked for his choice of language.  But the statement still
stands about surveillance.  On March 20th, FBI Director Comey
testified that he was investigating the Trump administration;
guess he didn't have any time to investigate the Saudis.  Just
today, Wikileaks came out with a report in which they released
the latest section of what they are calling "Vault 7"; which is a
collection of material from the CIA — documentation and source
code.  What this latest release showed was "Project Marble", as
the CIA called it; which revealed a program that they had to
obfuscate their own creation of cyber weaponry of malware and
other types of attacks, and the ability to easily attribute such
attacks to other state actors.  Including the ability to — while
making it look as though an attack came from Russia, also include
a seeming cover-up of Russian tracks; so that a security
researcher might feel that they had stumbled across a clue by
finding Russian language comments in this cyber attack weapon,
when really it had been planted from the beginning.  This of
course raises the question of attribution at all, and in
particular about the DNC hacks.  The FBI never investigated the
DNC computers; and all the complaints about Russian involvement
and Russian malware came from CrowdStrike, an independent firm.
Which, if it's up against the CIA and a colossal program to be
able to obfuscate the actual origin of internet attacks, makes it
very unlikely; in addition to, as Ray McGovern said, all signs
point to this and the Podesta emails being leaks rather than
hacks anyway.
        So, let's hear our second clip that we have for the program
from Ray McGovern.

        MCGOVERN :  I think Nunes wants to do the right
thing.  Whether he'll succeed or not is anybody's guess.  All I
can say is, he's up against formidable opponents; witness what
the ranking member or minority leader of the Senate, Chuck
Schumer, has said outright to Rachel Maddow.

        ROSS :  Yeah.  It puts the ranking and ranking.

        MCGOVERN:  Yeah, you got it!

        ROSS:  I think this story or picture that you've painted
really gives us something that we need to do; because if this is
to be fought out only among institutional layers, it's a tough
fight.  It's something where if people are aware, as we're able
to make known to the population more generally that this is a
fight; that this isn't about Democrats versus Republicans.  This
is really much more about Deep State versus the potential of
elected government to determine our course.  The threats of say,
blackmail via the FBI or other intelligence agencies, the
dossiers that no doubt exist on these elected officials; that
stands as a threat if people aren't aware of that being the MO
[modus operandi–ed.].  I think people are more familiar with the
way the FBI targetted Martin Luther King; urged him on more than
one occasion to commit suicide to prevent these kinds of
documents from getting out.  I think it really means that there's
something for all of us to do in terms of making sure that this
is known; making sure that the terms of the fight are known, to
make it possible to win this one.

        MCGOVERN:  Exactly; and those were wiretaps, back in the
late '50s, early '60s, those were real wiretaps.  You're quite
right; that was heinous.  Now, I asked Colleen Rowley, who's as I
say, the expertise we have available to us at Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity won't quit.  Colleen was
the counsel of the Minneapolis division of the FBI; she was the
one who wrote memos to the Director saying this is how we screwed
up on 9/11.  She's got guts that won't quit as well.  I said,
"Colleen, Robert Kennedy — my God!  Robert Kennedy, Attorney
General, allowing, authorizing the FBI to try to persuade Dr.
King to commit suicide?  How do you figure that, Colleen?"  And
she said, "Ray, wiretapping; J Edgar Hoover.  Bobby Kennedy would
know that J Edgar Hoover has lots of information on all those
pretty girls that he and Jack used to invite to the White House
pool and all of that stuff."  She's imagining this; but the
reality is, Robert Kennedy would know that J Edgar Hoover would
have lots of material to blackmail not only him, but his big
brother.
        That's big; and that's why when all this came out in the mid
'70s, they created these laws and created these Oversight
Committees, which for a while, did their job.  Now, they're
hopelessly unable, unwilling; they don't want to know this stuff,
and they don't know it for that matter.  The intelligence
officials say "They don't want to know this, so why should we
tell them?"  As for citizens, I would emphasize that this whole
business when Edward Snowden came out with his revelations in
June of 2013, what happened?  Well, people say, "Well, isn't this
interesting?  Everything, they intercept everything!  Emails,
telephone calls, wow!  Luckily, I have nothing to hide."  So, we
asked someone from the Stasi — Stasi is the old East German
secret service; and if people have seen "Das Lieben Der Anderen"
— "The Lives of Others" — an Academy Award film about East
Germany and the Stasi.  The Stasi was their KGB.  You get a
picture of what they did.  Wolfgang Schmidt — his real name by
the way — a Stasi colonel, is interviewed.  One of the Americans
sits down and asks, "Wolfgang, what do you think about people in
America when we say 'We have nothing to hide'?"  Schmidt says,
"This is incredibly naïve.  Everyone has something to hide.  You
don't get to decide what they get on you.  The only way to
prevent it from being against you, is to prevent it from being
collected in the first place."  Beautiful, you know? If they
collect it, they can use it. They don't read it all; they don't
listen to it all. But they but it into these little files —
they're not files, but they're …
        So, yeah, {all of us}. What Edward Snowden said about
"turnkey tyranny." If you have these kinds of private information
about {everyone} including the President and Michael Flynn and
all his associates, back in October-November-December; well, you
have the ability, if not to win the election, then to at least to
destroy or make these folks seem beholden to the {Russians}, of
all places, and disarm the attempts that Trump wants to make,
vis-à-vis Russia.
        Now, I would have to tell you, that I am against everything
Trump stands for, internally. I think he's not only unqualified
to be President, but all his instincts are terrible. Okay, so put
that on the record. I think I already said I voted for Jill
Stein. That said, even a broken clock is right how many times a
day?

        ROSS: Twice a day.

        MCGOVERN: Yeah. He's right about Russia. If he were to say
to Vladimir Putin, "Look, I don't think we need to put more
troops in the Baltic states or Poland; so why don't I pull out
those troops, and you pull out the troops on the other side? It's
a deal?" I'm morally certain Putin would say, "It's a deal!" Now,
what would that mean? That would mean what Pope Francis, to his
credit, called "the blood-drenched arms traders" would lose out,
big time. Peace: bad for business. Tension: very good for
business. So, there's a lot at stake among very, very powerful
people; and if Trump can make this stick — this is not a puny,
incidental issue, it's a transcendental one.
        I was more afraid that Hillary would bring us to a nuclear
confrontation than Trump. I didn't like Trump on the environment,
because I have nine grand-children. Don't Senators and
Congressmen have grand-children? Don't they give —  So, for me
it was a choice between pest and cholera. But, here we have a
possibility for a new what the Germans call {ostpolitik} — a new
policy, looking to the east. Take my word for it; I've looked at
what the Russians have done. I've looked at heyday of the
relationship of the United States and Russia, which goes back to
October of 2013 when Putin pulled Obama's chestnuts out of the
fire by persuading the Syrians to destroy or (have destroyed) all
their chemical weapons {on U.S. ships}. Okay? Nobody knows about
that but the United States.
        But the neo-cons, the people who want to create a {bad}
atmosphere in relations between the United States and Russia —
they know about it. It only took them six months to mount a coup
on Russia's doorstep in Kiev, Ukraine. And that's where all this
trouble started: Russians accused of invading Ukraine — not
true; of invading Crimea — not true. All that stuff was
artificially pumped up. It's just as easily tssuuuu, deflated.
And Trump, if he's willing to do that, well, that would be a
biggie.
        So, being right two times a day is better than never being
right.

        ROSS [laughing]: Well put.

        MCGOVERN: I think.

        ROSS: Great! Thanks very much, Ray. Thanks.

        MCGOVERN: You're most welcome. Thanks for asking. It's very
rare that I get a chance to review what I observe. LaRouche PAC
Friday Webcast,  March 31, 2017

        ROSS: To fill in one thing on that, regarding Sen. Schumer:
in January, Schumer was on the Rachel Maddow Show, and he said he
thought Trump was "really dumb" for taking on the intelligence
agencies, because "they've got six ways from Sunday to get back
at you." Schumer was saying, "Don't get on the bad side of the
intelligence agencies, or they're going to make you pay for it."
A very direct and cowardly and craven admission that there is a
power in government besides the elected government. Just a
disgusting thing to say.
        Let's shift now to our other topic, which is where we {can}
go in the United States, once we throw off the yoke of this
opposition to collaboration in the world. The promise that we
see, for example, in the upcoming meeting taking place April 6-7
next week at Mar-a-Lago with President Xi Jinping of China and
President Trump. Bill, what's the import of this meeting
happening? Where could we go if this shakes out well?

        BILL JONES: It's a very significant meeting. It is a
watershed meeting in a variety of ways. First of all, the two
major countries in the world — China and the United States —
getting together in this way at the highest level, is, of course,
something that affects the entire world. But it's important,
especially now, because you have a new administration, with a new
policy, with a new direction, trying to revive the U.S. economy,
trying to bring back a lot of the economic growth that has been
lost over the last few decades. The question for the Chinese, is
what is that policy, what effect does it have on us, and how do
we fit in? It's going to be a meeting that doesn't lead to any
specific what they call "deliverables." You're not going to have
communiques saying we're going to do this, we're going to do
that, coming out of the meeting.
        The Trump administration is still getting itself organized.
Many of the issues, including the issues that are matters of
controversy between China and the United States, have not been
worked out, because the people are not in place in the
departments at this point. Those include the South China Sea, the
Korean nuclear question, the trade issue — which is very
important, of course, for the Trump administration. These things
still have to be worked out. They will be discussed. In fact,
they will, probably, have at the top of the agenda, of going
through them one by one, to determine this is where we stand,
where do you stand? — to try to get an understanding of where
the two sides lie on issues that to some extent separate them.
        The importance of the meeting, if it is successful — and I
think it will be successful; it's happening at a very early stage
in the administration. It's not so often that a summit of this
nature will be held — what is it? — two-three months from the
inauguration of the President. Both sides agreed that they wanted
to have this. Both of them felt that there was a necessity of
getting together at the highest level in order to really get to
know where the two stand, and really getting to know each other
in a very different sense. They've had communication from the
get-go. There were two phone calls. There were a number of
letters that went back and forth; so they're not strangers to
each other. But it's that time of {meeting}, where they can talk
one-on-one, or with people that they decide to have with them at
any particular point. Probably will be a one-on-one meeting with
interpreters at some point. They will get to learn the mind of
the other person.
        This is extremely important because during the course of the
election, as is often the case, many things are said which don't
necessary don't reflect anything on policy. We've had the
uncertainties about the Taiwan issue. At one point it was unclear
for the Chinese if the One-China policy was still going to be
followed by the Trump administration. And certain things that
were tweeted or said in the spur of the moment were taken
seriously by Beijing; and so there was a lot of uncertainty and a
certain amount of trepidation. Most of that has been cleared up.
The One-China policy stands fast. This, President Trump has made
clear.
        More importantly, on the lower level of high-level meetings
between Secretary of State Tillerson and his counterpart, Foreign
Minister Wang Yi, he did something that no other official has
ever done. He reiterated what has been the explicit Chinese
position with regard to the China-America relationship. He said,
"No conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win
cooperation." He's taken a lot of heat for doing that, because
that has not been what the United States has said; it's what the
Chinese have said and indicated this is what they want. By saying
it, Tillerson indicated that the United States was on board these
basic policies.
        On the basis of that, they are able to have their meeting. I
think it will be a good meeting, because President Trump is a
very good host. He has shown that in a lot of the summits that
he's had. President Xi is also — although these are two very
different personalities — they're both really "people persons."
They know how to talk to people in all categories of life.
President Xi is really unique in one sense among many Chinese
leaders, some of whom are much stiffer, because he {does} go to
the people; he {does} know them; he {has} worked amongst them.
President Trump, although he was an industrialist, a very wealthy
man, he could go onto the work sites, he could talk to the people
down there, he could get a feeling for what they were all about.
        I think these characteristics will allow them to establish a
rapport, perhaps even a warm relationship, in understanding each
other. That is extremely important because as we move into the
administration, as policy takes place, a lot of these difficult
issues, like the issue of trade, will be coming up. President
Trump, of course, was very explicit on that in his campaign. He
wants to have fair trade; he's not a "free-trader," letting the
market decide. He has made references to the American System of
Henry Clay. He probably will move to tariffs on certain products,
in order to create a basis for industrial production in those
areas where the United States has lost jobs to low-wage
producers. It's a new element that the Chinese also have to take
into consideration.
        And, of course, it seems to me that if there is this
understanding, and President Trump wants to move forward on maybe
being less open in terms of trade on certain products, there is a
possibility of giving the Chinese added capabilities, because
they may lose some of the market on certain trade, but they can,
for instance, have a larger market in terms of investment in
infrastructure. President Trump also has committed to $1 trillion
in infrastructure in the United States, to rebuild the roads,
rebuild the highways, rebuild the cities, and the infrastructure.
$1 trillion.  He is not going to get that from industry; industry
is not generally interested in waiting 10 years to get a payback
on investment that they make.  Unfortunately, the United States
no longer has the types of institutions that could finance this.
That may change; if Trump goes with the American System, maybe he
will move in the direction that Lyndon LaRouche has indicated in
his four points, by setting up an infrastructure bank or a
development bank like the Hamiltonian bank; like the First Bank
of the United States, to finance this.  But, in that case, you
have China also with a lot of capital that they could invest and
{would like to invest} in the United States; which could assist
President Trump in his attempt to rebuild infrastructure.
        This came up in a meeting today at CSIS; I raised that type
of a trade-off, and the people generally were positive to this
notion.  If some kind of infrastructure bank or a group or fund
in which the Chinese could go and invest, were set up; this would
be a possibility for them investing in the United States.  There
are many difficulties with that, but it may also be something
that the Chinese are interested in.  In fact, the question of
taking much of their capital, which has hitherto been invested in
Treasury bills, and putting that into a fund for infrastructural
investment has been mooted both privately and in public in the
media in China.  So, there may be a possibility that the Chinese
leader coming here, will also have something to offer; may make a
proposal of this nature, which would then set the stage for
moving further.
        So, I think this is an important meeting, because it will
really provide the basis for economic development; and the
Chinese are in the forefront of this economic development.  Not
simply by having become a major — in fact, the second major —
economic power in the world; but through their Belt and Road
Initiative, they have then offered this type of development to
the other countries of the world — especially in the developing
sector.  All countries are invited to this; including the United
States.  So, if you have some kind of an agreement in regard to
these issues on infrastructure, trade, the United States can then
become a part of the Silk Road here in the United States itself.

        ROSS:  Bill, could you tell us more about what lessons we
could learn from China on financing?  China has been putting a
tremendous amount of money into infrastructure.  They have a
wonderful high-speed rail network, the most extensive in the
world; which is going to be doubled within a decade or so in
terms of its extent.  You had mentioned something about the
opportunity to invest Treasury bonds in something more
productive.  What can we learn?  How are they doing this?  What
can we do here?

        JONES:  Well, obviously, what the Chinese are doing is what
the United States used to do.  You go back to the FDR period, and
you will see that this is what was done.  The institutions that
were established to build the TVA, to finance development; to
create the industries at the point in time when we were in the
Great Depression, were all here as institutions which promoted
the development of private industry.  But creating the basis on
which that private industry can move in.  This is the Hamiltonian
system; this is the way the United States was created.  We were
not based on free trade; we fought against free trade.  Hamilton
introduced tariffs in order to prevent the British from dumping
their products on the US economy; making it impossible for us to
produce our own products and ever becoming an industrial nation.
That was reinstituted at various times in our history when the
free trade mania took place, leading to devastation; it was
revived at various points.  Abraham Lincoln did it; President
McKinley did it.  Roosevelt in his own way did that; and it's
been a very successful model.  The Chinese have used that, given
their own specific circumstances, with largely state-controlled
industries, they nevertheless have used this Hamiltonian or you
called it a Listian model; since the influence of Germany on the
Chinese economy was very great in the last century.  They used
this policy in order to develop their industries.  They have a
free market; they have individual entrepreneurs; they're very
successful in computers and other fields.  But there is a
government which is responsible for the good of the people; for
the people's welfare — or as the Chinese call it, the people's
livelihood.  Therefore, they must make sure that things work so
that these industries operate to the benefit of the people.  We
had that system, too; we have it in our Constitution.  The
Federal government is responsible for the General Welfare; that
is a broad notion.  That means that people cannot be put on the
scrap heap, they can't be out of work a long period of time;
there must be measures that are taken to assure them that they
can survive and their families can survive.  We've gone away from
that system; we've become much more anarchistic in this free
market system, and a lot of people have suffered.
        When President Trump was elected, to the surprise of the
large majority of the citizenry and of the world, it was simply
by appealing to the changes that were necessary to move away from
that type of system toward one which could secure a livelihood
for the American people.  The Chinese can serve as a model for
that; it's a little bit different, but the principle is the same.
The principle of this Hamiltonian system.  We have to begin to
reconstitute institutions that can provide credit guarantees to
our industries, to our construction companies; so we can build
those roads, highways, nuclear power plants, things like that
which we need.  We also have got to reinstitute the tried and
true separation of speculators from the legitimate commercial
bankers; that's called Glass-Steagall, and that was the law
between 1933 and 1998.  It meant that the speculators, the
gamblers, those who want to make quick bucks in a short time,
even though there's tremendous risk, they cannot go into the
banks and take Grandma's money and use that for the speculation
to the detriment of Grandma if they lose.  And the losses, of
course, in the financial system have been extremely great.   So,
that has to be reinstituted again.  We have to prevent the Wall
Street culprits, the pirates, from stealing our wealth and the
wealth of people who have invested in their banks.  If that is
done, then we cut off the fluff that is the fictitious growth of
the paper economy, and have the capability of using the funds
that are available to extend a credit system in the United States
to build and to create greater wealth tomorrow as a result of
this investment today.

        ROSS:  So, once we get Glass-Steagall passed, once we trim
off this cancerous speculation and make it possible for credit to
be going into productive purposes, what do you see as the
potential physical types of cooperation with China?  You had
mentioned earlier that if Trump puts up tariffs, China may see
this as acceptable from the context of Chinese businesses being
able to open up in the United States as well.  When you think
about the kinds of physical investments that need to be made on
things like railroads in particular, something where China has a
great deal of home-grown expertise at this point, including the
development of maglev rail; or nuclear plants, which China is
building the most of in the world, most of them are being built
in China right now.  What do you see as the need or the potential
for physical economic cooperation with China, for us to have a
physical economic recovery here?

        JONES:  There are a variety of way they could do this.
There could be direct investment — look, they made a proposal to
build high-speed rail in California going from LA to Las Vegas.
They also invested in Las Vegas a lot, too; there's a lot of
infrastructure there.  However, that didn't go through, because
there were concerns whether it's security or whatever concerns;
maybe because it was a state-owned enterprise.  But those things
are going to happen.  I think the important thing is, if the
rules are lifted, so that China has a greater possibility of
direct investment; they could do that.  There's also another
option; and some people are concerned that if China owns our
railroads, where do we stand and what does this mean for the
United States?  We can get around that through this idea of
creating this fund or a national bank.  The national bank of
Alexander Hamilton, the money was lent from international
lenders; it was really the Dutch who were doing this.  We owed
them the debt, and by creating a debt repayment plan, they were
willing to put more money into the United States.  The bank could
accept money from US people; it could also potentially accept
money from foreign investors as well.  This would be a way for
China — and this has actually been proposed by the head of the
China Central Investment Corporation; who said we have all this
money in Treasury bills, and we're getting maybe 1% or 2%
interest on the Treasury bills.  We would be just as happy to
invest this in an infrastructure fund, where we might get 2% or
3% — a low interest rate it has to be, because it's long-term;
but better than they're doing now.  That money would then be
readily available for the United States also, if they have the
capabilities; if we have the workers and the materiel and
everything to do it ourselves.  But they could also contribute as
well; they could contribute with their expertise as they have
done in Africa, in Asia and Latin America.  They know the ropes
in terms of high-speed rail; they know the problems involved in
it.  They know all the technicalities of it because they've built
so many of those; but we haven't built any high-speed rail, so
we're kind of starting from scratch.  They could come to offer
their technical assistance, or even offer capital to try and get
these things started.  There are many ways that this can be
resolved, and there are ways that have been indicated clearly by
Chinese representatives that they would be happy to do things
like this.  So, the only thing is, we have to have a situation
where the only thing that is done on trade — and nothing
draconian should be done, because that would cause a major
problem.  But whatever is done on trade, there is a quid pro quo;
something that China gets to their advantage so that you have a
win-win situation as people are saying.
        With regard, of course, to the summit, what has been
emphasized by the Chinese, of course, is that element of mutual
respect; and this is absolutely key, this is why there is a
certain amount of trepidation.  China is a major country; it is
effectively a great power at this point.  They are a very proud
people, and they have a right to be; as Americans are a proud
people.  But in the United States, this is not so well understood
because of the attitude toward China and the Chinese which
existed during the entirety of the 1800s going into the 1900s
with the Chinese Exclusion Act and all these measures that were
taken to keep the Chinese — who built our Transcontinental
Railroad — out of the country.  People saw them as people who
didn't have a culture, who lived at a very low level; and they
just did not understand the greatness that was China.  We
understood that in the beginning in the American Revolution;
Benjamin Franklin was the first major Sinophile, the lover of
China.  He wanted to introduce many of these projects that
Confucius — the great Chinese philosopher — had been talking
about in terms of creating a leadership.  He wanted to implement
that here in the United States; but that was lost.  And that is a
big loss, because things may go well at the top level, but there
also has to be this understanding between the peoples.  There's
going to be more exchanges; there are going to be exchanges on
the economic side.  If these programs go through, you will have
Chinese technicians and engineers coming and helping in the
United States; you'll have more Chinese tourists — and there are
many of them coming in today.  And hopefully, you'll have more
American tourists going to China to learn the culture and the
society; to get to know it better.  Because as they get to know
it better, they will understand the importance of the nation and
the importance of the relationship that we have with China.
        So, much can come out of this summit meeting, and I'm
relatively confident that it will be successful; at least to the
extent that the two leaders of the two major nations in the world
will have a greater understanding of the other's views, of the
other's wishes, of the other's motivation. If you have that, then
you have the basis on which these other problems — trade, South
China Sea, the Korean nuclear program — can be more readily
resolved.

        ROSS:  Thank you very much.  On the aspect of moving forward
and China's role in developing new things, I know that China has
made a push on changing the conception of "Made in China" meaning
some cheap junk, to "created in China"; to the fact that there's
a development of an ability to create new products.  You brought
up the entrepreneurship in many fields; we see it in the
high-speed rail, for example.  You definitely see it in the
Chinese space program and Chinese efforts towards fusion
research.
        I wanted to let our viewers know and ask you to say a bit
about a conference that was held last Saturday in Munich,
Germany.  A conference on March 25th for the 100th anniversary of
the birth of the German space visionary, space pioneer Krafft
Ehricke.  I know that Bill, you were fortunate to be able to
attend this conference; and the videos of it will be posted on
the Schiller Institute site in a somewhat short period of time, I
hope.  Could you tell us a bit about it from your firsthand
experience?

        JONES:  This is an attempt to revive an understanding of a
person who really was undoubtedly one of the greatest of the
space pioneers who worked in the US space program.  He was a part
of the German team that came over from Peenemünde.  Everybody
knows Werner von Braun, but nowadays they don't know Krafft
Ehricke; which is a shame, because he was one of the most genial
of all of those pioneers.  He was thinking hundreds of years
ahead; he was thinking already in the 1950s of building colonies
on the Moon.  He actually had correspondence between him and
Werner von Braun on how to get to Mars; both of them had written
books on how to get to Mars.  They had exchanges now and then
where Krafft would make suggestions on how you would do it; and
von Braun would respond.  But he was also a very unusual
individual, because he believed that the nature of man is that of
a creative being; that man cannot stand still.  He must always
pursue the search for the new frontiers; this is in the
fundamental core of human nature, that they must seek the new and
develop the new.  Because of this, of course, he came into
contact with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche; and they just hit it off
from the get-go.  They were like souls.  The last part of his
life, he was working with the Schiller Institute and with the
LaRouches to fight the zero-growth movement.  When we came into
contact with Krafft, during the period of transition from the
great heyday of the space program to the low level of the
zero-growth, back-to-nature movement, Krafft was conducting a
lone fight in order to fight the philosophy that was being
foisted upon the American people with the zero-growth movement.
Of course, when he came into contact with the LaRouches, he
realized that there was a greater forum on which he could
operate; so they became very good friends.  He went on tours
together with them in order to talk about the space program; to
try and revive an interest in space in those days.
        The reason we're reviving it is not simply that it's his
100th birthday; he would have been 100 years old this week, if he
had lived.  He died at a very early stage; he was in his sixties
— 1984 — he was still a relatively young man, but he had a
serious ailment and he passed away at that time.  We felt it was
necessary not only to honor him and to raise an understanding in
the broader public about his importance.  But also given the fact
that President Trump has expressed the intention of moving back
into space in the message that he send that he sent last weekend
— in fact, the same day as the conference.  We were able to put
that on the film at the end of that; it had come in in the
morning, and the conference went until the afternoon, so we
showed that; and people of course were very surprised.  They
thought this was a conspiracy between us and President Trump; it
wasn't that, it was just coincidence.  But because this is now
the re-orientation of the United States, it has created a new
capability of moving in that direction that we lost many years
ago.  And that therefore the work of Krafft Ehricke, which again
still remains to be realized, now becomes of practical importance
for moving back into space.  So, there was a kind of dual purpose
for the conference.

        ROSS:  Great.  I think if we compare the two images that
we've been discussing tonight — the attempt to prevent by any
means a shift away from the anti-Russia, anti-cooperation policy
that had dominated the thinking of the previous administration;
we compare that with the potential that we have in cooperating
with and working with the New Paradigm created by the LaRouches
over the decades, and being spearheaded right now on a policy
front by China, we really have a great potential in store for us.
These assaults on Trump — Trumpgate — the idea that Vladimir
Putin is destroying the United States; this stuff really will not
blow over.  Given that Trump has attempted to turn the tables on
this by calling out the wiretapping, by calling out the
surveillance, by taking on these institutions — domestic
intelligence agencies and, of course, the British; this means
it's possible to actually defeat this control or grip over the
government of the United States and make it possible to set our
own policy, and a very good policy.  And develop a future that we
can be proud of.  So, we have a great deal of material about this
on our website; we've been almost every day continuing with
updates to keep you informed about what can be done on this fight
against the Deep State here and in Britain.  We will continue to
have more on that; and we need your help, we need everybody's
help to make sure that we have the potential to be freed up to
join the future that could be ours if we take up that chance.
        So thank you, Bill, for joining us today.

        JONES:  Thank you for having me.

        ROSS:  Thank you for joining us, and we will see you next
time.

 

   




Brug skønhed, optimisme og store ideer til at inspirere folk!
Leder; LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
17. marts, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

(Matthew Ogden oplæser Apellen).

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

* En dansk version af denne pdf er under udarbejdelse.

Se: Introduktion. 

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

Engelsk udskrift af hele dette webcast:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 




Hvorfor briterne hader Trump
– og nu er den nye rapport fra LaRouchePAC udgivet!
Leder; LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
10. marts, 2017

Jeg tænkte, jeg ville præsentere min fremlæggelse under titlen, »Hvorfor briterne hader Trump«. Dette er meget vigtigt – Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi ikke vil vinde det her, med mindre vi forstår, at vi har med Det britiske Imperium at gøre – at vi altid har haft med Det britiske Imperium at gøre. Mange mennesker har ment, at LaRouche enten overdrev eller ikke har erkendt, at Det britiske Imperium er brudt sammen for længe siden, men det står nu meget, meget klart, hvad det er, han har refereret til i fyrre år eller mere, og som er, at vi har med et Amerika at gøre, som i vid udstrækning er blevet overtaget af Det britiske Imperium, til en vis grad via Wall Street, men også i nogen udstrækning gennem efterretningsvæsenets og andres operationer.

Jason Ross: Godaften! Det er i dag den 10. marts, 2017.

Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg lykkeligvis Mike Billington, en af redaktørerne på Executive Intelligence Review, og vi springer direkte til en diskussion med Mike om, hvor vi står lige nu i verden, og hvad mener briterne om det?

Mike Billington: Jeg tænkte, jeg ville præsentere min fremlæggelse under titlen, »Hvorfor briterne hader Trump«. Dette er meget vigtigt – Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi ikke vil vinde det her, med mindre vi forstår, at vi har med Det britiske Imperium at gøre – at vi altid har haft med Det britiske Imperium at gøre. Mange mennesker har ment, at LaRouche enten overdrev eller ikke har erkendt, at Det britiske Imperium er brudt sammen for længe siden, men det står nu meget, meget klart, hvad det er, han har refereret til i fyrre år eller mere, og som er, at vi har med et Amerika at gøre, som i vid udstrækning er blevet overtaget af Det britiske Imperium, til en vis grad via Wall Street, men også i nogen udstrækning gennem efterretningsvæsenets og andres operationer. Beviserne herfor hober sig nu op – det er ikke længere sådan, at vi ligesom taler sort sprog om Det britiske Imperiums rolle. Vi ser beviserne vælte frem, ikke kun gennem implikation, men i deres eget navn – briterne indrømmer nu, i eget navn, at de er ude på at rive USA’s regering ned; at gennemføre et kup mod USA’s demokratisk valgte regering under Donald Trump. Der er mange eksempler på dette; jeg vil nævne nogle få for at give jer en smagsprøve. Londonavisen The Guardian har etableret en website, med navnet, »Modstand nu«, som opfordrer alle de amerikanere, der er oprørt over de forfærdelige begivenheder i Amerika; som er ude at demonstrere og måske kaster molotovcocktails; som fodrer pressen med historier om russisk overtagelse af Amerika, som kan gå direkte ind på vore websider og indsamle alle disse informationer for at forbedre folks kendskab til alle disse rædsler med Donald Trump. Alt dette begyndte naturligvis, i offentlighedens øjne, med MI6-agenten Christopher Steeles udgivelse af det 35 sider lange, nu berømte dokument, fuld af absolut sindssyge, opdigtede historier om, hvordan Donald Trump blev afpresset af russerne, fordi de tog ham på fersk gerning boltre sig med prostituerede, urinere på prostituerede og Gud ved ikke hvad. Og denne Christopher Steele, en MI6-agent, var blevet hyret af det Demokratiske Parti, Obama/Hillary Clinton-netværket, til at udføre dette bedrageri, som de begik; dernæst trådte FBI til og ønskede at fortsætte processen; de tilbød at hyre ham og gjorde det tilsyneladende, betalte ham for et eller andet, vi ved ikke med sikkerhed, hvad. Men dette dokument blev overgivet til FBI og andre efterretningstjenester; de erkendte, at der absolut ingen beviser fandtes for noget af det, men ikke desto mindre lækkede de det; det kom ud i pressen. Det blev grundlaget for at lancere denne, værre end McCarthy, heksejagt, dette kupforsøg, baseret på den idé, at det på en eller anden måde skulle være ikke alene forkert eller upassende, men decideret ulovligt at have nogen som helst kontakt med Rusland. En fuldstændig absurd idé. Som Trump selv mange gange har sagt, det er en god ting at være venner med russerne; tror I, vi ønsker en krig? Det ville blive en atomkrig; er det, hvad I promoverer?

Vi har altså en situation, hvor denne Steele, på trods af miskrediteringen, stadig skal afgive forklaring for Kongressen. Vi har det samme FBI, som grundlæggende set lækkede dette materiale til pressen og ganske åbenlyst siger, vi fik dette materiale fra GCHQ, det statslige britiske kommunikationshovedkvarter; det britiske NSA (overvågningstjeneste); så dette er alt sammen offentligt, ikke længere en hemmelighed; briterne gør, hvad briter gør. Vi skal se på, hvorfor? Hvorfor hader de Trump så meget?

Jeg vil minde folk om, at vi den 20. januar udgav en artikel i EIR af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med titlen, »The Foreign Power Corrupting U.S. Politics Is London, not Moscow« (dansk: »Den britiske efterretningstjeneste afslører sig selv i sine operationer mod Trump«); og der er nu definitivt blevet demonstreret. Vi har nogle kongresmedlemmer, der tager dette alvorligt; senator Grassley, en af de mest seniorsenatorer, Republikaner fra Iowa, der leder justitskomiteen i Senatet, har krævet, at FBI udleverer al deres korrespondance, deres efterretninger, alle dokumenter, de har om deres forbindelse til britisk efterretningstjeneste. Dette er vigtigt; jeg vil oplæse, hvad han skrev i sit brev til Comey (direktør for FBI):

»Den idé, at FBI og folk associeret med Clintonkampagnen, skulle betale Christopher Steele (denne MI-agent) for at efterforske den Republikanske nominerede kandidat til præsidentskabet i opløbet til valget, rejser yderligere spørgsmål om FBI’s uafhængighed af politik, så vel som også Obama-administrationens brug af lovens håndhævere og efterretningstjenester til politiske formål.«

Dette er alvorligt; dette er alvorlige anklager. Kongresmedlem Nunes, den Republikanske leder af Husets Efterretningskomite, har krævet en høring den 12. marts, der som sine vidner vil have James Comey fra FBI; Mike Rogers fra NSA; John Brennan fra CIA og James Clapper, direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste. Det bliver ret interessant, for det her er forræderi, vi ser på. Vi ser en udenlandsk regerings samarbejde med korrupte lag i efterretningssamfundet om at gennemføre et kup imod vores valgte regering. Dette er ekstremt alvorlige anklager i stil med forræderi.

Jeg vil nævne endnu en ting. Greb Rusland ind i vores valg? Lad os antage, at det skulle være sandt, hvad det næsten sikkert ikke er, at russerne skulle have været involveret i hackingen af DNC og Podesta-e-mails; hvis de var involveret, hvad gjorde de så? For det første, så er dette ikke national sikkerhed; dette er et partis private e-mails, ikke spørgsmål om national sikkerhed. For det andet, som Robert Parry, en meget erfaren, ret berømt undersøgende journalist, mest berømt for sin afsløring af Iran/kontra-fupnummeret; som han sagde, enhver ægte journalist ville savle over den kendsgerning, at offentliggørelsen af disse dokumenter, uanset, hvordan de blev offentliggjort, er sande (dokumenterne) – der er ingen, der afviser, at dette virkelig er de e-mails, der viser, at det Demokratiske Parti på ulovlig vis, eller i det mindste imod dets egne regler, manipulerede valget til støtte for Hillary Clinton mod Bernie Sanders, samt andre, alvorlige uoverensstemmelser. Ingen benægter dette; det er alt sammen sandt, det er ikke falske nyheder, men ægte nyheder. De falske nyheder er, at dette ikke bliver grebet af journalisterne som eksempel på den demokratiske proces med at få sandheden ud til det amerikanske folk. Næh, næh; det er en indgriben for at ødelægge den demokratiske proces fra en udenlandsk nation, russerne. Det er ironisk; det er sindssygt, men ironisk.

Jeg vil også nævne, at Lyndon LaRouche og vores organisation er ganske bekendt med denne proces. I en meget virkelig udstrækning, så får Trump ’LaRouche-behandlingen’. Vi kender disse korrupte lag i FBI; vi ved, hvordan de ulovligt og hemmeligt samarbejder med briterne, for sådan var den operation, der blev kørt mod LaRouche tilbage i 1980’erne, som førte til hans, og min og andres, fængsling, på vegne af Bush-administrationen, og af de præcis samme årsager: Lyndon LaRouche havde fremlagt, og Reagan havde vedtaget, et forslag til udvikling af et ’stråleforsvar’ (Det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ) i samarbejde med russerne, for at gøre en ende på galskaben med Kissinger og briternes MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction (doktrinen Gensidigt Garanteret Ødelæggelse), som gik ud på, at russerne og amerikanerne begge havde atomvåben, rettet mod hinanden, parat til omgående at blive affyret; og det er sådan, vi holder verden sikker, ikke sandt? Hvilket vil sige, at vi ikke går i atomkrig med hinanden, for vi ved, at den anden side – at vi også bliver sprængt i luften. Og i mellemtiden kan Det britiske Imperium og dets dumme kæmpe i Amerika gå rundt i verden og føre kolonikrige, som i Vietnam, i hele Afrika og andre steder, hvor vi stopper, før det når fasen med atomkrig. Pointen med dette er selvfølgelig, at det holder verden opsplittet, og dét er Det britiske Imperiums hensigt. Kernen i det er at forhindre USA i at samarbejde med Rusland; at forhindre Europa i at samarbejde med Rusland; for Imperiet er afhængigt af »del og hersk«, at holde verden opsplittet.

Så den samme proces, der blev udløst imod os, af de samme årsager, udløses nu imod Trump. Som I nok ved, så publicerede vi for nylig et dossier, på treårsdagen for Maidan-kuppet i Ukraine, (»Obama-Soros ’farvede revolutioner’; Nazi-kup i Ukraine, 2014; USA, 2017?«) hvor et neonazistisk kup åbenlyst blev støttet af Obama og Soros og Obamas agent dér, Victoria Nuland, som pralede med, at de havde brugt milliarder af dollar på at skabe anti-russiske NGO’er, på trods af det faktum, at de ledende elementer i demonstrationerne ikke var de fredelige demonstranter, men de nynazistiske grupper, der bar svastika-symboler på tøjet og viftede med portrætter af Stepan Bandera, Hitlers allierede i Ukraine under krigen (2. verdenskrig), og som kørte nedslagtningen af jøderne og polakkerne og russerne. Så dette var altså et kup, der skulle sætte nazister ved magten, støttet af Obama, Soros og andre; og præcis de samme personer er i dag involveret i operationen for at fælde USA’s regering, den ’farvede revolution’ imod Trump. Og igen, af den præcis samme årsag. I begge tilfælde skete det for at forhindre samarbejde mellem Europa og Rusland; for at forhindre samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland; for dette er kernen i Imperiet, Det britiske Imperium og i realiteten alle imperier, som på sæt og vis blot er ét og samme imperium, lige fra tiden med Det romerske Imperium, Det venetianske Imperium, Det byzantinske Imperium og sluttelig Det anglo-hollandske Imperium; det er i virkeligheden den samme kernegruppe, bestående af finansiel magt over finanserne og handelen på globalt plan ved at holde folk i krig med hinanden, så de ikke gør indsigelse, så ingen kommer sammen om at gøre oprør mod imperiepolitikken, der kontrollerer de globale finanser og den globale handel.

Det jeg ville frem til, er, at kuppet imod USA igen sker af disse samme årsager. For i den ultimative opdeling af verden, bruger imperiet etniske opdelinger og religiøse opdelinger, og kamp om territorier og den slags ting, for at holde folk opdelte. Men den helt store opdeling er Øst imod Vest; den store opdeling er at bevare det ’demokratiske, frie Vesten’, og det stadig ’diktatoriske, kommunistiske Øst’ med Rusland og Kina; hold dem adskilte for enhver pris. Dette er grundlaget for, at vi kan forhindre, at nationer kommer sammen, hvilket én gang for alle kunne tilintetgøre selve ideen om imperium.

Hvad er så ’ideen om imperium’? Det er begrebet ’del og hersk’, det er geopolitik versus win-win; dette er sandt nok. Men det er faktisk mere fundamentalt end som så. Det er grundlæggende set en opfattelse af mennesket som værende dyrisk af natur. Det er opfattelse af mennesket, der følger den darwinistiske idé om, at mennesket ikke er forskelligt fra dyrene; og Darwins teori om, hvordan dyr udvikles, er også forkert. Hans argument om, at dyreverdenen kun kan overleve gennem den bedst egnedes overlevelse, er forkert; men ikke desto mindre sagde han og hans samfundsdarwinistiske venner – Spencer osv. – grundlæggende set, at dette er menneskets natur. Dette er det menneskelige samfunds natur – den bedst egnede overlever; nogle mennesker fødes stærke, og disse stærke mennesker må kunne overvinde de svagere. Så kan de overleve i en verden med én imod alle; et eksistentialistisk helvede med én imod alle andre. Dette er kernen i Det britiske Imperium; de afviser totalt ethvert begreb om, at der kan findes fælles mål for menneskeheden, at der kan findes en win-win-politik, som Xi Jinping siger. Eller menneskehedens fælles mål, som Helga Zepp- LaRouche ynder at kalde det. Det bliver afvist. Hvis man tænker på Darwins ideer om evolution, så er de tydeligvis forkerte, først og fremmest, fordi de er baseret på ideen om, at ting udvikles ved at overvinde, besejre, nogen, der udgør en trussel mod én.

Men, hvor kommer evolutionen fra; hvad er den oprindelige forandring, som dernæst skaber den bedst egnedes overlevelse? Det er ubesvaret; og dette er naturligvis noget, som hr. LaRouche i mange, mange år har talt om, og han har i særdeleshed refereret til den russiske videnskabsmand, Vernadskij. Som påpegede, at det biologiske univers blev foregået før livet, før biotiske handlinger, af et univers, som ikke desto mindre var under udvikling. Hvad fik det til at udvikle sig? Det var ikke den bedst egnedes overlevelse. Var det jerns overlevelse på bekostning af stål eller guld? Der findes en lovbundethed i universet, der tenderer mod udvikling hen imod højere og højere koncentrationer af energi; energigennemstrømningstæthed, der skaber betingelser, ved hvilke love af en højere orden kan finde sted. Hvilket sluttelig, med klorofyl, førte til fremkomsten af liv, og sluttelig, på samme måde, gennem positiv udvikling, ikke ud fra den negative udvikling med den bedst egnedes overlevelse, men en positiv udvikling, der, med den sluttelige fremkomst af dyr, og især af mennesket, går frem mod højere og højere koncentrationer af muligheden for at få en forøgelse af den relative befolkningstæthed, baseret på en højere evne til at organisere universet omkring visse principper (love). Og, hvad der er vigtigere, når man når til menneskehedens trin, så har man her at gøre med en art, der er i stand til at undfly det, Darwin så på; for vi er, ulig dyrene, ikke bundet og må leve inden for de begrænsninger, naturen frembyder, og den føde, som står til rådighed for os. Men vi har faktisk et intellekt. Vi er i stand til at se fremtiden, hvilket dyr ikke kan, og vi er i besiddelse af den kreative evne til at opdage universets love, hvilket gør det muligt for os dernæst at organisere dette univers; at skabe betingelser, hvor vi har højere og højere levestandarder med en større befolkningstæthed, og så fremdeles.

Dette er, hvad briterne afviser. De kunne muligvis acceptere det for sig selv, for at bevare deres egne udviklinger; men selve ideen om – for eksempel Malthus’ argument – endnu en britisk, »genial«, sindssyg tilhænger af folkemord – hvor han siger, at der er en grænse for den menneskelige befolkning, fordi vi vil løbe tør for resurser. Men vi vil aldrig løbe tør for resurser! Enhver opdagelse, mennesket har gjort, det være sig elektricitet af Ben Franklin, eller stråling af parret Curie, eller kernereaktioner, som Einstein opdagede; hver af disse opdagelser omdefinerer, hvad vore resurser er. Det eksempel, vi altid bruger, er, at, med fusionskraft bliver havvand en resurse. Og endnu bedre resurser såsom helium-3 på Månen, der kan sikre menneskeheden brændsel i al evighed, stort set. Vi omdefinerer vores egen eksistens. Og dette er en human idé om mennesket, i modsætning til det britiske, dyriske imperiebillede af mennesket, der retfærdiggør, at man, ikke alene mand og mand imellem, men nationerne imellem, har ret til grundlæggende set at have et slavesystem, et imperiesystem.

For at vende tilbage til den politiske side af dette, så, som jeg sagde: Det britiske Imperiums grundlæggende opdeling [af verden] har, rent historisk, været opdelingen af Øst vs. Vest. Rudyard Kipling, en af den britiske imperieperiodes genier, havde et berømt mundheld, der lød, »Øst er Øst, og Vest er Vest, og aldrig skal de tvende mødes«. De er nærmest to forskellige arter. Man kan selvfølgelig ikke tale om en underlegen art, i Asien, iflg. Rudyard Kipling, der faktisk lovpriste den britiske Rajah for at »bringe civilisationen« til inderne.

Jeg vil gerne påpege, at en ny bog er blevet udgivet inden for de seneste dage eller uger af Shashi Tharoor. I har sikkert hørt om ham. Han er en meget fremtrædende person, der i øjeblikket er parlamentsmedlem i Indien, en diplomat, en meget veluddannet mand, der har lanceret et totalt angreb mod briterne. Han har netop udgivet en bog med titlen, Inglorius Empire: What the British Did to India (Skammelige Imperium: Hvad briterne gjorde mod Indien). Han påpeger, blandt andet, at ideen om, at briterne [med britisk accent] i det mindste bragte en statsforvaltning og civilisation til de tilbagestående indere. Tharoor påpeger, at i 1700, før den totale, britiske overtagelse, var Indien den rigeste nation i verden. Landet havde, iflg. ham, 27 % af verdens globale BNP; hvorimod briterne havde 1,8 %. Jeg ved ikke, om dette er sandt; jeg har endnu ikke læst hans bog. Men, han påpeger imidlertid noget, jeg ved, er sandt, nemlig, at, under briterne, sultede 35 millioner mennesker ihjel [i Indien] på ét år, i 1837, alt imens briterne udskibede hvede og andre fødeemner ud af landet, tilbage til Storbritannien. Det britiske argument var, at »vi ikke griber ind over for udbrud af hungersnød, for udbrud af hungersnød er naturens måde at give udtryk for grænserne for befolkningsstørrelsen. De er blevet overbefolket, og naturen trådte til for at udtynde den menneskelige hjord. Vi er trods alt moralske mennesker i Det forenede Kongerige, og vi tror på det moralske i kontrakter. Og at bryde en kontrakt om at sende hvede tilbage til Det forenede Kongerige ville være absolut umoralsk, blot fordi 35 millioner mennesker er ved at sulte ihjel.« Dette er ægte citater. Det er ikke noget, jeg finder på. For øvrigt påpeger Tharoor også, at 3,4 million mennesker døde under Winston Churchill. Han sammenligner Churchill med Adolf Hitler – en meget passende sammenligning.[1]

Så er der Opiumskrigene; jeg behøver ikke at gennemgå det. Jeg tror, at folk ved, at de forsøgte at formidle rent historisk, at Opiumskrigene handlede om, hvem, der kontrollerede opiummet. Langt fra. Dette var krige, som briterne lancerede for at ødelægge den kinesiske regering, der modsatte sig, at de bragte opium fra deres (englændernes) indiske rajaher, for at ødelægge Kinas befolkning, med det formål dér at gennemtvinge en lignende magt.

I dag ser vi præcis det samme. Vi kan ikke tænke på dette som tørre historietimer. Jeg ville have medbragt en bog, Dope, Inc., men det glemte jeg – den bog, som vi første gang udgav i 1980’erne, ved navn Dope, Inc.: The British Opium War against America. Den er udkommet i flere udgaver, med den sidste, Britain’s Opium War Against the World. De samme banker, der blev etableret i Hongkong for at køre opiumskrigene – Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Standard and Chartered, Jardine Matheson-bankerne – disse samme banker gør det stadig i dag. Da HSBC blev taget i at hvidvaske narkopenge for et titals milliarder af dollars fra Colombia og Mexico ind i USA, sagde Obama-administrationen, »Der er ingen, der skal i fængsel. Vi smækker dem over fingrene, en lille bøde, og så kan de fortsætte deres arbejde med at handle med dope«; for dope er den største forretning i hele verden. Her i denne udsendelse har vi tidligere diskuteret det faktum, at lederen af FN’s afdeling for narkotika [Eksekutive direktør for FN’s Afdeling for Narkotika og Kriminalitet (UNODC)], Antonio Maria Costa, har fastslået den pointe, at, i disse kriseperioder, var disse banker afhængige af likviditeten fra narkohandelen; og i realiteten, hele tiden. Det er den største forretning i verden.

Som I ved, så, mens Obama legaliserede narkotiske midler i hele USA, støttede han åbenlyst både de nationale regeringer, der støttede narko, som i Colombia, hvor de underskrev en såkaldt »fredsaftale« med FARC, der ikke var andet end et kokain- og marihuanakartel; men han sørgede også for, at bankerne fik lov at fortsætte med uformindsket styrke, for det er dér, dope-forretningerne rent faktisk køres.

Nu har vi Trump, der fører en krig mod narko; endnu en årsag til, at briterne hader Trump, som de hadede LaRouche. Som I ved, så lancerede LaRouche en organisation ved navn Anti-Drug Coalition, der udgav et blad, der hed War on Drugs. Nu har Trump erklæret krig mod narko. Han har sat en general, general John Kelly, som chef for Homeland Security, og som er meget godt bekendt med narkokrisen og har aflagt forklaring for Kongressen om, at kun 20 % af den narko, der krydser grænsen fra Mexico, tages på dette tidspunkt; og en justitsminister, Jeff Sessions, der har tilbragt hele sit liv med at kæmpe imod denne legalisering af narko. Dette falder ikke i god jord hos briterne, kan jeg love jer for.

Til sidst vil jeg nævne, hvad Jason vil fortsætte med, og som er, at, på hele banksiden af dette, så foragter de britiske, monetære systemer Hamiltons kreditsystem, som beror på kredit [modsat penge]. Penge er dumme; og det er, hvad briterne ønsker, folk skal være, dumme. De vil have et system baseret på penge, så bankerne kontrollerer strømmen af penge, og så pengene kan bruges til hvad som helst, der skaber profit, det være sig kasinoer eller horehuse. Ulig kreditsystemet, der blev etableret af Aleksander Hamilton og brugt af vore bedste præsidenter, kredit, der har en vision, der har en idé om fremtiden, hvis formål er at skabe noget, at skabe en bedre verden, at rent faktisk have blikket rettet mod fremtiden og forandre nogle ting på en måde, der er til gavn for befolkningens almene vel.

Jeg tror, at dette ligesom udstikker et miniaturebillede af Det britiske Imperiums Helvede, hvorfor de hader Trump. Netop nu er vi, måske for første gang i historien, i en position, hvor imperium kan afskaffes; muligvis for altid, hvis det lykkes os at skabe den form for kreative betingelser for menneskeslægten, der er baseret på menneskehedens fælles mål.

Og nu over til Jason. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spicer: Ja.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Har du noget at tilføje?

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

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

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

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

Se digital brochure: LaRouche's Four Laws and Americas Future on the Silk Road                           

 1] Se: TEMA: BEFOLKNINGSREDUKTION: »Briterne sultede flere end 60 millioner indere ihjel, men hvorfor?« 




Vi må gå frem med vores
kampagne for de Fire Love!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
3. marts, 2017; Leder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

(Fortsat engelsk udskrift):

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

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

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

        DENISTON: The Red Scare's back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

               




Vi har brug for en international kampagne for sandhed,
ikke kun en international dag eller uge for sandhed.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 24. februar, 2017; Leder

Meningen med denne Internationale Sandhedsdag, der fandt sted i går, var ikke kun at fortælle sandheden om begivenhederne i Maidan-kuppet for tre år siden i Ukraine; men var også for at advare om, at de samme netværk, der var ansvarlige for at bruge teknikkerne for ’farvede revolutioner’ i Ukraine for tre år siden for at vælte denne regering, og som har brugt disse samme teknikker i andre lande i hele verden – Rosen-revolutionen i Georgien, og andre steder – nu forsøger at begå præcis den samme form for farvede revolution internt i USA lige nu, imod præsident Donald Trumps demokratisk valgte regering. Dette har selvfølgelig en massiv, international sammenhæng, og det vil vi se nærmere på senere i udsendelsen. Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede udtrykkeligt, da vi talte med hende tidligere på dagen, at vi må se dette i sammenhæng med det nye, fremvoksende, økonomiske paradigme, der kommer fra Kina; Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, som er den motor, der driver historien frem i øjeblikket. Samt det faktum, at der er en meget reel mulighed for, at vi, under USA’s nye administration, kan gøre en ende på æraen med geopolitik og faktisk indgå i et samarbejde med Rusland, Kina, Indien, Japan og andre lande for at skabe et nyt, internationalt samarbejde, baseret på økonomisk udvikling og produktivitet.

(Inkl. hele det engelske udskrift).

Matthew Ogden: God eftermiddag. Det er i dag den 24. februar. Via video har vi i dag Diane Sare fra vores politiske komite, med os fra New York.

Som seere af denne webside ved, har denne uge af Helga Zepp-LaRouche været erklæret for en international uge for sandhed. Dette blev planlagt til at falde sammen med treårsdagen for kuppet, der væltede den demokratisk valgte regering i Ukraine for tre år siden i Kiev; det var den 23. februar, 2014. Der har været møder over hele USA, og også i Europa. Vi havde møder i New York City; Detroit; Washington, D.C.; Houston, Texas – andre byer i USA, Boston, Massachusetts, og i Berlin, Tyskland; Dresden, Tyskland; Paris, Frankrig, og også i andre lande i Europa.

Meningen med denne Internationale Sandhedsdag, der fandt sted i går, var ikke kun at fortælle sandheden om begivenhederne i Maidan-kuppet for tre år siden i Ukraine; men var også for at advare om, at de samme netværk, der var ansvarlige for at bruge teknikkerne for ’farvede revolutioner’ i Ukraine for tre år siden for at vælte denne regering, og som har brugt disse samme teknikker i andre lande i hele verden – Rosen-revolutionen i Georgien, og andre steder – nu forsøger at begå præcis den samme form for farvede revolution internt i USA lige nu, imod præsident Donald Trumps demokratisk valgte regering. Dette har selvfølgelig en massiv, international sammenhæng, og det vil vi se nærmere på senere i udsendelsen. Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede udtrykkeligt, da vi talte med hende tidligere på dagen, at vi må se dette i sammenhæng med det nye, fremvoksende, økonomiske paradigme, der kommer fra Kina; Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, som er den motor, der driver historien frem i øjeblikket. Samt det faktum, at der er en meget reel mulighed for, at vi, under USA’s nye administration, kan gøre en ende på æraen med geopolitik og faktisk indgå i et samarbejde med Rusland, Kina, Indien, Japan og andre lande for at skabe et nyt, internationalt samarbejde, baseret på økonomisk udvikling og produktivitet.

Som jeg sagde, så vil vi gå mere i dybden med denne sammenhæng; men, for at begynde vores udsendelse, vil jeg gerne vise en video for jer fra disse møder, der har fundet sted i hele landet og i hele verden, på denne Internationale Dag for Sandhed, den 23. februar.

Dane Sare (video): Jeg er Diane Sare fra LaRouchePAC Policy Committee, og vi står på Dag Hammarskjold Plaza ikke langt fra De forenede Nationer (New York City). Vi deltager i Sandhedens Dag, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har krævet. Denne uge markerer treårsdagen for kuppet i Ukraine; et kup mod nationen Ukraine, hvor den demokratisk valgte præsident, [Viktor] Janukovitj, blev afsat af en flok voldelige, pro-nazistiske demonstranter, der blev finansieret og støttet med de af [tidligere viceudenrigsminister for europæiske og eurasiske anliggender] Victoria Nuland hævdede $5 mia. gennem det Amerikanske Udenrigsministerium under Barack Obamas præsidentskab; samt med åbenlys støtte fra storspekulanten George Soros. Vores pointe er, at, i dag, begår Obama og Soros forræderi imod USA’s valgte regering, på vegne af Det britiske Imperium. Det britiske Imperium har i århundreder organiseret for at forhindre USA i at samarbejde med Rusland. Vi har nu et enormt potentiale pga. begivenhederne i 2013; oprettelsen af BRIKS-banken og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings annoncering af, at Kina har indledt et initiativ for win-win-samarbejde – enden på geopolitik; at, hvis USA opgav politikken med regimeskifte og Det britiske Imperiums politik, som blev forfulgt under præsidentskaberne Bush og Obama, og i stedet samarbejder med Rusland, Kina, Indien og Japan om global udvikling, så ville vi transformere planeten; og menneskeheden ville have den mest lysende fremtid, man kan tænke sig. Det er derfor i dag meget presserende, at vi begraver løgnene, den nazi-lignende propaganda imod Rusland, der bliver brugt til at forsøge at omstyrte Donald Trumps præsidentskab; Trump, der har udtrykt sin hensigt om at ændre denne dynamik. Vi opfordrer indtrængende alle, der følger os på vores hjemmeside (LPAC), til at tilslutte sig denne indsats; til at printe vores litteratur ud, til at underskrive appellen, der kræver en genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven, som ville trække tæppet væk under fødderne på Wall Streets og City of Londons evne til at finansiere sådanne terrorist-operationer, og vi opfordrer indtrængende alle til at arbejde sammen med os for at sikre, at USA kan vende tilbage til den arv, som var hensigten hos vore Grundlæggende Fædre, såsom George Washington, Alexander Hamilton og, i nyere tid, geniet og den amerikanske statsmand, Lyndon LaRouche.

Kesha Rogers : Den 23. februar markerer treårsdagen for Maidan-kuppet i Ukraine; det begyndte den 23. feb., 2014. Dette har fundet sted som en bestræbelse fra Barack Obama, USA’s tidligere præsident, og George Soros, multimilliardær-narkohandleren, der tilsammen har anført angrebet for at ødelægge og omvælte nationer med det formål at få USA ind i en krig med Rusland. Løgnene, der fortsat eskalerer aktiviteterne i Ukraine, og som pegede på ideen om, at det var Putin, der anførte eskaleringen i Ukraine, er de samme løgne, der finder sted her, nu, i USA, for at omstyrte Trumps præsidentskab. Dette må stoppes. Som en del af en National Sandhedsdag har vi udgivet et dossier, der afslører Obama og Soros for deres pengestøtte og deres løgne, der har skabt totalt kaos både USA og fortsætter med at skabe kaos i Ukraine. Endemålet er Putin og Rusland. (Se dossier her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=18018)

Det, vi burde gøre, er at samarbejde med Rusland; samarbejde med Putin. Vi må stoppe disse krige; vi må stoppe dette fortsatte kaos. Vi bør samarbejde, som Lyndon LaRouche har påpeget, om Silkevejens økonomiske udvikling; det er, hvad USA har brug for. Vi står her ved et møde i Twome ved en bro. Vore bannere lyder, »Sæt Obama og Soros i fængsel for forræderi! Ukraine 2014; USA 2017«. Folk må forstå, hvad det er, der finder sted i denne nation nu, og kræve økonomisk udvikling; vi har brug for samarbejde. Vi er her som en del af Sandhedens Dag; og vi beder om, at alle, der ser dette, deltager i vore møder og læser dossieret.

Harley Schlanger [voice over video med sang]: I dag er treårsdagen for kuppet, der blev gennemført af amerikanske efterretningsoperationer og neokonservative, finansieret af George Soros, for at bringe en flok nazister til magten i Kiev. Vi er her i dag som en Sandhedens Dag for at få den sande historie ud. Ukraine-operationen bliver nu atter gearet op for at skabe kamp mellem Rusland og Vesten, som en måde at sabotere det potentiale, der eksisterer med Trump-administrationen, for at bryde med denne politik for krig. De amerikanske vælgere stemte på Trump, i vid udstrækning for at bryde denne politik for konfrontation med Rusland; så det er vigtigt, at denne Sandhedsdag bringer den kendsgerning frem, at Ukraine-situationen aldrig handlede om demokrati i Ukraine. Men handlede derimod om en bevidst operation for at skabe en konfrontation mellem USA og Rusland. Dette er George Soros’, City of Londons og Barack Obamas politik, og som har været involveret i at sabotere præsident Trumps initiativ for fred mellem Rusland og USA.

Vi er her i Berlin som en del af den Internationale Dag for Sandhed, for at gøre opmærksom på det faktum, at de kriminelle personer, der bragte nazisterne til magten i Kiev, stadig ikke er blevet stillet for retten; de er ikke blevet retsforfulgt. Denne demonstration her i Berlin er en del af den Internationale Aktionsdag. På LPAC’s webside kan man downloade et dossier, som vi har sammensat, om hvem, der er ansvarlig for drabene i Ukraine. Det er ikke russerne; det er ikke præsident Putin. Det er Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland, de neokonservative i USA og tidligere præsident Barack Obama.

[Mand 1 taler på tysk]

[Mand 2 taler på tysk og siger, der er møder i Boston, New York City, Paris, Berlin og Frankurt am Main, og beskriver kuppet for tre år siden.]

Mathew Ogden, (studiet): Dette dossier kan altså læses på https://lpac.co/ukraine-dossier, som vi viser på skærmen lige nu. (Med dansk introduktion, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=18018). Det har titlen, »Obama-Soros ’farvede revolutioner’; Nazi-kup i Ukraine, 2014; USA, 2017?« Dossieret cirkuleres ved alle disse møder for Sandhedens Dag, som I netop så, inkl. i New York City. Jeg får en rapport direkte fra Diane [Sare], men før hun kommer på, så lad mig rapportere, at der er en lang artikel i Itar-TASS, som er en russisk nyhedstjeneste, der har en dækning af mødet, der fandt sted i New York City (se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=18092); det var lige i begyndelsen af vores aktion. Titlen var »Demonstranter i New York anklagede Obama og Soros for at organisere kuppet i Ukraine«. Dernæst bemærkes det, at lignende aktioner fandt sted i Boston, Houston, Berlin og andre steder. Lad mig blot lige læse et hurtigt uddrag af denne artikel fra Itar-TASS. Den siger:

I flere timer uddelte aktivister torsdag i New Yorks centrum, såvel som i flere andre amerikanske byer, trykt materiale, der erklærer, at magtskiftet i Ukraine blev gennemført med direkte støtte fra milliardær George Soros og den 44. amerikanske præsident Barack Obamas administration.

Aktionsdagen var arrangeret af Schiller Instituttet inden for rammerne af en kampagne for at oplyse amerikanere om den aktuelle situation i Ukraine, i anledning af årsdagen for begivenhederne på ’Maidan’.

Artiklen har dernæst underoverskriften,

I går Janukovitj; i morgen, Trump

I New York, siger artiklen, blev begivenheden afholdt i den centrale bydel Manhattan, på pladsen, hvor 47. gade og Second Avenue mødes, i nærheden af FN’s hovedkvarter. Medlemmerne viste i særdeleshed bannere og posters med ordene: »Obama – i fængsel«, »Din fjende – George Soros«.

Dernæst citerer artiklen Diane Sare:

»Vi har sandsynligvis uddelt flere hundrede eksemplarer af vore publikationer her«, sagde talskvinde Diane Sare fra Schiller Instituttet, som er en del af Lyndon LaRouche-bevægelsens politiske komite.

Ifølge Diane Sare fandt lignende aktioner sted torsdag i Boston (Massachusetts), Houston (Texas), så vel som også i den tyske hovedstad Berlin. Som Sare pointerede, så »går aktivister ud til hele verden, for at den skal kende sandheden om det, der skete i Ukraine for tre år siden«.

Og vi springer lidt, og artiklen siger:

»Ifølge Sare er det vigtigt, at amerikanere kender til begivenhederne i Ukraine, hvor den lovligt valgte præsident, Viktor Janukovitj blev omstyrtet, fordi et lignende senarie kunne begynde at udvikle sig i USA. De samme personer forsøger nu at fjerne den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump fra magten«.

Artiklen slutter med at sige:

Materialet, som uddeles af aktivisterne, er data fra en rapport, forberedt af LaRouche-bevægelsen, om begivenhederne i Ukraine og eventualiteten af en lignende situation i USA. TASS har modtaget den fulde version af dokumentet. I rapporten beskrives magtskiftet i landet som en »voldelig revolution«, der blev gennemført med den aktive deltagelse af »neo-nazistiske grupper«. Obama-administrationen og nogle af Washingtons allierede, bemærkes det, brugte begivenhederne i Ukraine som »en retfærdiggørelse af den nye fase af NATO’s militære oprustning imod Rusland«.

Victoria Nuland, der på det tidspunkt indtog posten som viceudenrigsminister for europæiske og eurasiske anliggender, »kom flere gange til protesterne og uddelte cookies til ’Maidan’, samtidig med, at hun nægtede at indrømme den kendsgerning, at der, ud over fredelige demonstranter, der var bekymrede over korruption og den økonomiske situation, også var eksplicit neofascistiske bander, der deltog i den bevæbnede opstand imod en valgt regering«.

Den slutter dernæst med,

Forfatterne påpeger også, at Soros, så vel som andre personer, der tidligere var en del af Obamas inderkreds, i øjeblikket er aktivt involveret i forsøgene på at miskreditere Trump og lovede ikke at give den nye indvåner i Det Hvide Hus mulighed for at normalisere relationerne mellem Moskva og Washington.

Den siger dernæst,

Ved slutningen af december 2016 bragte aktivister fra Schiller Instituttet, til minde om ofrene i Tu-154-flystyrtet, blomster til den Russiske Føderations Generalkonsulat i New York og opførte den russiske nationalhymne foran dets indgang. I begyndelsen af januar afholdt de en ceremoni ved »Tåremindesmærket« af Zurab Tsereteli, i den amerikanske by Bayonne (New Jersey), for at mindes de omkomne i styrtet.

Lyndon LaRouche – amerikansk økonom og politiker, ophavsmand til teorien om den såkaldte »fysiske økonomi« og fjende af monetaristiske ideer. Han anser Rusland for at være en hovedspiller på verdensscenen og mener, at Rusland, sammen med Kina, Indien, USA og flere andre lande, kan redde verden fra den største krise i historien.

Her slutter artiklen.

Så det er en meget omfattende reportage og dækning i TASS, og jeg ved, at du, Diane, blev interviewet af flere andre, internationale medier ved dette møde ved FN, så du kan måske give os en rapport fra marken der.

Diane Sare: Jo da! Det er slående, og jeg har hørt fra vore folk i Boston, der har en lignende, måske mere stram og storsnudet befolkning, end vi har her i New York – dermed mener jeg, at folk i vid udstrækning anser den for liberal. Man kunne måske tro, at vi ville få en meget tilknappet eller fjendtlig respons til det, vi har at sige; men åbenheden var faktisk ret usædvanlig. Vi fik uddelt 70 kopier af dossieret med den eksplicitte forståelse, at vi kun uddeler dem til repræsentanter fra (diplomatiske) missioner eller andre organisatoriske institutionsfolk, så jeg mener, at flere folk fra et par forskellige lande stoppede op for at tage materialet, og mange kom tilbage efter mere information.

Jeg mener, at en bemærkning fra en ung, afroamerikansk militærveteran var bemærkelsesværdig; han sagde: »Jeg havde tænkt på Trump som en del af the establishment. Han er rig, han er milliardær, han er hvid, han er en del af Wall Street. Hvorfor angriber de ham?« Han sagde, at det gav mening, hvis der var et fremstød for krig med Rusland, på den ene side – og det er noget, Trump er modstander af – at det så var årsagen til et sådant angreb.

Jeg vil også gerne forklare lidt mere om det, jeg sagde på denne video om 2013, for jeg mener, at, med mindre folk forstår dette, kan man ikke rigtig forstå, hvad det er, der foregår her, og jeg reflekterede over den sommer. Der skete to ting i 2013: Den ene ting var, at den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping annoncerede Ét Bælte, én Vej-initiativet, der nu omfatter over 70 nationer, milliarder af verdens befolkning, ti tusinder af kilometer højhastigheds-jernbaner, forestående aftaler om byggeri af havne, kernekraftværker, rumforskning osv.; men der var også en konference i Fortaleza, Brasilien, med BRIKS-nationerne, hvor de oprettede en udviklingsbank og også en bank til at beskytte sig mod valutaspekulation, og som kom i drift omkring et år senere.

Jeg reflekterede over dette, for vi befandt os i USA’s Kongres for at udføre lobbyvirksomhed – Matt, det husker du nok – den uge, og vi opdagede, at ingen i Kongressen havde hørt noget som helst om denne ekstraordinære begivenhed. Det er virkelig stort, når man har nationer – Rusland, Kina og Indien, det er store nationer. Brasilien er et stort land i Sydamerika. Sydafrika er meget avanceret mht. det afrikanske kontinent, og de er forpligtende engageret over for kernekraft, hvilket er interessant. Det faktum, at de skaber en finansiel og økonomisk institution, der gør det muligt for nationer at komme ud af det bankerotte Britiske Imperiums greb.

Jeg husker, at vi opdagede, at Udenrigsministeriet faktisk havde udsendt et memo eller sådan noget, der instruerede folk om, at dette virkelig ikke var en betydningsfuld udvikling. Jeg rejser dette nu, for det, amerikanere ikke bør overse, er potentialet. Hvorfor alt det hysteri? Hvorfor skulle George Soros deployere sine titals millioner af dollars til at betale alle disse agitatorer og organisere denne 30.000 mand stærke hær af aktivister, som Barack Obama efter sigende skal anføre? Jamen fordi det, der nu er opstået – og allerede er langt fremme – er et Nyt Paradigme.

Vore seere er sandsynligvis klar over dette: kineserne har, sammen med Etiopiens regering, netop færdiggjort en jernbane fra Djibouti til Addis Abeba. (Se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17298). Denne strækning tog 3 dage med lastbil, og tager nu 12 timer med tog. Det betyder, at, når man har tørke i Etiopien, så behøver folk ikke at dø. Man kan hurtigt få mad og vand frem. Det betyder store muligheder for udviklingen af hele det afrikanske kontinent, og for det sydamerikanske kontinent. Og hvis man tænker på det, folk har lært – hvad det Britiske økonomiske System er – ikke bare »køb billigt og sælg dyrt«, men Malthus: resurser forøges aritmetisk, og befolkningen forøges geometrisk. Derfor er vi overbefolkede; vi må nedlukke menneskers forbrug af energi og mad; reducere befolkningen. Det er krige gode til.

Med andre ord, så har vi et potentiale for et helt nyt paradigme for menneskeheden, globalt, og nøglen er, at USA går med i dette paradigme. Præsident Trump har, gennem at udtale sin plan om at få en fornuftig relation til Rusland, og forhåbentlig også Kina og Japan (nævnte han), indikeret en åbenhed over for at blive en del af dette nye paradigme; og derfor er bagslaget temmelig ekstraordinært. Jeg tror ikke, der har været noget tidspunkt – jeg ved, at Abraham Lincoln måtte tage til sin indsættelse, forklædt som en kvinde, pga. protester osv.; men jeg tror ikke, der har været noget tidspunkt, hvor man i ugevis, månedsvis, denne form for agitation, såkaldt »modstandsbevægelse«, eller hvad de nu kalder det for, oppositionen til en ny præsident. Jeg mener, at det er meget vigtigt, at amerikanere identificerer, hvad dette potentiale er, så vi ved, hvad der er for en kamp, der finder sted; og derfor bekæmper de løgne i de amerikanske medier om Rusland, om Vladimir Putin og om, hvad Ruslands intentioner er. Det, der skete i Ukraine, er et meget, meget vigtigt aspekt for at neutralisere dette angreb på vort præsidentskab, og for at gøre det muligt for USA at tilslutte sig dette [paradigme].

Mathew Ogden: En ting, jeg bør nævne, er, at, ud over de aktiviteter, som den internationale LaRouche-bevægelse afholdt i denne uge omkring denne Internationale Uge for Sandhed, har Helga Zepp-LaRouche også sat fokus på to meget betydningsfulde appeller, som kom fra både tidligere (ukrainske) præsident, Viktor Janukovitj, og fra Ukraines tidligere premierminister, Mykola Azarov, og som ligger præcis på linje med dette spørgsmål om »en uge for sandhed«.

Viktor Janukovitj har skrevet et brev til verdens ledere, som også inkluderer præsident Trump, præsident Putin, den tyske kansler Angela Merkel og den franske præsident François Hollande. Han appellerer til verdens ledere om at »indlede skabelsen af en særkommission i Europarådet, der skal overvåge en efterforskning af forbrydelser, der blev begået på Maidan«. Det vil sige, en »Sandhedskommission«, der skal nå frem til sandheden om, hvad det var, der i virkeligheden skete under den såkaldte »fredelige revolution« på Maidan.

På linje med dette har den tidligere ukrainske premierminister, Mykola Azarov, der tjente fra 2010 og frem til januar 2014, hvor han trak sig tilbage på højden af Maidan-protesterne, udgivet en rapport på sin Facebookside, hvor han siger: »I dag er vi og efterforskere i Kiev i besiddelse af pålidelige informationer om det faktum, at mordene på Maidan blev udført af specialgrupper af snigskytter fra Georgien, de baltiske lande og Polen, under ledelse af instruktører fra Frankrig og Tyskland.« Dernæst siger han: »Man gjorde forsøg på at lægge skylden for massakren helt og holdent på Janukovitj og Berkut-uropolitiet.« Han siger direkte her, at dette var et svindelnummer, og at de såkaldte »snigskytter« blev deployeret af efterretningstjenester fra udlandet, med det formål at få en allerede meget ustabil situation til at eksplodere, og at ændre den fra blot at være protester og til at være et voldeligt statskup. Dette er ligeledes i sammenhængen med denne Internationale Uge for Sandhed om sandheden om det, der sker, eller det, der skete, i Ukraine.

Samtidig er der flere amerikanske kongresmedlemmer, der er ved at identificere den rolle, som George Soros spiller netop nu, i forsøg på at starte en farvet revolution i Makedonien. De bør måske snarere vende deres opmærksomhed mod deres egen baghave og deres egne offentlige borgermøder og mod begivenhederne i USA; men det er meget nyttigt, at dette er siddende amerikanske kongresmedlemmer, der er i færd med at identificere den rolle, som George Soros og hans netværk spiller i disse internationale farvede revolutioner.

Lad mig vende tilbage til den pointe, som du kom med, Diane, og jeg mener, at det er et afgørende punkt, at man ikke kan forstå virkeligheden af, hvad der var den virkelige hensigt bag det, der skete i Ukraine i 2014, uden at man forstår det dramatiske vendepunkt, som historien oplevede på det tidspunkt. Dette var BRIKS-topmødet i Fortaleza – som du nævnte – og i særdeleshed præsident Xi Jinpings annoncering af Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet; en Nye Silkevej. Det var Viktor Janukovitj’ beslutning om ikke at indgå denne frihandelsaftale med den mislykkede Europæiske Union, og i stedet bevare hans økonomiske forbindelser til Rusland, som udgjorde påskuddet til, at det på det tidspunkt blev besluttet at lancere denne form for voldelige omstyrtelse af hans regering.

Lad os se på det aktuelle øjeblik. Hvad har Donald Trump telegraferet? Ikke alene trak han sig tilbage fra TPP – som var Obama-administrationens tilsigtede plan for at forsøge at begrænse den kinesiske indflydelse i Asien; men han havde også direkte samtaler med præsident Xi Jinping, som han sagde, var meget konstruktive. Han havde dette topmøde med [den japanske premierminister] Abe. Men disse relationer behøver ikke være gensidigt ekskluderende. Og helt klart, hans relation til Rusland – det faktum, at han trak os tilbage fra randen af en atomkrig, der forfulgtes af Obama og, på sigt, at Hillary Clinton.

Det er altså i denne sammenhæng, og det er spændingen i det aktuelle øjeblik i historien, der endnu ikke er løst. Men spørgsmålet er, vil USA tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej? Som folk ved, så er der et forestående topmøde i maj måned i Kina, om Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet; præsident Xi Jinping vil være vært, og Ruslands præsident Putin vil deltage personligt. Den aktuelle kampagne går ud på at formidle til præsident Trump, at, ikke alene bør han deltage i dette topmøde personligt; men at han bør forlade topmødet med et udtrykkeligt forpligtende engagement for, at USA vil opgive de seneste mange årtiers geopolitik og beslutsomt vil indgå i et win-win-samarbejde omkring dette Nye Silkevejsinitiativ. Der er ingen som helst chance for, at USA kan få en økonomisk genrejsning uden at deltage i dette nye paradigme for udvikling, med store projekter, som Kina allerede er begyndt at sprede i hele Eurasien. Og, som du sagde, Diane, ind i Afrika og selv ind i lande i Sydamerika.

En meget betydningsfuld ting er en rapport, der netop er udkommet, publiceret af PriceWaterhouse Cooper, som er et stort, internatonalt erhvervs- og analysefirma. Denne rapport har titlen, »2016 B&R vurdering; Kina og Bæltet og Vejens infrastruktur; gennemgang og udsigter«. Den er netop blevet udgivet i februar 2017. rapporten har en meget omfattende gennemgang af, hvad Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet er; den indeholder et meget veludarbejdet kort, der hedder, »Bælt og Vej; en genoplivelse af den Gamle Silkevej«. Den har et afsnit, der dokumenterer, hvor mange lande, der allerede er involveret i Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet. Den siger: »B&R (Belt & Road) området spænder over tre kontinenter og inkluderer i alt 66 lande, fra Litauen til Indonesien.« Dernæst, i sammenhæng med den eksplosive vækst, der allerede er begyndt at vise sig i nogle af disse lande – især i Kina, men også i andre lande, der nyder godt af denne investering i disse store projekter; rapporten har så en analyse af dem for de kommende måneder og kommende år. En grafisk fremstilling siger, »Vi ser potentiale for betydelig vækst inden for energi, jernbaner og sundhedssektor i flere af mellemindkomst-landene i Bæltet-og-Vejen. En anden grafisk fremstilling siger, «trans-eurasiske jernbanenet vil dramatisk reducere tiden mellem Kina og europæiske forbrugermarkeder«. Sluttelig siger rapporten, »Urbanisering og befolkningstilvækst vil anspore en fortsat efterspørgsel af transportinfrastruktur med stor kapacitet«.

Så dette er altså verdensøkonomiens fremtid. Væksten, tyngdepunktet er afgørende skiftet til Eurasien, til Kina og til de lande, der nu udgør en del af Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet. Hvis Donald Trump mener det alvorligt mht. at fremme en økonomisk genrejsning i USA, vil det ske ved at tilslutte sig – i et win-win-samarbejde – Kina og disse andre lande; og ved at tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej. Som jeg har nævnt, så udgav LaRouchePAC for to år siden en brochure om spørgsmålet om USA, der bør tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej; og vi er i øjeblikket i færd med at opdatere denne brochure på en hel ny måde. Den vil forhåbentlig være tilgængelig om en uge eller to.

Så sæt dette i sammenhæng og indse, at Ukraine-kuppet skete pga. Viktor Janukovitj’ beslutning om ikke at indgå en frihandelsaftale med en Europæisk Union, der er i færd med at blive en fiasko; og fordi han indså, at der var ved at vokse en ny, økonomisk dynamik frem med udgangspunkt i Eurasien. Vi har nu en potentielt lignende situation internt her i USA. Så denne Dag for Sandhed var ikke bare for at sige, »Her er, hvad der skete i Ukraine for tre år siden«, men, lad det være en advarsel; dette bliver faktisk forsøgt også internt i USA i dag.

Du vil måske følge op på dette spørgsmål, Diane? Men jeg bør også påpege, at præsident Trumps Tale om Nationens Tilstand (’State of the Union’) til en fælles Kongressamling finder sted på tirsdag. Det er den 28. februar, og det er deadline for vores kampagne for appellen om Glass/Steagall-initiativet. Adressen kommer her på skærmen: https://lpac.co/trumpsotu. Og denne kampagne for appellen accelererer fortsat. I går på vores aktivist-telefonmøde, Fireside Chat, fik vi en rapport fra flere aktivister i LaRouchePAC, fra New York til Connecticut og til Californien, som deltog i offentlige borgermøder og intervenerede med dette spørgsmål. Glass-Steagall haster; Trump lovede dette under sin præsidentvalgkamp. Vi må holde ham til hans ord og opfordre ham til at forpligte sig til genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall under, eller før, han holder sin tale til nationen på næste tirsdag. Vil du sige mere om denne kampagne, eller om noget andet, du har på hjerte, Diane?

Diane Sare: Jeg vil gerne sige, at Trump har udtalt sin plan om at bruge $1 billion på infrastruktur i USA. Jeg forstår, at kineserne mener, vi har brug for omkring $8 billion i investeringer; hvilket sandsynligvis er mere præcist. Men $1 billion er bestemt en god begyndelse. Men hvordan gør vi det? Hvor går det hen, hvis Japans premierminister Abe, der netop har været her, ønsker at investere $150 mia. på at bygge højhastighedsjernbaner? For det første, når man har et banksystem, hvor alle indskud kan blive brugt som sikkerhed for en bail-in af derivat-forpligtelser, hvem ville så ønske at sætte deres investeringer igennem et sådant system? For det andet, så har vi ikke en nationalbank (uafhængig statsbank); vi har ikke Finansministeriet, der er under Kongressens kontrol i den forstand, som det burde være det. Vi har Federal Reserve, der har udført bail-out (statslig bankredning) for $31 billion. Så for, at dette kan lykkes, er LaRouches Fire Love, med begyndelse i først og fremmest Glass-Steagall, absolut presserende nødvendigt. Men Glass-Steagall alene er ikke nok; men det er et første skridt. Jeg vil sige, at, hvis Trump undlader at indføre Glass-Steagall og vedtage denne fremgangsmåde, så udgør det en stor sårbarhed; for med mindre USA’s regering rent faktisk handler for at lægge denne gigantiske boble af spekulativ gæld i tømme, og rejser denne brandmur mellem investeringsbankerne og de kommercielle banker, så, når systemet nedsmelter – og det vil det uvægerligt gøre; det det.

Alle bør blot overveje, hvad vi har lavet, mht. fysisk produktivitet, der svarer til den pengemængde, der nu er i omløb? Intet. Den fysiske produktivitet er kollapset. Dette er hr. LaRouches berømte Trippelkurve, der ser ud som en trompet; med en hyperbolsk kurve, der går opad, og en hyperbolsk kurve, der går nedad. Vi befinder os ved kollapspunktet; systemet vil krakke. Vi må have Glass-Steagall på plads. Hvis det ikke bliver gjort, så skaber det muligheden for et ekstraordinært kaos i dette land, og globalt. Men dernæst ønsker man også et banksystem; et nationalt banksystem, der gør det muligt for den nødvendige kredit at strømme til drivkraften for hele økonomien. Hvilket udtrykkeligt betyder finansiering af udviklingen af nuklear fusionskraft for at hæve hele den platform, vi fungerer på, samt rumprogrammet. I stedet for blot at have små lommer med højhastighedsjernbaner, så har vi i realiteten brug for et transkontinentalt jernbanenet. Som jeg før har sagt; hvis vi vil krydse Hudson-floden, bør vi sørge for, at vi krydser Beringstrædet i den anden ende. Disse ting er kun mulige med et fornuftigt banksystem; så jeg mener, at det er meget presserende, at vi ikke lader denne sårbarhed stå åben. Alle, der ser dette, eller jeres venner, jeres naboer, få disse appeller til at cirkulere, underskrevet, og overgiv dem til jeres kongresmedlem eller jeres senator, eller send dem til os. Jeg ved, at vi har overgivet 2300 underskrifter på dette til Trumps Hvide Hus, og vi vil få mange flere. Vi bør gøre det meget hurtigt.

Matthew Ogden: Der er en ting, du også påpegede i går, og det er, at, på trods af mediepropagandaen, så er alle disse folk ved de offentlige borgermøder bare der for at forsvare Obamacare eller sådan noget, og de er bare vrede mennesker, der protesterer. Når man går ud med dette budskab, »Sådan her vil vi genopbygge USA; vi må have Glass-Steagall. Vi må have en økonomisk politik i Hamiltons tradition, og vi må have jobs og infrastruktur«. Responsen er ekstraordinær. Og faktisk, på trods af bestræbelserne, der udføres af Soros og nogle af disse andre Obama for Amerika, forbliv, hvor vi er former for organisationer, så ønsker det amerikanske folk at forenes for at arbejde konstruktivt sammen; og de ville ønske, de havde en præsident, der var seriøs i disse spørgsmål. Når man siger, »Dette er dagsordenen, og dette er, hvad vi bør gøre«, så har det en ekstraordinær virkning med at forene folk. Vil du sige noget om det?

Diane Sare: Du sagde det, det er absolut tilfældet. Men det går imod, hvad almindelig fornuft dikterer, for medierne vil have, at man skal tro, at alle disse mennesker, der protesterer, er en flok skrigende, irrationelle fanatikere. Det er simpelt hen ikke sandt. Man må huske på, hvorfor Trump vandt valget? Fordi den amerikanske økonomi er færdig. Fordi, af 320 millioner amerikanere er 90 millioner, der kan arbejde, uden beskæftigelse; de udgør ikke en del af arbejdsstyrken. Så det er virkeligheden, uanset, hvad medierne siger om det. Når vi går til disse demonstrationer, bliver vi alle slået; jeg tror, de var i Boston på denne Aktionsdag. Den åbenhed, vi møder, er ekstraordinær; folk er eftertænksomme, de vil have løsninger. De vil have et program; det har vi. Man kan meget hurtigt trække folk ind i fornuft på dette princip.

Matthew Ogden: Lige præcis. Lad mig blot sige, at, som konklusion, så er Talen til Nationen nu på tirsdag. I løbet af denne weekend er der fremragende muligheder for folk, der ser denne udsendelse, til at gå til disse offentlige borgermøder og uddele denne appel. Man kan også uddele dette dossier, som er meget vigtigt; få folk til at læse det og opmuntr andre mennesker til at printe det ud og cirkulere det selv. Jeg sætter adressen på skærmen, hvor man kan hente dette dossier; vi vil også vise det på YouTube-videoen. (https://lpac.co/ukraine-dossier).Videomontagen, som vi viste tidligere i aftenens udsendelse, vil også blive tilgængelig som en separat video, så man kan cirkulere den.

Lad mig slutte med at sige, at Helga Zepp-LaRouche ønskede, at alle skal vide, at den Internationale Sandhedsdag ikke kun skal begrænses til en dag, eller en uge.       

At dette må være en fortsættende kampagne; vi må holde presset oppe. Dette er noget, som præsident Trump bør respondere på, og bør opfordres til at respondere på. Den propaganda, der er bragt til torvs om situationen i Ukraine, har været den væsentligste kile, der er drevet ind mellem udsigten til samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland. Som præsident Trump sagde i sin pressekonference for en uge siden, »Den russiske ting er en snare«. Folk bør indse, at den ukrainske ting også er en snare, en list. I diskussioner i denne uge påpegede vi, at den form for kampagne, der blev ført om de 28 sider og sandheden bag det, der skete den 11. september (2001), med saudiernes finansiering af disse flykaprere, og kampagnen, som LarouchePAC førte for at få sandheden om de 28 sider ud, var en sejrrig kampagne. Men det var en kampagne, som måtte føres uden ophør; og det var en masse pres over lang tid, der resulterede i sejren med ophævelsen af klassificeringen af de 28 sider. Og vedtagelsen af JASTA-loven, der var et stort nederlag for Obama i hans sidste måneder i embedet. Dette er et meget lignende spørgsmål. Oliver Stone har krævet, at præsident Trump offentliggør dokumenterne om USA’s involvering i dette Maidan-kup. Det ville være en meget konstruktiv ting at gøre; og han har myndighed til at gøre det. Men dette er en international uge for sandhed; men det burde blot være en international kampagne for sandhed. Det bør være på linje med og i sammenhæng med, at vi befinder os på et ekstraordinært tidspunkt i historien, hvor den geopolitiske æra kan afsluttes; og USA kan beslutsomt tilslutte sig dette Nye Paradigme for økonomisk udvikling og store projekter, som Kina anfører med den Nye Silkevej.

Mange tak til Diane; jeg ved, du blev interviewet af flere medier under mødet i går i New York. Så vi skal nok se frem til mere dækning af det i forskellige internationale medier i løbet af de næste timer og dage. Vi møder dig igen på mandag til vores diskussion med den politiske komite; og det vil altså finde sted aftenen før Talen til Nationen på næste tirsdag. Så bliv på kanalen larouchepac.com, cirkuler dette dossier så vidt omkring som muligt. Bliv ved at få underskrifter på vores appel og send dem til os. Meld jer til vores e-mailliste, hvis I ikke allerede har.

Mange tak, og på gensyn.        

(Engelsk udskrift)

 WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN OF TRUTH; NOT JUST AN INTERNATIONAL DAY OR A WEEK OF TRUTH

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, it's February 24, 2017. My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're joining us for our Friday
afternoon webcast here at larouchepac.com. I'm joined via video
today by Diane Sare, who is a member of our Policy Committee,
joining us from New York City.
        Now as viewers of this website know, this week has been
declared by Helga Zepp-LaRouche to be an international week of
Truth. This was intended to coincide with the third anniversary
of the coup which overthrew the democratically-elected government
of Ukraine three years ago in Kiev; that was February 23, 2014.
Rallies happened all across the United States, and in fact, in
Europe as well. We had rallies in New York City, in Detroit, in
Washington, DC, in Houston, Texas — other cities in the United
States — Boston, Massachusetts; and in Berlin, Germany, Dresden,
Germany, Paris, France, and other countries in Europe as well.
        Now the significance of this International Day of Truth that
happened yesterday, was not only to tell the truth about the
events of the Maidan coup three years ago in Ukraine; but to give
the warning that, in fact, the same networks that were
responsible for using the techniques of color revolution in
Ukraine three years ago to overthrow that government, and have
used those same techniques in other countries around the world —
the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and elsewhere — are now
attempting to perpetrate that exact same kind of color revolution
inside the United States right now against the
democratically-elected government of President Donald Trump. Now
obviously this has a massive international context, and we're
going to get more into detail on that in the discussion later in
the broadcast. Helga Zepp-LaRouche was very emphatic in stating
— when we talked to her earlier today — that we have to look at
this in the context of the new emerging economic paradigm that's
coming out of China; the Belt and Road initiative, which is the
engine moving history right now. And the fact that there's a very
real possibility that under the new administration in the United
States, we can end the era of geopolitics and actually enter into
a cooperation with Russia, China, India, Japan, and other
countries to create a new international cooperation based on
economic development and productivity.
        As I said, we will get more into detail in that context; but
to begin the broadcast, I would like to play a video montage for
you of these rallies that happened around the country and around
the world yesterday, on this February 23rd International Day of
Truth.

        DIANE SARE : I'm Diane Sare with the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee, and we're here at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza not
far from the United Nations. We're participating in the Day of
Truth called for by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. This week marks
the third anniversary of a coup in Ukraine; a coup against the
nation of Ukraine, where the democratically-elected President,
Yanukovych, was ousted by a bunch of violent, pro-Nazi
demonstrators who were funded and supported with Victoria
Nuland's claim of $5 billion through the US State Department
during the Presidency of Barack Obama; and with obvious support
from mega-speculator George Soros. Our point is that today, Obama
and Soros are committing treason against the elected government
of the United States on behalf of the British Empire. The British
Empire has, for centuries, organized to prevent the United States
from working with Russia. We have a great potential right now
because of the events of 2013; the formation of the BRICS Bank
and the announcement by Chinese President Xi Jinping that China
has embarked on an initiative of win-win collaboration — the end
of geopolitics. That if the United States were to abandon the
policies of regime change and the policies of the British Empire
which we were carrying out under the Bush and Obama Presidencies,
and work with Russia, China, India, and Japan on global
development, we would transform the planet; and mankind would
have the brightest future imaginable. So, it is very urgent today
that we lay to rest the lies, the disgusting, Nazi-like
propaganda against Russia, which is being used to try and
overthrow the Presidency of Donald Trump; who has expressed his
intent to change that dynamic. We urge everybody on the LaRouche
PAC website to join this effort; to print out the literature, to
sign the petition calling for the reinstatement if the
Glass-Steagall Act, which would cut off the legs of the Wall
Street and City of London to finance such terrorist operations,
and to work with us to insure the United States is able to return
to the intended legacy of our Founding Fathers such as George
Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and recently the intent of
American statesman and genius, Lyndon LaRouche.

        KESHA ROGERS : February 23rd marks the three-year
anniversary of the coup in the Maidan in Ukraine; it started
February 23, 2014. This has been ongoing as an effort by Barack
Obama, former President of the United States, and George Soros,
the multi-billionaire drug pusher, who has been leading the
charge to destroy and overthrow nations in order to get the
United States into a war with Russia. The lies that continue to
escalate the activities in Ukraine that pointed to the idea that
it was Putin who was in charge of the escalation in Ukraine, are
the same lies that are taking place here, right now, in the
United States to get the Trump Presidency overthrown. This has to
be stopped. As a part of a national Day of Truth, we have
unleashed a dossier that exposes Obama and Soros for their
money-pushing, lies that have created total chaos both in the
United States and continues to push the chaos in Ukraine. The
target is Putin and Russia.
        What we should be doing is working with Russia; working with
Putin. We have to stop these wars; we have to stop this continued
chaos. We should be working in terms of cooperation, as Lyndon
LaRouche has pointed out, with the Silk Road economic
development; that is what the United States needs. We're here at
a rally at Twome and 59th at an overpass. Our banner reads "Jail
Obama, Soros For Treason! Ukraine 2014; US 2017". People must
understand what is happening to this nation now, and demand that
we need economic development; we need cooperation. So, we're out
here as part of a Day of Truth; and we ask that each and every
person who sees this, participates in our rallies and reads the
dossier.

        HARLEY SCHLANGER [voice over video of singing]: Today is the
third anniversary of the coup that was carried out by US
intelligence operations, neo-conservatives funded by George
Soros, to bring a gang of Nazis into power in Kiev. We're here
today as a Day of Truth, to get out the real story. The Ukraine
operation is being geared up again to create fighting between
Russia and the West as a way of sabotaging the potential that
exists with the Trump administration to break with this policy of
war. The American electorate voted for Trump, in large part, to
break this policy of confrontation with Russia; so it's important
that this Day of Truth bring out the reality that the Ukraine
situation was never about democracy in Ukraine. But about a
deliberate operation to create a confrontation between the United
States and Russia. This is the policy of George Soros, the City
of London, and Barack Obama, who was involved in sabotaging
President Trump's initiative for peace between Russia and the
United States.
        So, we're here in Berlin as part of an International Day of
Truth, to call attention to the fact that the criminals who
brought the Nazis into power in Kiev, have still not been brought
to court; have not been brought to justice. So this demonstration
here in Berlin is part of the International Day of Action. You
can go to the websites of the LaRouche organization to get a
dossier that we put out on who is responsible for the killing in
Ukraine. It's not the Russians; it's not President Putin. It's
Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland, the neo-conservatives in the
United States, and former President Obama.
        [Male #1 speaking in German]
        [Male #2 speaking in German, saying that there are rallies
in Boston, New York City, in Paris, Berlin, and
Frankfurt-an-Main, and describing coup three years ago.]

       

        OGDEN: Now, this full dossier can be accessed at
https://lpac.co/ukraine-dossier which we'll put on the screen
right now. The title of it is "Obama and Soros; Nazis in Ukraine
2014, U.S. in 2017?" This is being circulated at all of these Day
of Truth rallies that you saw, including in New York City. I will
get a report directly from Diane, but before I bring her on, let
me report that there is a long article in {Itar-Tass} which is a
Russian news publication which features coverage of the rally
that occurred in New York City; that was the very beginning of
our montage. The title of this was that "Protesters in New York
Accused Obama and Soros of Organizing the Coup in Ukraine." Then
it is noted that similar actions took place in Boston, Houston,
Berlin, and elsewhere. Let me just read you a very quick excerpt
from this {Itar-Tass} article. It says:
        "Activists for several hours, were handing out on Thursday
in the center of New York as well as a number of other American
cities, printed materials that state that the change of power in
Ukraine was carried out with the direct support of billionaire
George Soros and the administration of the 44th US President,
Barack Obama. The action was organized by the international
Schiller Institute in the framework of a campaign to educate
Americans with the actual situation in Ukraine on the occasion of
the anniversary of the events in Maidan."
        Then it has a subtitle — "Yesterday, Yanukovych; Tomorrow,
Trump". "In New York," the article states, "the event was held in
the central district of Manhattan in the square at the
intersection of 42nd Street and Second Avenue, near the United
Nations headquarters. Members deployed in particular. Posters
with the words 'Obama in Prison'; 'Your Enemy, George Soros'."
Then it quotes from Diane Sare: "|'We have distributed here
probably several hundred of our publications,' says spokesman
Diane Sare, who is part of the political committee of the
movement of Lyndon LaRouche. According to her, similar actions
took place on Thursday in Boston and in Houston, as well as the
German capital, Berlin. As emphasized by Sare, activists are out
to 'Tell the whole world the truth about what happened in Ukraine
three years ago.'"
        Then, skipping over a little bit, it says, "According to
Sare, it is important for Americans to know about the events in
Ukraine, where Viktor Yanukovych, the legitimately elected
President, was deposed; as in a similar scenario, the situation
may begin to develop in the United States. 'The same people are
now trying to remove from power, the American President Donald
Trump.'"
        Then it concludes by saying, "The materials which were
distributed by the activists, are data from the LaRouche Movement
that have been prepared in the report on the events in Ukraine
and the possibility of a similar situation in the United States.
The full version of the document was provided to Tass; in it, the
change of power in the country was described as a violent
revolution carried out by the active participation of 'neo-Nazi
groups'. The Obama administration, and some of Washington's
allies, as noted, used the events in Ukraine, 'as a justification
of the new stage of NATO's military mobilization against Russia.
Victoria Nuland, who at the time held the post of Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, came
several times to the protest; handing out cookies to the Maidan,
while she refused to acknowledge the fact that aside from the
peaceful protesters concerned about corruption and the situation
in the economy, there were also explicitly neo-fascist gangs that
participated in the armed rebellion against an elected
government."
        And then it concludes, saying "The authors point out that at
the present time, Soros, as well as people who previously were
part of Obama's inner circle, are actively involved in the
attempts to discredit Trump, and promised not to allow the new
occupant of the White House the normalization of relations
between Moscow and Washington." Then it says, "At the end of
2016, activists of the Schiller Institute, in memory of the
victims of the TU-154 crash, brought flowers to the
Consulate-General of the Russian Federation in New York, and
performed at the entrance the Russian Anthem. And in early
January, they held a ceremony at the Tear of Grief Monument in
Bayonne, New Jersey, in memory of those killed in the crash.
        "Lyndon LaRouche," — and this is the conclusion of the TASS
article –"American economist and politician, author of the
so-called theory of physical economy, and the enemy of monetarist
conceptions, considers Russia a key player on the world stage,
and believes that Russia, along with China, India, and the United
States, and several other countries, can save the world from the
biggest crisis in history."
        So, that's a very substantial report and coverage in TASS,
and Diane, I know that you were interviewed by a number of other
international media outlets at this rally at the United Nations,
so maybe you can give us a report from on the ground there.

DIANE SARE: Sure! What's striking there, as what also has, I've
learned from our people who were in Boston, which has a similar,
maybe more uptight and snooty population than we have in New York
— and by that I mean people consider it largely liberal. You
would think we would be getting a very closed or hostile response
to what we have to say; but actually the openness was quite
extraordinary. We got out 70 copies of the dossier with the
explicit understanding that we're only giving them to
representatives of missions or other organizational institutional
people, so I imagine that that number of people from a couple of
dozen different nations stopped to take the material and many of
them came back to get more information.
        I think, notable, was a comment from a young
African-American military veteran who said, "You know, I had
thought of Trump as one of the Establishment. He's wealthy, he's
a billionaire, he's white, he's part of Wall Street. Why are they
attacking him?" He said that it began to make sense that if there
is, on the one hand, a push for war with Russia — and that is
something that Trump is opposed to — that this might be the
cause of such an attack.
        I also wanted to just elaborate a little bit more on what I
was saying in that video about 2013, because I think that unless
people understand that, you can't really understand what's going
on here, and I was reflecting on that summer. What happened in
2013 were two things: one, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced
the One Belt, One Road Initiative, which now has over 70 nations,
billions of the world's people, tens of thousands of kilometers
of high-speed rail, pending agreements on building ports,
building nuclear power plants, space exploration, etc.; but also
there was a conference in July in Fortaleza, Brazil of the BRICS
nations, where they established a development bank and also a
bank to protect themselves against currency speculation, which
went into operation about a year later.
        I was reflecting on this, because we were in the U.S.
Congress lobbying — Matt, you will remember this — that week,
and we discovered no one in the Congress had heard anything about
this extraordinary development. It's a really big deal, to have
nations — Russia, China, India, these are big countries. Brazil
is a large country in South America. South Africa is very
advanced in terms of the continent of Africa, and they have a
commitment for nuclear power, which is interesting. And the fact
that they would create a financial and economic institution which
would make it {possible} for nations to get out of the grip of
the bankrupt British Empire.
        I remember what we learned, is that, actually, the State
Department had sent out a memo or something instructing people
that this was really not an important development. I raise that
now, because what Americans should not miss, is the {potential}.
Why the hysteria? Why would George Soros be deploying his tens of
millions of dollars to pay all these agitators and organize this
30,000-person army of activists that Barack Obama is allegedly
going to be leading? Well, because what has come into existence
— and it's very advanced already — is a New Paradigm.
        Viewers of LaRouche PAC are probably aware: the Chinese,
together with the government of Ethiopia, just completed a
railroad from Djibouti to Addis Ababa. This was a route that took
3 days by truck, and now takes 12 hours by train. This means that
when you have a drought in Ethiopia, people don't have to die.
You can quickly get food and water there. It means great
potential for the development of the entire continent of Africa,
for the continent of South America. And if you think about what
people were taught — what the British system of economics is —
not just "buy cheap and sell dear," but Malthus: resources are
increasing arithmetically and population geometrically.
Therefore, we're over-populated; we have to shut down human
consumption of energy and food; reduce the population. Wars are
good for that.
        In other words, what we have a potential for, is a
completely new paradigm for mankind, worldwide, and the key is
for the United States to join this. President Trump, by
expressing his intent to have a reasonable relationship with
Russia, and hopefully China and Japan (he mentioned), as well,
has indicated an openness to being part of this new paradigm; and
therefore the backlash is rather extraordinary. I don't think
there's been a time — I know Abraham Lincoln had to travel to
his inauguration disguised as a woman, because of protests and so
on. But I don't think there's been a time where you've had for
weeks, going on months, this kind of agitation, so-called
"resistance," whatever they're calling it, the opposition to a
new President. I think it's very important that Americans
identify what the {potential} is, so we know what the battle is
that's occurring; and therefore combatting the lies in the U.S.
media about Russia, about Vladimir Putin, and what Russia's
intention is. And what happened in Ukraine is a very, very
important aspect to neutralizing this attack on our Presidency
and allowing the potential for the United States to join this.

OGDEN: Absolutely! One thing I should mention, is that in
addition to the activities that the international LaRouche
movement held this week around this International Week of Truth,
Helga LaRouche also highlighted two very significant calls that
came out of both ex-President Viktor Yanukovych and then the
former Prime Minister of Ukraine, Mykola Azarov, which also
parallel exactly this question of the "week of truth."
        Viktor Yanukovych has written a letter, which is addressed
to world leaders, which includes President Trump, President
Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and French President
François Hollande. And he is calling on world leaders to
"initiate the creation of a special commission of the Council of
Europe to monitor the investigation of crimes that were committed
on the Maidan." So, essentially a "Truth Commission," to get at
the truth of what really happened during the so-called "peaceful
revolution" of the Maidan.
        In parallel with that, the former Ukrainian Prime Minister,
Mykola Azarov, who served from 2010 until January 2014, when he
resigned at the height of the Maidan protests, has unleashed a
report on his Facebook page, saying "Today, we and investigators
in Kiev have reliable information about the fact that the murders
on the Maidan were carried out by special groups of snipers from
Georgia, the Baltic countries, and Poland, under the guidance of
instructors from France and Germany." And then he says, "An
attempt was made to place the blame for the massacre squarely on
Yanukovych and the Berkut riot police." So, he is saying,
directly here, that this was a fraud and that the so-called
"snipers" were deployed in by intelligence services from the
outside in order to explode an already very volatile situation,
and to turn it from just protests, into a violent coup d'etat.
This is also in the context of this International Week of Truth
around the truth of what's happening, or what {did} happen in
Ukraine.
        At the same time, you have several U.S. Congressmen who are
identifying the role that George Soros is playing {right now} in
attempts to start a color revolution in Macedonia. They should
maybe, perhaps, turn their focus right to their own back yard and
to their own town hall meetings, and to the events in the United
States; but it's very useful that these are sitting U.S.
Congressmen [who] are identifying the role that George Soros and
his networks play in these international color revolutions.
        Now, Diane, let me come back to the point that you made, and
I think it's a critical point, that there is no way to understand
the reality of what really was the intention behind what happened
in Ukraine in 2014, without understanding this dramatic turning
point that history experienced at that moment. This was the BRICS
Summit in Fortaleza — as you mentioned — and really especially,
the announcement of President Xi Jinping of the Belt and Road
Initiative; the New Silk Road. It was the decision by Viktor
Yanukovych not to enter into this free-trade agreement with the
failing European Union, and instead to preserve his economic
relationship with Russia, which was the pretext behind the reason
why it was decided {at that point} to launch this kind of violent
overthrow of his government.
        Now, take a look at the present moment. What has Donald
Trump telegraphed? Now only did he withdraw from the TPP — which
was the intended plan by the Obama Administration to try to
{contain} the Chinese influence in Asia; but he has also had
direct conversations with President Xi Jinping, which he said are
very constructive. He had this summit with President Abe. But
these relationships — as he made clear — do not have to be
mutually exclusive. And clearly, his relationship with Russia —
the fact that he pulled us back from the brink of a thermonuclear
war which was being pursued by Obama and prospectively by Hillary
Clinton.
        So, it's in that context, and it's the tension of this
present moment in history which is not yet resolved. But the
question is, will the United States join the New Silk Road? As
people know, there is this upcoming summit in May on the Belt and
Road Initiative in China; which is being hosted by President Xi
Jinping, and will be attended personally by President Putin of
Russia. The current campaign is to convey to President Trump that
not only should he attend this summit in person; but that he
should walk away from the summit with an expressed commitment
that the United States is abandoning the geopolitics of the past
several decades, and is decisively entering into a win-win
cooperation with the nation of China and all of the allied
countries around this New Silk Road initiative. There is no way
that the United States can have an economic recovery {without}
participating in this new development paradigm of great projects
which China has already begun spreading across Eurasia. As you
mentioned, Diane, into Africa; and even in countries in Latin
America.
        One thing that's very significant is a report that has just
come out, published by PriceWaterhouse Cooper, which is a major
international business and analysis firm. This is a report which
is titled "2016 Assessment B&R Watch; China and the Belt and Road
Infrastructure; Review and Outlook". And this was just published
in February of 2017. This has a very comprehensive overview of
what the Belt and Road Initiative is; it has a very well-made map
which is called "Belt and Road; Resurrecting the Ancient Silk
Road". It has a section which documents how many countries are
already involved in the Belt and Road Initiative. It says, "The
B&R region spans three continents and includes a total of 66
countries, from Lithuania to Indonesia." Then in the context of
the explosive growth that has already begun to be seen in some of
these countries — especially China, but other countries that are
benefiting from this investment in these great projects; it then
has their analysis for the coming months and the coming years.
One slide says "We see potential for significant growth in power,
rail, and health care in a number of the middle-income Belt and
Road countries." Another slide says "Trans-Eurasian rail networks
will dramatically reduce the time between China and European
consumer markets." Then finally, it says "Urbanization and
population growth will spur continued demand for high-capacity
transportation infrastructure."
        So, again, this is the future of the world economy. The
growth is now, the center of gravity has now shifted decisively
to Eurasia, to China, and to these countries that are now a part
of the Belt and Road Initiative. If Donald Trump is serious about
facilitating an economic recovery in the United States, it will
be done by joining — in a win-win cooperation — with China and
these other countries; and joining the New Silk Road. As I
mentioned, LaRouche PAC had published a pamphlet two years ago on
the subject of the United States joining the New Silk Road; and
we are currently in the process of updating this pamphlet in a
completely new way. Hopefully, that will be available in the next
week or two.
        So, put this in context and recognize, the Ukraine coup
happened because of Viktor Yanukovych's decision not to enter
into a free-trade agreement with the failing European Union; and
was recognizing that there was a new economic dynamic that was
emerging from Eurasia. Now, you've got a very similar situation
potentially, from inside the United States. So, this Day of Truth
was not only to say "Here's what happened in Ukraine three years
ago," but let that be a warning; this is, in fact, actively being
attempted inside the United States today.
        So Diane, maybe you want to follow up a little bit on that
question. But also, I should point out, that President Trump's
State of the Union address to a Joint Session of Congress is
coming up next Tuesday. That's February 28th, and that is the
deadline for our petition campaign around the Glass-Steagall
initiative. We can put up on the screen right now the address;
this is https://lpac.co/trumpsotu. And this petition campaign
continues to accelerate. We had a report last night on our
Fireside Chat activist call, of several activists with LaRouche
PAC from New York City to Connecticut to California attending
town hall meetings, and intervening with this issue.
Glass-Steagall is urgent; Trump promised this during his
Presidential campaign. We have to hold him to this, and urge him
to commit to the restoration of Glass-Steagall during or before
his State of the Union address next Tuesday. So, Diane maybe you
can say a little more about that campaign; or anything else that
you want to add.

SARE: Well, I would just say that Trump has expressed his intent
to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure in the United States. Now
I understand that the Chinese think we need about $8 trillion in
investment; which is probably more accurate. But $1 trillion is
certainly a good start. But how do you do this? Where does it go,
if the Prime Minister of Japan, Abe, who was just here, wants to
invest $150 billion to build high-speed rail? Number one, if you
have a banking system where any savings can be used as collateral
for bailing out derivatives obligations, who would want to put
their investments through such a system? Two, we don't have a
national bank; we don't have the Treasury under the control of
the Congress in a sense as it should be. We've got the Federal
Reserve that's done $31 trillion worth of bail-outs. So, in order
for this to succeed, LaRouche's Four Laws, starting first and
foremost with Glass-Steagall, is absolutely urgent.
Glass-Steagall alone is not sufficient; but it's the first step.
I would say that if Trump fails to go with Glass-Steagall, and to
go with this approach, it's a great vulnerability; because unless
the government of the United States actually acts to rein in this
gigantic bubble of speculative debt, and to put up that firewall
between the investment banks and the commercial banks, then when
the system implodes — which it inevitably will; it {must}.
        Everyone should just consider, what have we done, in terms
of physical productivity, commensurate with the amount of money
that is now in circulation? Nothing. The physical productivity
has collapsed. This is Mr. LaRouche's famous Triple Curve
function that looks like a trumpet bell; with a hyperbolic curve
going up and a hyperbolic curve going down. We're at the break
point; the system will crash. We must have Glass-Steagall in
place. If that is not done, it creates a potential for
extraordinary chaos in this country and globally. But then too,
you want a system of banking; a national system of banking that
allows the necessary credit to flow into drivers of the whole
economy. Which emphatically means funding for the development of
thermonuclear nuclear fusion energy, to elevate the entire
platform of how we function; the space program. Instead of just
little pockets of high-speed rail, we actually need a
trans-continental railroad. As I've said before, if we're going
to cross the Hudson River, we should make sure we cross the
Bering Strait at the other end. These are only possible with a
sane banking system; so I think it's just very urgent that we not
leave this vulnerability open. Everybody who's involved in
watching this or your friends, your neighbors, get these
petitions circulating, signed, and get them to your Congressman
or your Senator or send them back to us. I know we delivered 2300
signatures for this to the Trump White House, and we're going to
be doing a lot more. We should do it very quickly.

        OGDEN: And then the one thing you also were pointing out
yesterday, is that despite the media propaganda, that everybody
at these town hall meetings is just there to defend the Obamacare
or something like that, and are just enraged protesters. When you
go with this message, "This is how we're going to rebuild the
United States; and we need Glass-Steagall. And we need
Hamiltonian economic policies, and we need jobs and
infrastructure." The response is extraordinary. And in fact,
despite the efforts of Soros and some of these other Obama for
America, stay behind kind of organizations, the American people
want to be united to constructively work together; and wish they
did have a President who was serious about this kind of question.
When you say "This is the agenda, and this is what we should be
doing," it has an extraordinary effect of unifying people. I
don't know if you want to say anything more about that.

        SARE: Yeah, you said it; that's absolutely the case. But it
is counterintuitive; because the media would have you believe
that every one of these protesters is some screaming, irrational
fanatic. And it's simply not true. You have to remember, why did
Trump win the election? Because the US economy is finished.
Because out of 320 million Americans, over 90 million who are
eligible to work are not employed; they're not part of the
workforce. So, that is the reality, whatever the news media wants
to say about it. Then, when we approach these demonstrations,
everyone was very struck; and I think they were in Boston on this
Day of Action. The openness we're getting is extraordinary;
people are thoughtful, they want solutions. They want a program;
we have that. You can very quickly pull people into sanity on
that principle.

        OGDEN: Exactly. So, let me just say, in conclusion, the
State of the Union speech obviously is next Tuesday. Over the
course of this weekend, there are extraordinary opportunities for
people who are viewing this broadcast to go and circulate this
petition at these town hall meetings. You can also circulate this
dossier, which is very important; get people's hands on this and
encourage other people to print it out and circulate it
themselves. Again, let me put up on the screen the address where
you can get this dossier; and we'll make this available in the
description of this YouTube video also. But it's
https://lpac.co/ukraine-dossier. The video montage that you saw
earlier in the broadcast today, we will also make available as a
separate item in order to circulate this.
        Let me just conclude by saying that Helga LaRouche wanted to
make it known that the International Day of Truth should not be
limited to merely one day, or to one week. That this has got to
be an ongoing campaign; we've got to keep the pressure going.
This is something that President Trump should respond to, and
should be called upon to respond to. The propaganda that has been
peddled about the Ukraine situation has been the major wedge
driven between the perspective of cooperation of the United
States and Russia. As President Trump said in his press
conference a week ago, "The Russia thing is a ruse." And people
should recognize that the Ukraine thing is also a ruse. In
discussions this week, we pointed out that the kind of campaign
that was waged about the 28 pages and the truth behind what
happened on 9/11, with the financing by the Saudis of these
hijackers and the campaign that LaRouche PAC led to get the truth
out about the 28 pages, was a victorious campaign. But it was one
that had to be continuously run; and it was a lot of long-term
pressure that resulted in the victory of the declassification of
the 28 pages. And the passage of the JASTA vote, which was a
major defeat for Obama during his last few months in office. This
is a very similar question. Oliver Stone has called for President
Trump to release the documents on the US involvement in this coup
on the Maidan. That would be a very constructive thing to do; and
he has the authority to do that. But this is an International
Week of Truth; but it should just be an International {Campaign}
of Truth. It must be in parallel and in the context of the
recognition that we are at an extraordinary moment in history,
where the age of geopolitics can be ended; and the United States
can decisively join this New Paradigm of economic development and
great projects that China is leading with the New Silk Road.
        So, thank you very much Diane; I know that you were
interviewed by numerous media outlets during the rally yesterday
up in New York. So, we'll probably look forward to more coverage
of that in various international media outlets over the next few
hours and days. We will be joining you again on Monday for our
discussion with the Policy Committee; and obviously that will
occur on the eve of the State of the Union address next Tuesday.
So, please stay tuned to larouchepac.com; please circulate this
dossier as widely as possible. Please continue to get petition
signatures and send them in to us. Please subscribe to our email
list if you have not already. Thank you very much and we will see
you soon.         

     




Meget spændende, farligt og dynamisk: Dette er de historiske
øjeblikke, hvor vi kan ændre verden og ændre historien.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 17. februar, 2017; Leder

Helga Zepp-LaRouche har krævet en international kampagne, der skal orienteres hen imod det forestående, internationale topmøde, som Kinas præsident Xi Jinping skal være vært for, og som vi få deltagelse af Ruslands præsident Putin, og forhåbentlig også direkte af USA’s præsident Trump, om spørgsmålet om den kinesiske regerings Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ, eller den Nye Silkevej, eller OBOR-initiativet. Det, som Helga LaRouche sagde, var, at, hvis Donald Trump overbevises om ikke alene at deltage i dette topmøde, men også blive en beredvillig deltager i det nye, økonomiske paradigme for udvikling, der er i færd med at vokse frem omkring den Nye Silkevej, så vil dette konsolidere dette nye, økonomiske paradigme og ændre historiens gang. Det Britiske Imperiums gamle geopolitikker vil blive et levn fra fortiden; og dette er måden, hvorpå USA rent faktisk kan sikre en mirakuløs, økonomisk genrejsning.

Matthew Ogden: Vi vil, med det samme, lægge ud med tre store initiativer, som LaRouchePAC er engageret i. Nummer ét er naturligvis fortsat det førende initiativ i USA; vores appel og kampagne for at indsamle 10.000 underskrifter i løbet af de næste ti dage for at fortælle Donald Trump, at han, under sin tale til Kongressens to huse den 28. februar, bør forpligte sig til at genindføre Glass-Steagall. Det vil sige, den oprindelige Glas/Steagall-lov fra 1933; og det var en del af hans valgkampagne. Man underskriver appellen ved at tekste »GSACT« til 52886; det giver direkte mulighed for at underskrive appellen. Man kan også underskrive via websiden, https://lapc.co.trumpsotu. Vi vil hen over de næste ti dage overvåge appellen for at give jer en idé om, hvor vi er i forhold til vores mål. Vi har i øjeblikket via den digitale appel 2026 underskrifter; og jeg ved, at der er en masse underskrifter derude på fysisk papir, som folk har taget med til møder med progressive Demokrater eller andre kampagnebegivenheder, eller offentlige delstatskongresmøder. Det er meget vigtigt at få disse underskrifter ind i LaRouchePAC’s website-database, så vi har dem centralt samlet ét sted. Vi overgiver disse underskrifter til kongresmedlemmer; dette er ved at få stor indvirkning.

En opdatering om Glass/Steagall-lovforslaget, der i øjeblikket er fremsat i Repræsentanternes Hus – HR790 – er, at yderligere fire kongresmedlemmer er blevet medsponsorer af dette forslag; hvilket giver os godt og vel 30 sponsorer af HR790. Det er meget vigtigt, at vi fortsætter med at udbrede denne kampagne. Det var nummer ét.

Nummer to er, at Helga Zepp-LaRouche har bestilt et dossier, som er i færd med at blive samlet, mens vi taler her, og som bliver publiceret før næste uge. Den 23. februar er målet for dette, for Helga Zepp-LaRouche har foreslået en International Sandhedens Dag næste torsdag; for at afdække og afsløre sandheden. Den sande narrativ, og ikke den fiktive narrativ, om det, der fandt sted i Ukraine; og kuppet, der blev kørt i Ukraine af Victoria Nuland og andre medlemmer af Obama-administrationen under dække af en såkaldt »farvet revolution«. Grunden til, at det er så vigtigt at få en International Sandhedens Dag næste torsdag, er, nummer ét, at hele narrativen og propagandakrigen, der føres imod Rusland netop nu, hænger på de fejlbehæftede misforståelser, som flertallet af det amerikanske folk er blevet fortalt, om, hvad der virkelig skete i Ukraine. Så sandheden om dette må komme frem. Men, den endnu mere presserende grund til, at dette dossier netop nu sammensættes, er, at det selv samme apparat – den med George Soros tilknyttede Obama-administration, der stod bag denne farvede revolution og kuppet i Ukraine, nu også forsøger at køre en farvet revolution internt i USA. Denne påstand vil blive underbygget af dette dossier, der nu bliver sammensat.

Og så nummer tre: Helga Zepp-LaRouche har krævet en international kampagne, der skal orienteres hen imod det forestående, internationale topmøde, som Kinas præsident Xi Jinping skal være vært for, og som vi få deltagelse af Ruslands præsident Putin, og forhåbentlig også direkte af USA’s præsident Trump, om spørgsmålet om den kinesiske regerings Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ, eller den Nye Silkevej, eller OBOR-initiativet. Det, som Helga LaRouche sagde, var, at, hvis Donald Trump overbevises om ikke alene at deltage i dette topmøde, men også blive en beredvillig deltager i det nye, økonomiske paradigme for udvikling, der er i færd med at vokse frem omkring den Nye Silkevej, så vil dette konsolidere dette nye, økonomiske paradigme og ændre historiens gang. Det Britiske Imperiums gamle geopolitikker vil blive et levn fra fortiden; og dette er måden, hvorpå USA rent faktisk kan sikre en mirakuløs, økonomisk genrejsning. Så dette er emnet for denne pamflet, som LaRouchePAC udgav for to år siden: »USA må tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej; en Hamilton-vision for en økonomisk renæssance.« Som en del af dette initiativ for at orientere arbejdet hen imod denne Bælt-og-Vej-konference i Kina i maj, er LaRouchePAC nu i færd md at opdatere denne pamflet; og det bliver en totalt omredigeret pamflet med det formål at initiere denne kampagne for at lægge Bælt-og-Vej/Ny Silkevej frem på bordet.

Dette er således de tre initiativer: 1. Glass-Steagall; vi må øge underskrifterne på denne Glass/Steagall-appel i løbet af de næste ti dage. 2. Den Internationale Sandhedens Dag næste torsdag om den sande historie bag den farvede revolution og kuppet i Ukraine og faren for, at det præcis selv samme nu køres i USA. 3. Fortælle præsident Trump, at USA må tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej; at han må deltage i denne konference i Kina til maj. Rusland, Kina og Indien kan gå sammen om at skabe et helt nyt, økonomisk paradigme.

(Udskrift af webcastet, fortsat; engelsk):

That's the three subjects Diane
and I are going to be discussing a little bit more in depth here
today; but I'd like to begin with a short excerpt from the
strategic briefing that Helga Zepp-LaRouche gave at the beginning
of the Fireside Chat national activists' call last night.  Some
of you may have heard it; but this is very important for
everybody to gain wider circulation.  This is a short excerpt
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche's statement from last night:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Let me say hello to all of you. It's a
pleasure to be able to talk with you. I guess most of you saw the
press conference of President Trump today which obviously proves
that this is a very active and feisty person who knows how to
deal with a rambunctious bunch of media. I think it was quite
funny and I enjoyed watching at least a couple minutes of it,
because it shows that this is really a very interesting moment in
history. Because he is not sitting down and taking the fact there
is actually a coup in process against him. I think this is very
serious. The old establishment, the neo-liberal, neo-con,
unipolar world establishment both in the United States and
Europe, they're {completely} freaked out. They don't accept the
fact that Trump was elected and they're obviously involved in an
attempt to get Trump out of the White House. Anyway, either a
coup, a military coup which was talked about, an impeachment, or
even worse, as the chief editor of the German liberal newspaper,
{Die Zeit}, said in a talk show; he said, "Murder in the White
House." I mean this is quite scandalous that the chief editor of
a so-called mainstream newspaper would say such a thing.
        But what is going on is very serious. Because they have
deployed George Soros, who is really nothing but an instrument of
the British Empire; and George Soros who is the inventor, or the
financier of the concept of color revolution, in other words, to
finance all kinds of civil groups, NGOs, other groups how to
cause regime change. They have been involved in doing that for
the better part of the post-Soviet era, in many countries in
Eastern Europe; in Ukraine, in 2004, the Orange Revolution; the
Rose Revolution in Georgia; later the Arab Spring; they attempted
White Revolution in Russia which failed; they attempted so-called
Yellow Revolution with the yellow umbrellas in Hong Kong against
China, which failed. What you see right now in the United States
is exactly the same kind of apparatus financed by Soros, and it
is really meant to undo that election. It is very serious.
        And obviously, the whole story that it was Russia which
stole the US election is completely ludicrous. It was Hillary
perfectly on her own who did this. She talked about the people in
the Midwest and rust belt, about the so-called "deplorables," the
people who didn't "make it." And it is those people who voted for
Trump. What this establishment absolutely refuses to see is it
was {their} policies of neo-liberalism, of causing wars in the
Middle East based on lies â Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria —
which is the reason why you have a gigantic refugee crisis in
Europe; this refugee crisis was not the cause, but the trigger
for the Brexit, Great Britain leaving the EU. And more
fundamentally, it was that section of the British population felt
that they are no longer represented by the European Union and
that's why they wanted to get out. It was in principle exactly
the same reason why people didn't want Hillary, but voted for
Trump.
        If you look at it from the strategic standpoint; don't look
at it from the internal US situation which right now is very
polarized. You look at the mass media, you have never seen such
hysteria in your lifetime. So, don't look at it from an internal
American standpoint; look at it from a strategic standpoint
first. And from that standpoint, one can say that, while for sure
Trump is making some things not perfect; but the most important
question is that the Trump election means the possible solution
to the war danger. If it would have continued with Obama and
Hillary, we were on a short fuse to World War III, because the
whole encirclement of Russia, of China, the whole idea of no-fly
zones over Syria, that would have brought us to a confrontation
with Russia and China in the short term.
        So, the first diplomatic activities of Trump are very, very
positive, because he had very good exchanges with Xi Jinping, the
Chinese leader, and he characterized the discussion as extremely
friendly, extremely warm; and that was the same view expressed by
the Chinese after the phone discussion a couple of days ago.
        Then, you had the visit of the Japanese Prime Minister Abe
in the United States, and they agreed on massive investment of
Japanese companies in infrastructure in the United States; and
also China offered to invest massively in the infrastructure
reconstruction of the United States. Now Trump had promised that
he would invest $1 trillion in the infrastructure in the United
States, but if you look at the actual condition of American
infrastructure, everybody can see very clearly that $1 trillion
will not be enough. There are Chinese scholars said we need at
least $8 trillion, and China would be willing to invest in a very
large part of that; and together China and Japan would have the
industrial capacity to reconstruct the American infrastructure in
a very efficient and very quick time.
        Also, the initial correspondence between Tillerson, the new
Secretary of State, and [Russian] Foreign Minister Lavrov, who
met today in Bonn in the context of the G20 are carefully
cautiously positive signs that they think they can work together
and obviously the things to overcome are huge, but these are
positive first steps.
        If you look at it strategically, the United States Trump
administration had said they do not oppose the effort by Japan to
get good relations with Russia. Prime Minister Abe was in Russia;
he will go there two times more this coming year. Putin was in
Japan in December. They are now working together economically to
develop the Kuril Islands, the so-called Northern Territories;
and Abe wants to sign a peace treaty with Russia during his time
in office, i.e., in the next several years.
        If the United States takes a positive attitude towards
Russia improving relations with Japan, if at the same time the
United States has promising signs of improving relations with
China, and Russia and China are working very well together; then
if the United States gets to a positive agreement with Russia,
then you have it! We have for the first time in — I don't know
since when, maybe the first time in history, ever, we have the
ability to straighten out the relations among the major powers of
this world, and have a real chance to eliminate the danger of war
for good.
        This is extremely important, because what is more important
than the existence of the human species and the perspective to
eliminate war forever! In the time of thermonuclear weapons, war
cannot be a way of conflict resolution anymore.
        So, this is very positive. And Lyndon LaRouche, my husband,
when he was briefed on all of these developments in the last
days, he had a very positive attitude. He said, "Don't panic,
don't fall for the coverage of the mass media. This is all going
on in a very positive direction." I think there is absolute
reason for optimism; and the way how Trump is responding to this
coup attempt, he says it is the intelligence community which is
leaking classified information to the media, they're passing them
out like candies and there should be a criminal investigation of
those who are doing it. And that is exactly the right attitude.

This is a big battle, because obviously the Trump administration
is far from being in place — many appointments are still in the
air and they're obviously some problematic ones including the
very high representation of Wall Street, which is a problem.
        So, therefore, it is extremely important that we escalate
this campaign. You have all this motion in the Congress. You saw
the speech by Senator Cantwell, why she opposed Mnuchin for the
post of the Secretary of the Treasury. You have a lot of motion.
You have various kinds of state legislators implementing not only
Glass-Steagall resolutions but actually what is the Four Laws of
Lyndon LaRouche: first of all, Glass-Steagall; secondarily, a
national bank to generate credit; thirdly, a credit system; and
fourthly, an increase of the productivity of the labor force
through the concentration on fusion power and space technology on
the basis of international cooperation. Because you need to
increase the productivity of the production and labor force.
There are many state legislatures, I think there are now six or
seven who have passed these Four Laws.
        That is what this call is actually about: How can we
escalate this fight to basically create a situation where Trump,
by the time of the State of the Union address, includes
Glass-Steagall, the real Glass-Steagall, and not some watered
down ring-fencing, Volcker Rule, or whatever.
        This is all extremely important, because we will put out a
dossier on Soros, showing exactly why this apparatus making the
coup attempt against the Trump administration is exactly what was
done in Ukraine; and I'm asking you to participate in a day of
action on the 23rd of February, which is the third anniversary of
the coup in Ukraine, the Maidan leading to the coup. And I'm also
asking you to help to emanate the knowledge about what is the
apparatus of Soros behind this coup in the United States.
        I want to leave it at these initial remarks so you can say
whatever you want and then we can engage in the discussion. But I
can assure you, the battle now in the United States to not only
protect the Trump administration from being couped and ousted,
but to actually make sure that the potential which this
administration represents is being implemented. Because now if
the United States goes in coordination with China, if the United
States joins the Silk Road, by not only extending the Silk Road
into the United States by building infrastructure, but by working
together with Russia and China in other parts of the world. For
example, the reconstruction of the Middle East, which only these
powers together can accomplish; or the industrialization of
Africa, which China has started now already with many, many
exciting projects. Japan is involved, India is involved, and we
have to get the United States to join in something which the
United Nations has just called the "common future for humanity in
Africa."
        So, all these major nations have to be brought to work
together for the common good of all of civilization and this is
within reach. This is very exciting. It is very dangerous. It is
very dynamic. But I think these are the moments in history where
if people have a good plan, they can change the world and they
can change history.

        OGDEN:  As I said, there are going to be activities all
across the country; and we're asking people to be engaged in
planning for this International Day of Truth next Thursday, as
Helga LaRouche said, to set the record straight on what happened
in Ukraine and also to tell the truth about what's happening now
inside the United States.  There was a good interview with former
Congressman Dennis Kucinich just a few days ago on Fox Business
News; and he said very clearly that what's happening right now is
the so-called "deep state" intelligence community is waging a war
against the elected President of the United States with the
purpose of perpetuating a Cold War confrontation between the
United States and Russia.  He said no matter what you think of
the politics of the President, this is unacceptable.  We also had
a call from Oliver Stone, the Academy Award-winning film
director, who was interviewed on a Russian television station;
and he echoed the same call that you're hearing from Helga
LaRouche, that unfortunately, Americans do not know the truth
about what happened in Ukraine.  He said, "If I were President
Trump, I would declassify all this information on Ukraine â¦
because it's the focal point of where this [new] Cold War has
come about."
        So, let me just let Diane say a little bit on this if she
wants to, and any plans up there in New York.

DIANE SARE:  First of all, I'll say that Mrs. LaRouche made a
point at a town hall meeting she addressed here in Manhattan,
that she had never seen a case where you had a democratic
election where someone was elected — in this case President
Donald Trump — and the array of operations set into motion
immediately following that election to undermine that result.
The result was a result of the American voters who elected Donald
Trump under the Constitutional system of the United States.  I
just dug up an article that came out — it's a blog by a Rutgers
University professor named Alexander Motyl — from December 11th.
The headline is "Does a Ukrainian-Style Revolution Await
Washington?"  Then he says, "Ukrainians have seen the likes of
Donald Trump before in ex-President Viktor Yanukovich.  Both men
ran against strong women; Hillary Rodham Clinton and Yulia
Timoshenko" — that's actually funny for people who have seen
both of them — "and won by small margins" blah, blah, blah.
Then they say that Trump is going to be very corrupt; and by
flaunting his corruption openly and promoting a variety of
extremist domestic and foreign policies, Trump will infuriate the
alienated half of the population.
        What is this?  Again, as Mrs. LaRouche said, you have a
media that's drunk with their own narrative.  The media was
certain that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election.  She
didn't win the election because she ignored at least half of the
population of the United States — really more, because who knows
about all the people who don't even vote anymore because they're
so disgusted and demoralized.  People do not think we should have
a war with Russia, and they don't appreciate the leaders a
quarter million dollars or whatever it is, to go speak at private
Goldman Sachs meetings; not to mention what she did as Obama's
Secretary of State in Benghazi, and I mean, the list goes on.
You have this uproar; where does it come from?  You have Obama
moving into a walled in mansion, a compound, near the White House
where he's going to live with his wife, Valery Jarrett and his
mother-in-law; and ostensibly is going to take over the "command"
of 30,000 disaffected Americans who somehow have been able to
pull themselves with countless millions of dollars from George
Soros.  Obama is a total creation; the guy could not organize his
way out of a paper bag.  The only reason he got to where he did
is because certain forces — namely the British Empire — wanted
to use him to carry out a particular agenda.
        I think there are two ways in which the American people are
a little bit mistaken that we have to set right.  One is to be
demoralized by all this nonsense, and say "Oh, these people are
so powerful.  Look at all these people; look at all these women
who went to that march.  We're not going to succeed."  That's not
true, because this whole thing is a fake; it's smoke and mirrors.
It does not reflect the population; it's a highly funded
operation.  Then there are people — I spoke with one the other
day — who say "Oh, no.  Trump is doing a great job.  He can
handle it all.  Besides, everyone knows of course we should talk
to Russia.  What do you think they're supposed to do?  No one
disagrees with that."  Well, that's true; and in the streets of
Manhattan what we are picking up is a very interesting response.
You may imagine Manhattan did not predominantly vote for Donald
Trump; but people are coming over to our tables and saying "I
didn't vote for Trump, but I think we should be friends with
Russia.  I think the US should work with Russia and China.  What
do you have on Glass-Steagall?"  There's a real thoughtfulness;
not the kind of hysteria and nonsense that the media would have
you believe.
        What we're dealing with is something different than what it
appears.  This is not a grass-roots movement of disaffected
people who didn't like what Trump did on the travel ban.  If they
were so concerned about those people, they would have impeached
Obama when he was droning them and blowing up their countries.
Or, they would have impeached Bush.  This is all fake.  What
we're dealing with is a foreign-directed — namely British
Empire, Wall Street and London, that's what George Soros
represents — attack on the United States per se; because at this
moment in history, if the United States will shift, if we can be
liberated from our recent relationship with the British Empire to
join with China and Russia, then this trans-Atlantic imperial
bankrupt system is finished forever.  The future of mankind is
extremely bright, and we can consider what Earth should look
like; what the Solar System should look like; what the galaxy
should look like, not just centuries from now, but millennia from
now.  What are the potentials for the human species, which is the
natural thing that human beings would like to consider.
        So, I just want to underscore that it's very urgent that the
viewers of this broadcast and the collaborators with LaRouche
really try to think with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche and to join us in
fighting this through in the short term right now.  What Mrs.
LaRouche has identified as a flank, as Matt said, on the 23rd of
this month, you have the third anniversary of the coup in
Ukraine.  It's a beautiful example; and we will be having
demonstrations across the country.  We'll be having a rally here
in Manhattan; we haven't yet selected the location, but we will
be out on the streets.  We will be calling the press; we will be
getting out letters to the editor.  There will be articles, some
of which have been posted.  There are articles in this week's
{Hamiltonian} that viewers may find very useful.  The idea is to
set the record straight on what happened in the Ukraine; because
remember, why do we have sanctions on Russia?  We have sanctions
on Russia because we say that Russia invaded Crimea; but Russia
did not invade Crimea.  Victoria Nuland, formerly of the Dick
Cheney administration, got deployed $5 billion that was channeled
through the US State Department to overthrow the
democratically-elected government of Ukraine and replace it with
a bunch of literal Nazis — people who march around the street
with torches with giant photos of Bandera, the guy who worked
with Adolf Hitler to brutally exterminate tens of thousands of
people — Jews, Poles, etc. — in Ukraine.  They are honoring
that legacy today.  What happened with Crimea is, a referendum
was held; Crimea was part of Russia originally, and 80% to 90% of
the people there speak Russian, are Russian.  So, you get a bunch
of Nazis in place in Kiev, and many people in Russia, almost
every Russian family lost someone in World War II fighting the
Nazis.  You have a Nazi regime in Kiev.  They held a referendum
and decided that they did not wish to part of that.  As you may
know, there have been no videos of massive protests against
Russia and Putin in Crimea; there is no big movement in Crimea to
{not} be part of the Russian Federation, because they decided to
join with Russia.  So the whole thing is a complete lie and a
fraud.  If you start by dismantling that, then all of the other
crap about Putin this and sanctions that, flies out the window;
and what you can see is what Matt said earlier Kucinich
identified.  Somebody is trying to put two nuclear superpowers on
a collision course; and that has to be stopped.  The Trump
Presidency has to be successful; because if the Trump Presidency
is successful, then mankind has a potential to be successful in
getting through this.
        The day of action is extremely important; it's extremely
important what people can take from our website to organize, that
you get this out.  We're also planning a dossier; the dossier
will expose George Soros, who still — unfortunately — quite
active.  It will be very important to get this out, and I would
like people to be very clear to think big.  It's the British
Empire; it's an outside operation.  This has nothing to do with
what you're presented with in the footage on the ground.  So,
that's what I can say about it.

OGDEN:  I would just reiterate what you just said.  There is an
apparatus in the United States which an American should be very
angry about this; in our name, in the name of the United States,
is trying to drive the world into a thermonuclear war.  This
apparatus, which should have left power with the change of the
Presidency, is still implanted and is attempting to continue this
drive towards thermonuclear war; even though the elected
Presidency has decided to take a different course.  That was
actually one of the elements that was very clear during the Trump
press conference that occurred yesterday, that Helga LaRouche
cited.  I'd like to play an excerpt from that actually in just
one moment, but before we move on, Diane you cited that the
article that's in this week's {Hamiltonian} tells the true story
on what happened in Ukraine; this is titled "Anglo-American War
Party Seeks to Blow Up Ukraine, Wreck US-Russian Prospects".
That's available on the LaRouche PAC site.
        Then, in fact, going back to 2014 — almost three years ago
— {Executive Intelligence Review} put together a dossier at that
time that told the true story of what was happening on the ground
in Ukraine.  The title of that was "British Imperial Project in
Ukraine; Violent Coup, Fascist Axioms, Neo-Nazis"; and that's
available also on the EIR website.  So, a lot of that material
will be included in this new dossier that's being put together.
        But, let me go and take you to this press conference
yesterday that President Trump delivered at the White House.
We're just going to play a short, three-minute excerpt; but in
that excerpt you'll see that he's very clear that despite this
propaganda that a US-Russia cooperation would be some kind of
big, bad thing, he says that no, in fact, this would be a very
good thing, not a bad thing.  We're two nuclear superpowers and
nobody wins that war.  So in fact, a US-Russia cooperation is a
very positive thing; not a negative thing.  So, let me just play
a little bit of that for you right now:

        PRESIDENT TRUMP:  [T]he whole Russian thing, that's a ruse.
That's a ruse. And by the way, it would be great if we could get
along with Russia, just so you understand that.
        Now tomorrow, you'll say "Donald Trump wants to get along
with Russia, this is terrible." It's not terrible. It's good. We
had Hillary Clinton try and do a reset. We had Hillary Clinton
give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country. You know
what uranium is, right? This thing called nuclear weapons like
lots of things are done with uranium including some bad things.
        Nobody talks about that. I didn't do anything for Russia.
I've done nothing for Russia. Hillary Clinton gave them 20
percent of our uranium. Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember?
With the stupid plastic button that made us all look like a bunch
of jerks. Here, take a look. He looked at her like, what the hell
is she doing with that cheap plastic button?
        Hillary Clinton — that was the reset, remember it said
reset? Now if I do that, oh, I'm a bad guy. If we could get along
with Russia, that's a positive thing. We have a very talented
man, Rex Tillerson, who's going to be meeting with them shortly
and I told him. I said "I know politically it's probably not good
for me." The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that's
30 miles off shore right out of the water.
        Everyone in this country's going to say "oh, it's so great."
That's not great. That's not great. I would love to be able to
get along with Russia. Now, you've had a lot of presidents that
haven't taken that tack. Look where we are now. Look where we are
now. So, if I can — now, I love to negotiate things, I do it
really well, and all that stuff. But — but it's possible I won't
be able to get along with Putin.
        Maybe it is. But I want to just tell you, the false
reporting by the media, by you people, the false, horrible, fake
reporting makes it much harder to make a deal with Russia. And
probably Putin said "You know?" He's sitting behind his desk and
he's saying "You know, I see what's going on in the United
States, I follow it closely. It's going to be impossible for
President Trump to ever get along with Russia because of all the
pressure he's got with this fake story." OK?
        And that's a shame because if we could get along with Russia
— and by the way, China and Japan and everyone. If we could get
along, it would be a positive thing, not a negative thing.
        ⦠Look, it would be much easier for me to be tough on
Russia, but then we're not going to make a deal.
        Now, I don't know that we're going to make a deal. I don't
know. We might. We might not. But it would be much easier for me
to be so tough — the tougher I am on Russia, the better. But you
know what? I want to do the right thing for the American people.
And to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for
the world.
        If Russia and the United States actually got together and
got along — and don't forget, we're a very powerful nuclear
country and so are they. There's no up-side. We're a very
powerful nuclear country and so are they. I have been briefed.
And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we're allowed
to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say
it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other.
They're a very powerful nuclear country and so are we. If we have
a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that's a good thing,
not a bad thing.

OGDEN:  That's directly to the point, and that argument can't be
argued with.  One thing that I think is very important that he
included in that answer was not only would it be important for us
to get along with Russia, but it would also be important for us
to get along with China, with Japan, and all the other countries.
But the fact that he named those three countries in specific, I
think is extremely significant from the standpoint of Helga
LaRouche's point.  That now is the time for us to have a new
great power relationship with these leading countries — China
and Russia primarily — and change the strategic geometry of the
whole planet, but also have a completely new economic order.
That's now the leading point with this campaign to say OK, Trump
should reciprocate Chinese President Xi Jinping's offer to join
the AIIB and join the New Silk Road; and should attend this
summit that's coming up in May in China.  And announce, look
we're going to join this New Silk Road; we're going to join this
new economic paradigm; we're going to build some big projects;
and we're going to create a miraculous, dramatic economic
recovery for the United States.
        I should just mention, just yesterday down in Houston,
Texas, there was a significant event that the Schiller Institute
participated in at Texas Southern University.  The title of this
was "A New Paradigm: Peace Through Economic Development; the Role
of China's Belt and Road Initiative.  Will the USA Join?"  I got
a few pictures from this event that I just want to show you.  You
can see this first picture here is the three featured speakers
sitting at the table there; the Texas Southern University sign.
This is the moderator introducing them.  The next picture, the
first speaker was Dr. Yunhin Chao[ph] who's the Deputy Consul
General of China.  You can see on the screen there his power
point; it's titled "The Belt and Road Initiative".  The next
picture, we've got Mrs. Ra Kolif [ph], who's the Consul General
of Egypt.  And you can see on the screen there, "Egypt and the
New Silk Road"; that's the subject of her power point
presentation.  The third picture is Mr. Brian Lantz, who is a
representative of the Schiller Institute down in Houston, Texas.
And of course, you can see the graphic there, "The World
Land-Bridge"; and that's the Schiller Institute's initiative to
expand the idea of the New Silk Road into a World Land-Bridge
concept, which obviously the United States would have to be a
major player in.
        As I said, this is an initiative that Helga LaRouche has
called for; for Donald Trump to attend this summit in China and
say we're going to work together and we're going to join the New
Silk Road.  And we are in the process of updating this pamphlet,
"The United States Joins the New Silk Road"; this is going to be
an updated completely new, revamped edition of this pamphlet
which will be very important for that initiative.
        But I did want to call people's attention to some of those
clips from the press conference, because I'm sure people have
seen a lot of coverage of this; but some of the most substantial
elements of this probably have not received the play in the mass
media that they absolutely should be receiving.
        So, let me just ask, Diane, if you want to add anything on
that in particular.  I do also want to say that we have the
Congress back in their districts right now.  Congress has left
session; they are now conducting town hall meetings and coffee
times and all kinds of face-to-face time with the members of
Congress.  Now is the perfect time to go and put these three
initiatives on the table; starting with our campaign to force
Glass-Steagall onto the agenda.  There is a lot of material for
you to use; you can even print out a copy of this petition and
bring it to these town hall meetings and help us collect
signatures.  But I would emphasize that it's very important to
centralize these signatures on the LaRouche PAC website.  You can
text "GSACT" to 52886 as a way to sign this petition; and then
you can also visit the LaRouche PAC action center —
https://lpac.co/trumpsotu — to sign the petition.  We will be
publishing a petition watch over the next ten days; and this is
obviously a countdown to President Trump's address to the joint
session of the United Staes Congress, which is scheduled for
February 28th when Congress returns.  The ball is in your court
in terms of attending these town hall meetings around the country
and helping us put this onto the agenda.
        But Diane, is there anything you want to say in closing?

SARE:  Just one thing I wanted to — on behalf of LaRouche PAC
and the Policy Committee — congratulate Russia for having the
dedication to revive the Alexandrov Ensemble; which gave their
first performance I think yesterday.  This is extraordinary.
This was a horrific loss of an entire ensemble, and they
auditioned over 2000 people, had their first rehearsal about
three weeks ago, and have restored a very important cultural
institution both for their nation and the world.  I think it
underscores what is precious about mankind and the value of our
nations collaborating together in friendship on the most
beautiful levels of what is universal.  So, I did just want to
add that.

        OGDEN:  I do find it ironic, with all of the flurry around
the resignation of Michael Flynn, the pretext or occasion of his
call to the Russian ambassador was to express his condolences for
the loss of the Alexandrov Ensemble on Christmas Day, when their
plane crashed and so many of those artists lost their lives.
That's something that the Obama administration did not do; did
not even acknowledge this major loss that the Russian people
felt.  So, that's just something to be said.
        Let me just close this broadcast.  I'd like to thank you,
Diane, for joining us.  And let me just review:  We do have the
petition and I cannot repeat enough that we need to increase —
at a very rapid pace — the number of signatures on that petition
over the coming ten days.  We will be publishing this updated
dossier on the color revolutions, the truth of what happened in
Ukraine and the danger of what is happening in the United States.
There will be an International Day of Truth next Thursday,
February 23rd, which Helga Zepp-LaRouche has called for.  And we
are updating our call for the United States to join the New Silk
Road in the lead-up to this upcoming conference which will be
happening in a few months in China. So, those are the three
initiatives.
        Thank you very much for joining us here today; and please
stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
 

     




En sejrrig strategi for at vinde
krigen mod narkotika
kræver Glass-Steagall.
LaRouchePAC Internationale
Webcast, 10. februar, 2017.

Matthew Ogden: Det er i dag 10. feb., 2017. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg min kollega Benjamin Deniston; og via video får vi følge af Kesha Rogers fra LPAC Policy Committee, fra Houston, Texas; og en særlig gæst i dag, Michael Billington, redaktør og medskribent på Executive Intelligence Review, EIR.

Vi står naturligvis stadig midt i en mobilisering her i USA blandt alle LPAC-aktivister, for at lægge så meget pres som overhovedet muligt på Kongressen og Trump-administrationen, for en omgående implementering af Glass/Steagall-politikken. Vi har appellen, som fortsat cirkuleres… Vi lægger pres på præsident Trump for officielt at vedtage Glass-Steagall-politikken – som han lovede at gøre under sin kampagne – før eller under sin Tale om Unionens Tilstand (28. feb.). … Vi indsamler fortsat underskrifter på appellen – vi har nu flere tusinde; men vi har som mål for udgangen af næste uge at overskride en tærskel på 10.000 underskrifter. …

I aftenens udsendelse vil I få større indsigt i, hvorfor denne Glass/Steagall-mobilisering har så stor, strategisk betydning. Det er naturligvis første skridt i Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske love i Hamiltons tradition; men det går også hånd i hånd med den nye, strategiske alliance, der finder sted internationalt. Tilbuddene fra lande i hele verden, og netop nu også fra Japan, om at deltage i investeringer i byggeriet af infrastruktur og store projekter her i USA; men det er også i sammenhæng med en tale, som præsident Trump holdt i går, og hvor han fremlagde en aggressiv anti-narkopolitik, som vi vil gå i dybden med under aftenens udsendelse, med Mike Billington.

Men, før vi kommer til dette, vil jeg gerne invitere Mike til at give os en briefing; en slags dybdeborende gennemgang af det, der finder sted, med topmødet (i Washington) mellem (Japans) Shinzo Abe og Trump, der foregår netop nu. Det er det første udenlandske statsbesøg i den nye Trump-administration. Vi så pressekonferencen tidligere på dagen med Trump og Shinzo Abe fra Japan; og de afholder i øjeblikket bilaterale diskussioner på Trumps ejendom i Florida. Sammen med telefonsamtalen, som Trump havde med præsident Xi Jinping fra Kina i går aftes, repræsenterer dette muligheden for en ny, verdenshistorisk alliance mellem nationer langs med den kurs, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har krævet.

Jeg vil bede Mike Billington give os et lille overblik over dette, og nogle af implikationerne; dernæst vil vi gå videre til andre spørgsmål i aftenens udsendelse.

Michael Billington: Tak, Matt. Jeg taler fra vores efterretningskontor i Leesburg, Virginia. Ud over de to, ekstraordinære udviklinger, Matt omtalte – samtalen mellem [Trump] og Xi Jinping i går, og pressekonferencen med Japans Shinzo Abe i dag – så har Donald Trump, inden for de seneste 24-48 timer, lanceret noget, som hr. LaRouche lancerede for 37 år siden, og det er krigen mod narkotika. Det er en seriøs krig mod narkotika; den har alvorlige fejl, men det er en ekstremt seriøs krig mod narkotika. Før jeg kommer til arbejdet med Kina og Japan, vil jeg gennemgå noget at det, der nu er igangsat som et resultat af dette meget dramatiske initiativ for en fuld optrappet kamp imod den narkosvøbe, der er i færd med at ødelæge dette land, og meget af verden.

Det begyndte med en tale, som Trump holdt for politicheferne i de større byer for to dage siden, som jeg vil komme til. I går udstedte han en eksekutiv ordre om en krig mod narko, som er meget udtrykkelig. Den siger – og dette kommer på et tidspunkt, hvor ikke alene general John Kelly, tidligere chef for USA’s Sydkommando, og som selvfølgelig, som chef for Amerikas militær for Sydamerika – Mexico og Sydamerika – har været meget involveret i den narkosvøbe, der næsten helt er kommet gennem den mexicanske grænse; men også den succesfulde godkendelse af Jeff Sessions som ny justitsminister. Jeff Sessions har været en af de stærkeste modstandere af denne narkosvøbe, de legaliserede narkotiske stoffer, som vi fik under Obama, der gjorde det muligt at ’slå de store banker over fingrene’, som blev taget i pengehvidvaskning af narkopenge af Obama og hans justitsminister, og hvor intet blev gjort; ingen bankier kom i fængsel, på trods af, at de var blevet taget i at hvidvaske for milliarder og atter milliarder af dollars narkopenge ind i USA.

Jeg vil læse lidt af Trumps eksekutive ordre; han sagde, at »justitsministeren«, Jeff Sessions, »vil blive chef for en særlig specialenhed, der vil fokusere på at ødelægge transnationale, kriminelle organisationer og søsterorganisationer, inklusive transnationale narkokarteller«, lyder ordren, »som har bredt sig i hele nationen og truer USA’s og dets borgeres sikkerhed. Disse grupper er drivkraften bag kriminalitet, korruption, vold og elendighed. Især har kartellernes handel med kontrollerede (lovlige) stoffer udløst en genopblussen af narkomisbrug med dødelig udgang og en tilsvarende stigning i voldelig kriminalitet relateret til narkotika. På samme måde risikerer kriminelle gruppers handel og smugleri af mennesker at skabe en humanitær krise. En omfattende og afgørende fremgangsmåde kræves for at opløse disse organiserede kriminelle syndikater og genoprette sikkerheden for det amerikanske folk.«

Se, vi har i bogstavelig forstand ikke hørt noget lignende dette i USA, nogensinde; bortset fra, fra Lyndon LaRouche og vores krig imod narko. Trump krævede også, at denne specialenhed inden for 120 dage skulle rapportere tilbage om udstrækningen af de transnationale, kriminelle organisationer og deres udbredelse i USA.

Ordlyden i denne eksekutive ordre omfatter kun en ganske kort reference til den finansielle side af dette; og det er her, der er fejl i denne ordre, som vi må arbejde for – denne organisation må arbejde for at sikre, at dette bliver inkluderet. Det vil sige, bankerne. Det har været kendsgerningen i mange år, faktisk flere hundrede år tilbage i tiden, da briterne førte deres Opiumskrige mod kineserne, det, vi har kaldt »Dope, Inc.« – og jeg holder bogen op, som vi første gang publicerede i 1980’erne. Den seneste version, som for øvrigt stadig kan købes, hvis I ikke har et eksemplar; skriv ind og få et. Bogen hedder »Dope, Inc.; Storbritanniens Opiumskrig mod Hele Verden«, og pointen med denne række udgivelser har været at demonstrere, at narkotika har været den største forretning i verden; som Maria Costa, den tidligere chef for FN’s Narkohåndhævelse, sagde, »Det globale bankvæsen er afhængigt af narkotika«. Og de mener altså ikke, at bankiererne sniffer kokain, hvilket er sandt; men at bankerne selv er afhængige af denne massive, kriminelle indstrømning af penge for at afstive sig selv på internatonalt plan, eller i det mindste i hele det transatlantiske område. Så dette aspekt må genindføres i denne krig imod narko; det vil jeg sige lidt mere om.

Men jeg vil gerne citere fra Trumps tale til politicheferne; for jeg mener, at dette demonstrerer, at Trump er sig bevidst, at vi ikke alene har at gøre med narko og kriminalitet, men også med ødelæggelsen af generationer af amerikanere, ødelæggelsen af familier, ødelæggelsen af et samfunds evne til at eksistere og få fremgang. Han siger: »Ethvert barn i Amerika bør have mulighed for at lege udendørs uden frygt; at gå hjem uden fare; og gå i skole uden at være bekymret for narko og bander og vold. Så mange liv og mennesker er dræbt for tidligt. Deres potentiale, deres liv er blevet afkortet. Så meget potentiale er blevet kørt ud på et sidespor, og så mange drømme er blevet knust og ødelagt, totalt knust. Det er på tide at standse narkoen i at flyde ind i vores land.« »Og for resten, så vil vi gøre det«, sagde han. »General, minister Kelly – minister for Homeland Security – »bliver manden, der gør det«. Han sagde, »Vi vil bygge muren«, og denne gang refererer han ikke til muren imod immigration, men imod narkotika; og det vil selvsagt kræve mere end en mur. Det kommer jeg også til. Men, han siger, »Tiden er inde til at opløse de bander, der terroriserer vore borgere. Politiet vil få brug for resurser, redskaber og støtte; og vi vil give jer de redskaber, I behøver for at udføre jobbet. Vi vil gøre alt, vi kan, for at hjælpe jer til at imødegå disse krav.« Han nævner kendsgerningen om krisen i psykiske lidelser i dette land, som er meget influeret af denne narkosvøbe; som alle ved, så rammer det alle lokalsamfund i Amerika. Selv det mindste, landlige lokalsamfund i Amerikas landdistrikter er blevet ramt af denne afhængighed af heroin og opiater. Han sagde, »vi vil kæmpe for at forøge adgangen til livreddende behandling og til at kæmpe for mental sundhed.« Dette er selvfølgelig præcis, hvad vi har brug for. I denne tale sagde han også, at han havde talt med mange af lovens håndhævere i hele landet; og han spurgte dem, hvilken effekt narko har på kriminalitet i dette land. Han sagde, at de alle svarede mellem 75 % og 80 % af kriminaliteten har forbindelse til eller er berørt af narkotika. »Vi vil være hensynsløse i denne kamp«, sagde han, »vi har intet valg«.

Dette er en absolut afgørende lancering af krigen imod narkotika. Jeg vil vise jer noget andet. Dette blad – War on Drugs – dette er den anden udgave af første udgivelse af bladet War on Drugs, som blev lanceret af Lyndon LaRouche. Selve udtrykket ’krig imod narkotika’ blev opfundet af Lyndon LaRouche; før dette blad var dette udtryk ikke gængs i Amerika. Vi dannede noget, der hed den Nationale Anti-narko Koalition, og begyndte at publicere dette blad, War on Drugs, som foregik i flere år. Nu har det endelig båret frugt; vi har nu en meget seriøs indsats for krig mod narko på plads. Men, vi må insistere på, at det simpelt hen ikke vil virke, med mindre vi angriber bankerne, der rent faktisk kørte den internationale narkohandel. Britiske banker og deres afdelinger på Wall Street. Dette kræver, at vi bruger den fremgangsmåde, som hr. LaRouche har krævet i de seneste 37 år – at gå efter bankerne.

Hvordan går man så efter bankerne? Som I ved fra disse udsendelser i ugernes løb, så må man begynde med Glass-Steagall. Kampen for Glass-Steagall er absolut afgørende; og vi er ikke de eneste, der insisterer på dette. Jeg nævnte Maria Costa, tidligere FN-chef for narkotika, som advarede om, at bankerne var narkoafhængige. Den tidligere chef for den russiske antinarko-operation, Viktor Ivanov, mangeårig ven af vores organisation; han har talt offentligt om vores arbejde, vores krig mod narko; han har ligeledes sagt, at den største trussel mod den russiske nation, mod den Russiske Føderation, var narkotika; og han sagde – flere gange – at den eneste måde at tackle det på var ved at implementere Glass-Steagall. Ved atter at tvinge reel regulering – lov – over vores banksystem; ved at fjerne statslige garantier for de spekulative banker, og ved absolut hensynsløst at tvinge de kommercielle banker til at gøre det, banker skal gøre. Hvilket er at tage imod indskud og udstede lån til at opbygge den amerikanske økonomis almene velstand; og, gennem lovregler, gøre en ende på disse bankers muligheder for at hvidvaske for milliarder og atter milliarder af dollars narkopenge gennem deres system.

Der er mere. General Kelly, der nu er minister for Homeland Security John Kelly, aflagde tirsdag forklaring for Kongressen og sagde bl.a. de følgende ting. Han sagde, at vi må sikre vores grænse, men vi må gøre det i samarbejde med Mexico og Canada; især Mexico, naturligvis. For, det er lige så meget en trussel mod disse lande som mod vort eget land. Vi har brug for et partnerskab.

Vi gjorde noget lignende i Colombia tilbage i 90’erne. Det var kun delvist succesrigt, men det var kun meningen, det skulle være delvist succesrigt, faktisk. Vi må have noget, der er større nu. Dette er et globalt problem. Kelly insisterede på, at narkobekæmpelse er kriminalitetsbekæmpelse, det er synonymt. »Hvis narkoen er i USA, har vi tabt«, sagde han. »Halvfems procent af den heroin, der kommer ind i dette land, kommer over den mexicanske grænse – det er ikke alt sammen produceret i Mexico, men meget af det er. Vi må være partner med Mexico, hvilket vil sige, at vi må gå ind og hjælpe dem med at bekæmpe valmuemarkerne; fabrikkerne, der producerer heroinen og amfetaminen, før det når frem til vores grænse.

Her, på vores egen side af grænsen, må vi standse efterspørgslen af narko. Det vil selvfølgelig sige, at vi stopper den forbrydelse, der blev begået af en præsident, der bogstavelig talt promoverede legaliseringen af narkotiske stoffer. Nu, hvor han er væk, må vi atter håndhæve vores nationale lovgivning, som stadig fastholder, at alle disse narkotiske stoffer er ulovlige, inklusive marihuana, og gå tilbage til en politik, der kan bekæmpe disse narkotiske stoffer.

Kelly sagde noget meget, meget interessant. Han sagde, at vi ikke kan komme helt ned på »nul narko«. Det anerkender han. Jeg er sikker på, at I har hørt narko-lobbyen sige, »Åh, man kan ikke komme af med narko«. Der har altid været narko, og der vil altid være narko. Han sagde, nej. »Vi kommer aldrig helt ned på nul narko, men vi ved, hvordan det skal gøres. Før i tiden havde vi store begrænsninger af anvendelse af narkotiske stoffer.« Dernæst sagde han, »Nu prøver vi ikke engang«. Og det er sandt, for vi har været under en præsident, der promoverede anvendelsen af narkotiske stoffer og handel med narko.

Han sagde, »Siden 1960’erne og 190’erne har vi haft heroin, heroinoverdosis, men indtil for nylig var folk ligeglade, fordi det mest foregik blandt de sorte og latino-lokalsamfundene i det indre af byerne, og af sådanne grunde blev det ignoreret.« Nu har vi det i alle lokalsamfund, og vi må drage fordel af det faktum, at folk ikke længere kan lade som om, det ikke er en fare for vores nation, og bruge dette momentum, hvor folk er meget, meget bevidste om, hvad der sker med dem. Hver eneste familie i landet har et familiemedlem, eller en slægtning, eller en nær ven, som er ved at blive ødelagt af denne narkosvøbe, og vi må handle på dette nu med en fasthed, der følger dette helt til dørs.

Jeg vil nævne én ting til, fordi det berører spørgsmålet om Colombia. Colombias tidligere præsident, César Gaviria, var præsident i tiden mod slutningen af denne Plan Colombia, og han blev så én af de førende fortalere for narkotika. Han var faktisk med til, sammen med George Soros, der er den store kanon inden for politik for global legalisering af narko, at danne noget, der hedder den Globale Kommission for Narkopolitik. Denne politiske gruppe argumenterer i øvrigt åbenlyst for, at alle narkotiske stoffer – ikke kun marihuana – alle narkotiske stoffer bør legaliseres til personligt brug, til dyrkning og distribution. Det er den officielle narkopolitik, som i realiteten støttede Obama-administrationen, og som Obama støttede.

Denne karl Gaviria skrev en kronik i New York Times i denne uge, som var et totalt angreb på hr. Duterte. Mange af jer ved, at Rodrigo Duterte, Filippinernes præsident, har lanceret en succesrig total krig mod narko. Han bliver massivt angrebet af narko-lobbyen, af Obama-folkene, og så videre, for angivelige »drab uden om retsvæsenet«. Husk, at dette var den samme præsident Obama, hvis ugentlige aktivitet inkluderede at sætte sig hver tirsdag eftermiddag for at udarbejde sine dronedrab »uden om retsvæsenet« for denne uge – samt de familiemedlemmer og venner, der tilfældigvis befandt sig sammen med den person, han havde udvalgt – uden en formel anklage, uden retsproces og så videre.

I hvert fald, så sagde Gaviria, at Duterte er i færd med at begå en frygtelig fejltagelse, at han vil begå en fejltagelse, som vi [colombianere] begik før jeg kom til, ved at forsøge at bruge militæret og bruge magt til at standse narkohandlen. »Den smarteste måde at tackle narko på, er ved afkriminalisering«, siger han, ved at gøre det legalt, »og sikre, at regeringerne regulerer« narkohandlen. Med andre ord, at regeringerne skulle blive narkohandlerne.

Som man kunne forvente, hvis man har fulgt hr. Duterte, så responderede han i sin uforlignelige stil og sagde, han må være dum. »Denne ekspræsident for Colombia siger, vi begår den samme fejl, han begik. Han er simpelt hen dum. Hvilken hjælp har vi fået fra Amerika? I fik millioner af dollar i Colombia, angiveligt for at hjælpe med at standse narko.« Men det gjorde de tydeligvis ikke. »Hvad får jeg? Jeg får anklager om, at jeg skal slæbes for den Internationale Forbryderdomstol og kastes i fængsel, fordi jeg udkæmper en krig mod narko.« Dernæst påpegede Duterte, at kineserne på den anden side kom til Manila og byggede en facilitet for 10.000 narkoofre, der skulle i afvænning.

Jeg nævner denne colombianske ting, fordi vi også udgav dette i 2004, »For at stoppe terrorisme, luk Dope, Inc., ned«. Billedet, I ser her, er det, vi kalder »Grasso abrazo«. Det er i bogstavelig forstand [Richard Grasso] chefen for New Yorks Aktiebørs, der omfavner chefen for narkokartellet, i Colombias jungle, og siger, vi bør hjælpe jer med at bringe jeres penge ind i kloge investeringer på Wall Street. Dét er det narkokartel, vi har med at gøre; og det er, hvad vi må bekæmpe.

Begyndelsen hertil er den kamp, vi alligevel har befundet os i: Glass-Steagall. Vi må ordne disse banker. Vi må formidle til hr. Trump og til hans meget seriøse anti-narkofolk, som general Kelly og som Jeff Sessions, at vi ikke kan køre den kendsgerning ud på et sidespor, at det er de britiske/Wall Streets bankinteresser, der kører denne forretning, og som må angribes som midtpunktet for krigen mod narko.

Matthew Ogden: Jeg vil blot forklare lidt mere om dette, og så går vi videre til næste spørgsmål. Jeg vil gerne understrege det, du netop sagde, for folk, der ikke ved det, lidt baggrund om det her. Jo, Rusland og USA har virkelig en meget stor ting til fælles: der er en heroinepidemi af hidtil uhørte proportioner i både Rusland og USA. Dette går hånd i hånd med terrorismen.

Du nævnte noget, jeg blot vil gå lidt i detaljer med. En af de ting, hr. LaRouche har understreget, er, at, hvis man lukker narkotika ned, lukker man narkopengehvidvaskning ned, og man reorganiserer hele det internationale banksystem, der har skabt sig velstand af dette.

Som du nævnte, så kom Viktor Ivanov, den tidligere chef for afdelingen for narkokontrol [i Rusland], til Washington, D.C., i 2011 og fremkom med netop denne pointe. Ikke alene sagde han, at disse »beskidte« penge har været et af de førende elementer, der har styrket den internationale finansboble med derivater og skyggebankvirksomhed; men han sagde også, at, hvis vi skal lukke det her ned, så bliver det ved at vende tilbage til det, han kaldte en international Glass/Steagall-arkitektur. Han fremkom med denne pointe – dette er et citat af Ivanov, »Det er analytisk bekræftet, at det eksisterende finansielle system, der operer ved brug af et stort og voksende antal finansielle instrumenter, såsom options, futures, swaps og andre derivater, der oppuster den såkaldte ’finansielle sæbeboble’, nu ikke længere kan eksistere uden indsprøjtninger af såkaldte ’beskidte penge’. Han sagde, »Narkopenge og global narkohandel er i realiteten ikke kun værdifulde elementer af, men også donorer af sparsom likviditet, en vital og uundværlig del af hele det monetære system.« Han fastslog den pointe, at dette ikke er isoleret til en eller to banker; men at det er bygget ind i karakteren af hele det internationale finanssystem.

Han sagde, at, for at lukke dette ned, må Rusland og USA arbejde sammen for at udvirke en »drastisk transformering af det internationale finansielle system«. Og hvilken form for transformering taler han om? Det følgende: Ivanov sagde, »I en vis forstand ser vi genoplivelsen af tankegangen bag Glass/Steagall-loven, som blev vedtaget i USA i 1933 på højdepunktet af den Store Depression, og som adskilte bankernes indskyder- og investeringsfunktioner.« Men barske »restriktioner for at forhindre det tiltrækkende i kriminelle penge kræves nu endnu mere. Med andre ord, så vil en likvidering af finansboblen alene ikke være tilstrækkeligt … Nøglen til at likvidere global narkohandel er at gen-formatere den eksisterende økonomi og skifte over til en økonomi, der ekskluderer kriminelle penge« og sikrer reproduktion af netto »likvide aktiver, dvs., til en økonomi for udvikling, hvor beslutningerne baseres på udviklingsprojekter og langfristede, øremærkede kreditter«.

Jeg mener, at dette er ekstremt klart. Glass-Steagall: Luk dette eksisterende, kriminelle apparat med beskidte penge ned, som dette skyggebanksystem profiterer på og er afhængigt af for at eksistere; og skift i stedet vores fokus over til en udviklingsorienteret drivkraft for den fysiske økonomi, med udviklingsprojekter. Det blev gjort klart.

Du sagde også, Mike, at Obama havde alle muligheder i verden for at lukke dette finansielle pengehvidvaskningssystem ned. Der var faktisk en Særlig Undersøgelsesrapport fra USA’s Senat, som blev udgivet i 2012, af senatorerne Carl Levin og Tom Coburn, Den Særlige Permanente Subkomite for Undersøgelser, og som dokumenterede den rolle, som HSBC (Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, hovedkvarter i London), som en case study, spillede i at muliggøre denne narkopengehvidvaskning, især over grænsen til Mexico. Det fungerer på den måde, at narkoen smugles ind i USA. Det sælges i USA. Pengene, der tjenes på salget af denne narko, smugles dernæst tilbage til Mexico over grænsen. Dernæst leveres pengene til disse casas de cambios, og andre former for finansielle skyggeetablissementer. Dernæst tog HSBC, gennem deres mexicanske afdeling, HSMX (som det hedder), disse penge fra disse casas de cambios i amerikanske dollars, og kørte dem tilbage, i pansrede køretøjer, over grænsen og deponerede dem i HSBC’s amerikanske afdeling, og Voilà, så var pengene hvidvasket. De blev taget direkte i at gøre dette.

Og hvad skete der? Blev nogen retsforfulgt? Faktisk ikke. Carl Levin sagde selv, at den ene ting, der burde have været gjort, den anbefaling, han gav, var, at »statslige tilsynsmyndigheder burde overveje at annullere HSBC’s charter«. Det er en handling, som USA’s præsident kunne udføre for at lukke disse narkobanker ned. Deres statslige autorisation til at drive bank kunne simpelt hen være blevet inddraget, eller i det mindste suspenderet. Ingen handling blev foretaget. Og se på statistikerne. Det var i 2012. Se, hvor meget værre narkoepidemien er blevet i USA, blot i de seneste fire år.




Glass-Steagall er det første afgørende skridt; men resten af
LaRouches Fire Love må følge efter for at redde USA og verden!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 3. feb., 2017; Leder

Ben Deniston: Velkommen … Vi vil omgående gå i gang med denne brandvarme situation lige nu, hvor – på trods af alle de falske nyheder; det er korrekt at kalde det for bandekrigsagtig form for operation, som splitter det amerikanske folk. Hvor man får folk til at fokusere på mange sidespørgsmål og små spørgsmål, og meget følelsesladede spørgsmål med meget lidt substans. Men der er i realiteten kun ét eller to nøglespørgsmål på forhandlingsbordet i øjeblikket, som er afgørende for den retning, USA vil gå i, for hvilken retning, denne administration vil gå; og hvordan dette vil udspille sig i den umiddelbart forestående tid.

I front og centrum for denne kamp er spørgsmålet om Wall Street og i særdeleshed spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall. Vi vil begynde diskussionen i dag med nogle meget dramatiske udviklinger i løbet af den seneste uge, de senest par dage, de seneste par timer, og som understreger, at dette er det spørgsmål, som det drejer sig om. Hvis I vil gøre noget, der har indflydelse på amerikansk politik, på USA’s retning og på historien på dette tidspunkt, så må I kæmpe sammen med LaRouchePAC om spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall som indledningen til LaRouches Fire Love for et fuldt, økonomisk genrejsningsprogram, og omgående; mens I ser dette program og i de nærmest forestående timer og dage. Dette er absolut afgørende.

For blot at sætte fokus nogle af disse udviklinger, vil vi om et øjeblik vise et klip; et lovforslag for genindførelse af Glass-Steagall er blevet genfremsat i Repræsentanternes Hus i denne uge, anført af [kongresmedlem] Marcy Kaptur – som har kæmpet for dette lovforslag i mange år. Hun holdt en fælles pressekonference med tre andre kongresmedlemmer; og, så vidt vi har kunnet se, så er LaRouchePAC den eneste kanal, der har en fuld dækning af denne pressekonference i sin helhed. Den kan ses på LPAC-websiden; vi vil afspille et kort uddrag af denne 40 minutter lange pressekonference om nogle få minutter. Men dette typificerer en tværpolitisk støtte i Kongressen til dette Glass/Steagall-lovforslag. Disse kongresmedlemmer erklærede ganske klart under pressekonferencen, at de er rede til at arbejde sammen med Trump-administrationen om dette afgørende spørgsmål. De vil ikke lade sig indfange i dette vanvittige, venstre-højre, dette eller hint spørgsmål, denne retorik og de falske nyheder, og virkeligt vanvittige, opsplittende propaganda, som har oversvømmet de amerikanske medier; det ligner i virkeligheden den form for politik for »farvede revolution«, som er blevet britisk og – under Obama – amerikansk politik for at vælte regimer, som de ikke ønsker, i hele verden. Det har præcis samme formål her i USA, med denne bandekrigs-lignende propaganda over sidespørgsmål, som totalt distraherer folk bort fra hovedspørgsmålene.

Men under denne pressekonference så vi en afgørende demonstration af, at højtplacerede, tænkende personer, ledende personer, er villige til ikke at blive indfanget i dette Soros/britiske sindssyge show og i stedet fokusere på reelle, vægtige spørgsmål. De vil lægge betydningsfulde spørgsmål frem på bordet og sige, at dette er et område, hvor vi kan samarbejde omkring at gå frem for et positivt resultat for de spørgsmål, som vi ved har betydning for hele landet. Demokrat, Republikaner, ’blå stat’, ’rød stat’, uanset hvad; det centrale USA, og kyststaterne i USA. Dette er hovedspørgsmålet, det første skridt i at adressere virkeligheden med sammenbruddet af USA, og som den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan opfylde de løfter, der er afgivet, om at genopbygge den amerikanske infrastruktur, om at genskabe jobs i USA på en meningsfuld, reel, substantiel måde. Det kan ikke lade sig gøre, med mindre Glass/Steagall-loven vedtages, og Wall Street lægges i tømmer, og dette system reformeres. Denne pressekonference – igen, det handler ikke blot om at genindføre Glass-Steagall, men også om at erkende og åbent arbejde på vigtige spørgsmål, og ikke blive indfanget i disse vanvittige sidespørgsmål, er absolut afgørende. Vi afspiller klippet om et øjeblik.

Men ligeledes i den forgangne uge deltog William (Bill) Jones, korrespondent for Lyndon LaRouches magasin Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), i en diskussion under en pressekonference i Det Hvide Hus, og han fik lejlighed til direkte at spørge pressesekretær Spicer, »Støtter præsident Donald Trump stadig Glass-Steagall?« Og, efter at havde vævet lidt omkring, stillede hr. Jones et meget direkte spørgsmål; og han fik et meget direkte »Ja«. Og Trumps officielle repræsentant Spicer sagde, »Vi er forpligtet på vore valgløfter. Ja.« Dette er en bekræftende udtalelse på vegne af præsident Trump om, at han stadig støtter denne lovgivning. Så potentialet er klart til stede; men vi ønsker at gøre det klart her i denne diskussion, at dette på ingen måde er et afgjort løb. Det er på ingen måde absolut. Jeres rolle som tilhængere af LaRouchePAC, som støtter af LaRouchePAC, og som LPAC-aktivister, er umiddelbart, absolut afgørende. Vi må sikre os, at denne lov gennemføres.

I de næste timer og minutter venter vi i øjeblikket på resultaterne af et par eksekutive ordrer, som præsident Trump har underskrevet tidligere på dagen – midt på fredag eftermiddag, lige efter frokost. En af disse handler om, hvordan han har til hensigt at strukturere reformen af Dodd/Frank-loven. Dette er et afgørende spørgsmål, for, som enhver ved, så var Dodd/Frank en total vittighed; det var et totalt forsøg på at lade som om, at de lagde Wall Street i tømmer samtidig med, at de fuldstændig overgav sig til Wall Street og lod Wall Street skrive størstedelen af loven, der består af henved titusinder af sider – det er sindssygt. Så der forelægger et juridisk grundlag for at skrotte Dodd/Frank og indføre en ægte reform, som ikke består i en regulering, en bunke bestemmelser om regler, men som er en virkelig strukturreform med Glass/Steagall. Det behøver slet ikke være titusinder af sider; det er en meget klar fastlæggelse af et princip (lov). Man har kommerciel bankaktivitet, og så har man spekulationsbankaktivitet; de skal være [totalt] adskilte, og sådan er dét. Man har ikke brug for 40.000 sider til at erklære dette; det er en principiel erklæring, det er et spørgsmål om strukturen, og det er ganske klart. Det er ikke minutiøse, detaljerede regler om hvert eneste aspekt af hvert eneste, finansielle instrument. Det er en særdeles klar principerklæring. For slet ikke at tale om det faktum, at Dodd/Frank også grundfæstede forsøget med bail-in (ekspropriering af visse typer af bankindskud).

Der er altså juridisk støtte til og grund til at støtte reformen og fjernelsen af Dodd/Frank; men, dette kan stadig væk gå i mere end én retning. Et spørgsmål, som er af interesse, og som vi må undersøge nøjere, er den rolle, som Jamie Dimon spiller; han er ikke blot en førende Wall Street-bankier; han er også en person, der har været aktivt involveret, i udstrakt og intens grad, udtrykkeligt imod Glass-Steagall og imod LaRouche-bevægelsen og vores aktiviteter for at kæmpe for Glass-Steagall. Han nævnes nu som del af et team, der skal rådgive Trump eksplicit i spørgsmålet om, hvordan Dodd/Frank skal reformeres. Hvilken vej, det vil gå, er ikke klart; vi har endnu ikke set denne eksekutive ordre, så vi ved ikke, hvad den siger. Vi venter på det. Vi ved selvfølgelig, at Trump før har afvist folk; han er ikke bange for at udtale sin klassiske sætning, »Du er fyret!« og komme af med folk. Han har erklæret sin støtte til Glass-Steagall, men dette rejser nogle juridiske spørgsmål.

Den pointe, vi ønsker at fastslå her i dag, er, at intet af dette er afgjort; men det viser det, vi har forventet. Og hvis I er med, bør I også have forventet det. Et totalt slagsmål over amerikansk politik, over spørgsmålet om at lægge Wall Street i tømmer med Glass-Steagall, er i front og centrum for denne kamp.

Vi vil nu afspille et par minutter af højdepunkterne af denne pressekonference; diskussion var betydningsfuld, med særdeles gode pointer, og dette typificerer den lovgivende grens (Kongressens) åbenhed og beredvillighed. Her kommer klippet:

Uddrag af kongresmedlemmers Pressekonference om tværpolitisk støtte til genfremsat Glass/Steagall-lovforslag.

(Se hele pressekonferencen her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFH1MwhxOQk)

Marcy Kaptur: I år markerer vi, at det er 9 år siden, vi havde den største, finansielle krise i en generation. Vi er alle gamle nok, og vores hukommelse er stærk nok, til, at vi kan huske dette. Denne økonomiske katastrofe vær tæt ved at forårsage ødelæggelsen af hele landets finansielle infrastruktur og førte til det, historien nu kalder Den store Recession (økonomiske nedgangstid). I løbet af disse ni år, hvis vi ser tilbage og husker, så har Wall Street-bankerne haft succes og i realiteten tjent rigtig mange penge. I mellemtiden har mange, mange amerikanere – bogstavelig talt millioner – fortsat oplevet det, vi ville benævne med »finansielt nederlag, fiasko«. JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs og Morgan Stanley har alle rapporteret om profitter under denne recession og de efterfølgende år. I løbet af disse seneste ni år har Wall Street genvundet al sin rigdom fra før krisen, med renter, alt imens ’Main Street’ – den almindelige amerikaner – endnu ikke har set noget til en reel, økonomisk genrejsning, i lokalsamfund efter lokalsamfund, fra kyst til kyst.

For blot at nævne et par tal: For 15 år siden udgjorde landets seks største bankers aktiver omkring 17 % af vores totale produktion – Bruttonationalprodukt, BNP – 17 %. I dag oppebærer disse seks topbanker aktiver for $10,1 billion (med 12 nuller); over halvdelen af vore BNP. Dette er alt for meget magt i alt for få hænder. Så ikke alene har de haft en smuk profit, men de er også kommet til at kontrollere, regere over, vores økonomis mest betydningsfulde kontrolcentre.

Tiden er inde til, at Kongressen sikrer, at disse fiaskoer i vort banksystem aldrig vil blive gentaget. Det er grunden til, at vi er her i dag, og jeg takker mine kolleger dybt for at gå sammen med mig. For at bygge på dette momentum og tage skridt til at genindføre Glass-Steagall, for at adskille ’klog og fornuftig’, kommerciel bankvirksomhed fra spekulation.

Tulsi Gabbard: Vi ser fortsat konsekvenserne af ophævelsen af Glass-Steagall på første hånd i lokalsamfund som mit eget, og i lokalsamfund i hele landet; hvor Wall Street-banker har fået lov til at udføre deres risikable investeringspraksisser med det amerikanske folks penge. De har fået lov til at fortsætte til fordel for deres regnskabsresultat og deres profit, på ryggen af det amerikanske folk. Dette er uacceptabelt; dette er ikke et partipolitisk spørgsmål, dette er et spørgsmål, som er vigtigt for det amerikanske folk, og grunden til, at I nu ser støtte på tværs af partipolitisk tilhørsforhold for denne vigtige lovgivning.

Jeg har længe været fortaler for at genindføre Glass-Steagall-loven, og jeg ser frem til at kunne fortsætte arbejdet sammen med allierede og partnere her i Kongressen, i Det Hvide Hus og vigtigst af alt, sammen med det amerikanske folk; hvis stemme må høres.

Tim Ryan: Walter [Jones] nævnte ordet »synd«, og jeg mener, at denne ophævelse [af Glass-Steagall, 1999] var det oprindelige syndefald i vores økonomis nedadgående spiral, som førte til, at hele nabolag i min valgkreds, og i hele delstaten og landet, blev totalt tilintetgjort. Denne lov er en måde – som vi [sic] katolikker ville sige – hvorpå vi kan skrifte og få fjernet denne plet fra USA’s politiske institutioner, og forhåbentlig begynde at genoprette en grad af sund fornuft i vores banksystem.

Kaptur: Siden sidste sommer har 15 delstatskongresser introduceret resolutioner, der kræver, at den nationale Kongres genindfører Glass-Steagall; og Demokrater og Republikanere har nedfældet støtte til Glass-Steagall i deres respektive politiske programmer, hvilket var en enorm præstation på vegne af jer alle, og af alle andre i hele landet, der har arbejdet på dette i meget lang tid. Vi har en lang hukommelse. Selv præsident Trump har erklæret sin støtte til en ny Glass/Steagall-lov, og vi har en forpligtelse til at arbejde sammen med ham for at skabe dette.

Walter Jones: Jeg er glad for, at hun refererede til Donald Trump. Jeg vil oplæse en sætning, og dernæst afslutte.

Den Republikanske præsidentkandidat Donald Trump krævede i onsdags en version for det 21. århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov, der kræver en adskillelse af kommerciel bankaktivitet og investeringsbankaktivitet; en ændring, som det Republikanske Parti ligeledes støttede i sit partipolitiske program i 2016. Jeg har til hensigt at være meget pro-aktiv; jeg har til hensigt, så snart Det Hvide Hus får sig organiseret lidt bedre, at henvende mig til hans rådgivere i kommercielle anliggender og minde dem om det standpunkt, som han og mit parti har indtaget med hensyn til en genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven.

Jeg ønsker, at du, Marcy, skal vide, at jeg er så forpligtet på dette spørgsmål som noget, jeg nogensinde har været forpligtet på. Jeg er jeres ’half-back’; og jeg vil være derude og tage ethvert skridt til, hvad så siden der skal gøres. Men, som hun sagde, og dette er min afslutningsbemærkning, »I er nøglen i dette spørgsmål«. Amerikanerne må forstå det angreb og den skade, der er forvoldt imod dem, gennem den kendsgerning, at vi ophævede Glass-Steagall. Lad os gøre dette til en sejr for året 2017. Tak.

Her følger resten af webcastet på engelsk:

DENISTON:  So, as you saw there, there is motion. People are
ready to act; but, again, this is an open fight. Before we get
into the discussion, I want to call on our audience to sign the
LaRouche PAC petition for Trump to commit to the original
official Glass-Steagall Act, in his first official address to the
Congress, which the last we have heard, is scheduled for Feb. 28.
That's less than one month from now for a mobilization to build
the signatures for this petition.
        This, as I think we will get to in the discussion, has
already been an effective tool in mobilizing the legislature,
people in the Congress, for the support of this initiative of
Glass-Steagall, of this Bill. But it's not just going to come
from the Congress alone. This activity of rallying local
communities, community groups, organizations across the nation,
is absolutely critical. This can't just be some direct lobbying
of Congress. This has to be a unified national mobilization,
where these Members can get the support and, when necessary, the
kick in the rear end, to get behind this issue. So, that is
absolutely critical.
        You can sign the petition on-line at lpac.co/trumpsotu. We
now also have the ability for text. You can receive more
information directly via text on your mobile phone. If you text
gsact to 202-524-8709, you'll immediately receive more
information about the petition. You can read it right there on
your phone, and you can sign it. We're asking you, again, to do
this yourself, if you haven't done it; but mobilize others. Get
your community, look for local groups, look for organizations,
look for your neighbors, your friends, your family. This is an
absolutely critical issue.
        Just to underscore one last point, Helga Zepp-LaRouche made
very strongly in recent days' discussions: Right now, this is not
just about vengeance against Wall Street, or something. This is
not just about getting payback for what Wall Street did to the
American people since the bail-out, or for the years prior, even.
That's true. But beyond that, this is critical. The system is
poised for a larger blow-out than 2008. Nothing was solved by the
bail-out process. The fundamental issues of the crisis were made
worse; much worse. This entire speculative bubble was supported,
it was inflated more, and you had more crazy instruments and
attempts created to prop up a system that is fundamentally
unsound, has no connection to the physical economy, is purely a
parasite on the actual economy. That process has wound itself
around to the point where it is ready to blow out again.
        So, Glass-Steagall is {absolutely}, again, {absolutely} the
central issue, the Number One issue that everyone needs to be
fighting on now. This discussion today should be an appeal for
you to get more involved, or get involved immediately in that
fight.
        Diane might have more to say. We can mention some activity
that we've had recently in Washington, D.C., also in New York
City, that underscores the type of mobilization we're leading;
but I'll just open it up with that.

DIANE SARE:  I'd like to remind all of our listeners why we are
at the point we are at; and remind people the kind of fake news
and despicable propaganda preceding the election, where we heard
over and over again how the population was divided. We had George
Soros pumping in his money to various organizations to create an
appearance of that. But, what the American people demonstrated is
that we are not divided, in a couple of major areas; which Ben
referenced at the beginning. No. 1: Americans do not think that
we should have a thermonuclear war with Russia; that this was one
of the main reasons why people, particularly Democrats — Bernie
Sanders supporters and others — turned away from Hillary
Clinton, because she was seen as perpetuating the war and murder
policy of President Barack Obama, who, so far, is the biggest
killer-President that we have yet had in the United States. And,
as President Putin warned, "Obama seems to be the kind of
President that says goodbye, but then doesn't go; he keeps
reappearing." I think it's important that Americans not forget
that.
        The other major issue for the American people, who have
experienced the worst collapse in the standard of living and life
as measured in terms of life expectancy, employment, and so on
since the Great Depression, is that people do not think that it's
just for Wall Street billionaire crooks to have their feet on our
necks as they steal everything we own to bail themselves out for
their own bankrupt policies. Again, Hillary was seen as the
darling of Wall Street.
        If there were a "mandate" for the Trump Presidency, these
two areas are absolutely crucial. What we know, so far, is that
Trump did have a phone conversation with President Putin which
was close to an hour; which indicates a certain type of potential
there. We also know the relationship with China, given what Xi
Jinping is doing, is very important. We know Trump's appointed
Ambassador to China, Terry Branstad, has just released a
statement promoting a kind of win-win collaboration with China;
which is promising. We know, as was mentioned, that President
Trump did call for reinstating Glass-Steagall when he was
campaigning, just a couple of weeks prior to the elections.
        We know — which I find very interesting, because sometimes
the best way to figure out what the potential might be, is to
look at what your enemies are saying. Yesterday there was a very
freaked out article in CNN Money, with the headline "Will Trump
Break up the Big Banks?" They announced that Jamie Dimon,
[chairman, president, and CEO of JPMorgan Chase] was rushing to
Washington, D.C. to meet with Trump today, and that Trump is
planning on "do a big number … on Dodd-Frank." As Ben said, we
don't have the text yet of Trump's Executive Orders. We know
various matters, and frankly, Jamie Dimon is not a very promising
character.
        What the article says, in a very hysterical tone, is "But
Trump did bash big banks before the election, especially Goldman
Sachs. Breaking up the banks would appeal to Trump's populist
message of draining the swamp by uprooting the establishment. The
new President could also argue it solves the 'too big to fail'
problem that the 2008 financial crisis exposed. Plus, it's
something that Republicans like John McCain and liberals such as
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders broadly agree on.
Glass-Steagall was even included in the official Republican Party
platform during Trump's convention."
        As I'm reading this article I can hear the pitch of the
speaker rising to a shriek. Then they freak out that Stephen
Bannon said, "You really need to go back and make banks do what
they do: Commercial banks lend money, and investment banks invest
in entrepreneurs and to get away from this trading." And the
writer says, "That sounds a lot like Glass-Steagall." The writer
says, "It's not totally clear where Trump stands on this right
now." And you heard from Ben what Spicer said, so our point is
that this is an open fight; it is an open debate. What we have
learned in the last days, is you really cannot rely on the news
media, the so-called "non-fake" news seems to be more fake, or at
least as fake, as the fake news.
        The moment is not to sit back and try and figure out what
exactly is the policy, but to intervene to {make} policy; which
is why it's so important that every single person here get
involved. I'd also like to say, the potential has not been missed
on the few desperados who are clinging with their fingernails to
the bankrupt trans-Atlantic partnership and the European Union.
People may have heard that Donald Tusk, who is the President of
the European Council, said that the United States on Donald Trump
is as big threat as the newly-assertive China, an aggressive
Russia, and wars, terror, and anarchy in the Middle East.
        So, here's this guy, lumping China, which has just lifted
700 million people out of poverty and is reaching out to the
whole world for a program that would benefit mankind. Putin, who
has successfully prevented Barack Obama from plunging us into
thermonuclear war, and took very effective measures in the
direction of eradicating ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria, and so on.
And he's saying that's the same thing as ISIS and now the US is
part of that.
        This is what I'm getting at; that you just have so much
insanity being promoted. I would maintain, from our organizing in
the streets of Manhattan, where we have had a very interesting
response, that Americans frankly are much more thoughtful than
this. People don't want to be at each other's throats. They
certainly don't want war. They are cautiously optimistic that
there is a hope for a turn in direction; and it is really for us
at LaRouche PAC to be able to indicate the direction, because
otherwise you're just not going to get it. Think about what Mrs.
LaRouche was doing in China in 1996 on the World Land-Bridge,
these kinds of programs. People don't have the full picture.
        What people {can} do at this moment, is absolutely mobilize
for Glass-Steagall. Don't expect to hear more. We know a couple
of things. We know that the British have said that they would
consider Glass-Steagall being reinstated in the United States a
casus belli, an act of war, because it will wipe out trillions of
dollars of crazy speculative crap. Which will be good riddance
for most of us, but for some people, not. And we know that some
people have commented that Glass-Steagall being reinstated could
be the biggest deal since Jesus Christ crushed the Roman Empire.
        In other words, itâs a revolutionary, giant change. So don't
expect that it's just going to somehow come along in an
off-handed way, and exist. Obviously, there's going to be a fight
for this; and we need every single American involved.
        The last thing I want to say, is that part of the
effectiveness on Capitol Hill was this group, the Ohio
Revolution, which has been circulating the petition. Their
thinking was not simply to just go to everyone to get signatures,
but to organize leaders in the community; whether it's ministers,
labor union officials, state legislators, mayors, councilmen. In
other words, not only do we want you to simply sign the petition,
but we need you to organize and to get everybody who has any
clout or who represents a constituency, to get on board in this
fight, and we should really move. I would say, if CNN is freaked
out enough to have an article asking whether Donald Trump is
going to go with this or not, we should presume that indicates a
possibility; and we should do everything we can to take advantage
of the opening and move on it.

MEGAN BEETS:  I think, Diane, what you're bringing up is
critical; that this is an absolute paradigm shift. What we're
doing is shutting down a system of finance which has been at the
core of the British Empire for hundreds of years. Now what are we
going to replace it with? That's the big question, and that's why
we and our supporters, all of you listening out there, have to
take the responsibility to know and study the principles of
physical economics which are the core of Lyndon LaRouche's
discoveries in the science of economics.  How are we going to
rebuild the country?  You go back to LaRouche's core writings:
{So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?}; his papers on the
issue of infrastructure not as an object which costs money like
the bridge you pay to drive over, but infrastructure as creating
a core economic platform which transforms the potential of every
process in your economy.  How do we raise the physical wealth,
how to we increase the living standard for billions of people
across the planet and create the potential for mankind to
industrialize the Moon?  These are the questions that people have
to study.  And it is that process of the American citizenry
choosing to adopt a higher identity of a more developed, more
mature mankind in the future beyond this currently collapsing
system.  Then organizing our fellow citizens to understand how
we're going to do that; beginning with the reinstatement of
Glass-Steagall.  Shutting down this bankrupt financial system;
then following that up with the establishment of a national bank
so that we can utter productive credit to the things which will
increase the productivity of the population and allow us to take
those next steps of development.  Like a crash program for the
development of fusion; like a crash program to get our
capabilities of our space program back, to re-adopt the policies
of colonizing the space between the Earth and the Moon and then
developing and industrializing the Moon.  This really is the
vision that people who are organizing with us have to begin to
adopt.  That really is our sense of authority in demanding that
we shut down this bankrupt, evil Wall Street system with
Glass-Steagall.

        DENISTON:  Absolutely!  And we should maybe highlight for
our viewers that yesterday we had a very useful discussion led by
Jason Ross, our colleague in the Science Team, taking up just
this subject.  I think that's definitely critical; getting at the
issue of value.  What is real economic value?  As was cited in
this press conference, the largest banks' share of so-called GDP
has actually been skyrocketing; and now represents over 50% of
supposed GDP.  That is not real value; monetary figures are not
— so you have this explosion of monetary assets, monetary
figures.  But if you take the physical standard living of the US
population as an entirety, it's down, down, down.  That's this
complete disconnect between the so-called monetary system, which
should be a functional credit system, and the actual real
economy; the thing that actually keeps people alive, improves
people's living standards, and actually supports the society —
the physical processes of economy.
        As Mr. LaRouche identified with his Triple Curve diagram in
the '90s, defining the principle in this breakdown; those have
been diverging at a more and more rapid rate.  That defines a
process that's unsustainable and as we've said, there's nothing
else that can work other than a Glass-Steagall — in its original
form — revival to separate out that monetary system.  Cut that
off; you can't go both ways.  Only then can you actually invest
in real value again. That's where the discussion needs to go, and
that's what the country absolutely needs at this point; is a real
recovery program like what Kennedy tried to do, what Franklin
Roosevelt was able to do.  That level of reform of the current
policy and investment in these higher levels of productivity
outlined in LaRouche's Four Laws is the program needed now.
Glass-Steagall is that first step.
        So, I think that's absolutely clear for our listeners what
our challenges are and what our mission is right now in the
immediate period ahead.
        So, I know we're definitely awaiting this executive order; a
sense of what's going to come out of that.  Diane, I don't know
if you have more, but I think we have a pretty clear orientation
in the immediate days — or I would say hours ahead, to move on
this thing.  We have a less than one month deadline on this
petition; but a lot can be decided between now and then, before
then even.  So, every day counts.  As Diane emphasized, that was
very important; the role of mobilizing the population and
institutions in the population, community leaders, leading layers
in the population out of this craziness that the media is
spinning out there, and into these real substantial issues is
{decisive} at this point.  Getting those people on board and
fighting with us for this Glass-Steagall reform, for this
economic reform, is critical.  {YOU} play an absolutely
indispensable role in doing that.
        So, I think we have a challenge and a mission before us.
Unless we have anything else to add today, I think this is a very
clear focus; and I think we should really get to work.  So, with
that again, people have the information for the petition;
circulate that, get the signers on that.  If you haven't signed
yourself, do it immediately; but get other people on.  You should
have a goal of getting 10, 100 people added to that thing on a
daily basis at this point.  That's our orientation, that's our
action.  We'll be back in the coming days with more; and we look
forward to speaking with you then.

 

                




Solen er gået ned for Det britiske Imperium;
Tiden for et Nyt Paradigme er kommet!
Inkl. uddrag af interview med EU-parlamentsmedlem Marco Zanni

Den aktuelle frontlinje her i USA, langs med hvilken denne kamp om USA’s sjæl bliver udkæmpet, er kampen for at genindføre Glass-Steagall som landets lov i USA. Vi cirkulerer fortsat appellen, som kan ses på www.lpac.co/trumpsotu. (Appellen på dansk her). Denne appel kræver, at Donald Trump, senest ved sin Tale til Unionen den 28. februar, engagerer sig forpligtende over for den fulde, strengt originale Franklin Roosevelt bankopdeling, Glass/Steagall-loven – som han krævede under sin valgkamp. Det er om præcis én måned, og det er vores mål at få 10.000 underskrifter på denne appel. Vi vokser støt, men vi må vokse meget hurtigere.

Denne kamp finder sted parallelt med den aktuelle mobilisering, som blev igangsat af hr. LaRouche i mandags, for at afvise Steven Mnuchins nominering til USA’s finansminister. Steven Mnuchins udtrykkelige og åbne modstand mod genindførelsen af den fulde Franklin Roosevelt Glass-Steagall, som blev afsløret under senator Maria Cantwells spørgsmål torsdag i sidste uge under Senatshøringen for hans godkendelse, bør ikke komme som nogen overraskelse, hvis man tager i betragtning, at Steven Mnuchin var en direkte forretningspartner i mindst femten år, en medarbejder til ingen ringere end George Soros; den erklærede fjende af den tiltrædende Trump-administration.

Undertitel: Økonomisk værdi ligger i det, der skabes for fremtiden, og ikke i, hvad det måtte være værd i dag!

Matthew Ogden: Det er i dag den 27. januar, 2017, og dette er vores ugentlige fredags-webcast fra LaRouchePAC.com. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Jason Ross, en kollega; og via video har vi Bill Roberts fra Detroit, Michigan, som er medlem af LPAC Policy Committee.

Vi mødes i dag præcis en uge efter indsættelsen af Donald Trump som USA’s nye præsident. Vi befinder os en uge inde i den nye administration. Vi har i dag sammensat en udsendelse, som vi føler, er afgørende med hensyn til de nødvendige elementer i den aktuelle kamp her i USA. Jason Ross vil give os en præsentation af fremgangsmåden med national (statslig) bankpraksis efter Hamiltons principper, og hvordan, vi rent faktisk kan skabe en økonomisk genrejsning i USA efter hr. LaRouches Fire Love. Fra Bill Roberts vil vi høre om en plan for et beskæftigelsesprogram, for atter at få produktive arbejdere i job, og for at uddanne den opvoksende generation i de nødvendige, produktive færdigheder, og som til dels er modelleret efter Franklin Roosevelts Civilian Conservation Corps, CCC.

Men før dette vil vi høre et uddrag af et interview med et italiensk parlamentsmedlem, Marco Zanni, som blev interviewet i går på larouchepac.com af Paul Gallagher, der vil præsentere interviewet om lidt.

Men lad mig begynde med at give en hurtig gennemgang af den situation, vi befinder os i, og trække frontlinjerne op i kampen om USA’s sjæl. Tidligere på dagen talte vi med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Helga LaRouches standpunkt var meget klart; hun sagde, at USA har et presserende valg at træffe. Valget er mellem at falde ind i det, som Theresa May, Storbritanniens premierminister – der i går kom til Philadelphia og i dag er i Washington for at fejre den såkaldte »særlige relation« mellem USA og UK – i går talte for, og som er at »forny den ’særlige relation’ for den Nye Tidsalder« mellem USA og det, hun kaldte et »fornyet, globalt Storbritannien«. Man kunne også sige, at hun holdt en tale om, hvordan man skulle gøre Det britiske Imperium stort igen. Så det er det ene valg.

Det andet valg er at følge op på det, som udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov i går sagde i den russiske Statsduma, det russiske parlaments underhus, med hensyn til perspektivet for et nyt, internationalt paradigme, bygget op omkring det, han kaldte for »en trepartsrelation«, mellem USA, Rusland og Kina, og, som Helga LaRouche korrekt indføjede her, nemlig en firmagtsrelation, der også omfatter Indien.

Her er en idé om, hvad det var, Sergei Lavrov i går sagde om dette – det bliver selvfølgelig ikke rapporteret i de amerikanske medier. Han sagde det følgende:

»Vi mener, at, i takt med, at Rusland, USA og Kina opbygger deres relationer, bør denne trekant ikke være lukket eller rettet mod projekter, der kunne bekymre andre stater. [De bør være] åbne og retfærdige. Jeg er overbevist om, at Ruslands, USA’s og Kinas økonomiske struktur er af en sådan art, at de i væsentligt grad komplementerer hinanden i den materielle og fysiske sfære.

Med hensyn til internationale sikkerhedsproblemer, så spiller disse tre lande en meget vigtig rolle. Rusland og Kina har begrænset forsøg på at introducere konfronterende, magtbaserede løsninger i verdenspolitik. Vi forventer, at Donald Trump, der har bekræftet, at han er forpligtende engageret til primært at fokusere på amerikanske [nationale] problemer og opgive indgriben i andre staters interne anliggender, vil gøre det samme.«

I respons til Sergei Lavrovs udtalelser sagde en talsmand for det Kinesiske Udenrigsministerium følgende:

»Kina, Rusland og USA er de førende, globale magter, og de er permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. Vi har et stort ansvar for global fred, stabilitet og udvikling. »Kina har derfor til hensigt at intensivere samarbejdet med USA og Rusland og bidrage i fællesskab til at løse opgaver og udfordringer i den moderne verden.«

Dette er præcis, hvad Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har krævet, med hensyn til, at USA opgiver 16 års Bush/Obama-politik og vedtager det nye paradigme og, omsider, går sammen med Rusland, Kina og Indien i denne stormagtsrelation for at gøre en ende på Det britiske Imperium én gang for alle. Vi er ikke interesseret i et nyt »globalt Storbritannien«. Vi er ikke interesseret i »atter at gøre Det britiske Imperium stort«. Vi er interesseret i at igangsætte et nyt paradigme for internationale relationer, med en økonomisk udvikling af hele planeten, til gode for hele den menneskelige race.

Den aktuelle frontlinje her i USA, langs med hvilken denne kamp om USA’s sjæl bliver udkæmpet, er kampen for at genindføre Glass-Steagall som landets lov i USA. Vi cirkulerer fortsat appellen, som kan ses på www.lpac.co/trumpsotu. (Appellen på dansk her🙂 Denne appel kræver, at Donald Trump, senest ved sin Tale til Unionen den 28. februar, engagerer sig forpligtende over for den fulde, strengt originale Franklin Roosevelt bankopdeling, Glass/Steagall-loven – som han krævede under sin valgkamp. Det er om præcis én måned, og det er vores mål at få 10.000 underskrifter på denne appel. Vi vokser støt, men vi må vokse meget hurtigere.

Denne kamp finder sted parallelt med den aktuelle mobilisering, som blev igangsat af hr. LaRouche i mandags, for at afvise Steven Mnuchins nominering til USA’s finansminister. Steven Mnuchins udtrykkelige og åbne modstand mod genindførelsen af den fulde Franklin Roosevelt Glass-Steagall, som blev afsløret under senator Maria Cantwells spørgsmål torsdag i sidste uge under Senatshøringen for hans godkendelse, bør ikke komme som nogen overraskelse, hvis man tager i betragtning, at Steven Mnuchin var en direkte forretningspartner i mindst femten år, en medarbejder til ingen ringere end George Soros; den erklærede fjende af den tiltrædende Trump-administration. George Soros, den førende finansielle støtte til Barack Obama, og som personligt i høj grad har været årsagen til, at Glass-Steagall ikke er blevet genindført i løbet af de seneste otte år. George Soros, der, under Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum, erklærede sin hensigt om at forårsage Trump-administrationens fiasko. Hvilken bedre måde at forårsage Trump-administrationens fiasko end ved at installere en muldvarp internt i Trump-administrationen på højeste niveau, i form af Steven Mnuchin?

Vi har Soros’ generalieblad. Det kan læses på larouchepac.com websiden, og det er en hovedartikel i den seneste udgave af vores avis, The Hamiltonian. (Se Leder, 26. jan: »Hold George Soros’ allierede Steven Mnuchin væk fra Trumps Finansministerium!«) Soros er et ledende værktøj for Det britiske Imperium, der anstifter »farvede revolutioner« og afsættelser af regeringer i hele verden – præcis det, nogle mennesker frygter, er ved at blive planlagt af Soros og andre at skulle finde sted her i USA, imod den nye administration.

Forbindelsen til Steven Mnuchin er meget klar. Efter at Mnuchin arbejdede for Goldman Sachs i 12 år, blev Mnuchin rekrutteret af George Soros til at arbejde for selveste Soros Fund Management. Han kørte SFM Capital, han stiftede Dune Capital Management og, i ledtog med George Soros og et slæng af andre hedgefund-operatører, købte de IndyMay ud [Independent National Mortgage Corp.] og forvandlede det til det, der fik navnet OneWest Bank. Dette er den berygtede maskine, der sætter folk ud af deres hjem. Dette vækker voldsom opmærksomhed blandt kredse i det Demokratiske Parti i Senatet.

Men den historie, man ikke fortæller, er netop forbindelsen til George Soros. Denne George Soros-historie er den sande historie, der fortælles. Og dette er som sagt forsiden af den seneste udgave af The Hamiltonian. Hele Soros’ generalieblad kan ses på larouchepac.com websiden. Det må cirkuleres for at afsløre det faktum, at Steven Mnuchin er ved at blive kørt i stilling til at være muldvarp for Wall Street/London/Soros, og som er plantet på allerhøjeste niveau i den tiltrædende Trump-administration. Hvis hans rolle ikke afsløres, og hvis Mnuchins nominering til finansministerposten ikke bliver afvist, vil der ikke være nogen som helst måde, hvorpå vi kan lykkes med at skabe den form for økonomiske genrejsning efter LaRouches/Hamiltons principper, som vi har forklaret, og som begynder med en tilbagevenden til den originale Glass-Steagall.

Denne kamp for Glass-Steagall er, igen, kampfronten og kampens centrum. Det drejer sig ikke kun om vores nationalpolitik. Dette er en international kamp. Dette er en kamp om de transatlantiske nationers fremtid. Vil de fortsat være undersåtter i Det britiske Imperium og dets apparat, City of London/Wall Street, eller, vil disse nationer blive sat fri, befriet, fra dette apparat, så de kan tilslutte sig dette nye, internationale paradigme – Rusland, Kina og det, der må blive til en treparts-, eller firparts-relation, med USA og Indien.

Folk i hele verden følger med i denne kamp internt i USA, i takt med, at den udspiller sig, time for time, en kamp mand og mand imellem over genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall i disse første dage af det nye præsidentskab.

For at give et eksempel på dette, vil jeg afspille et par minutter fra interviewet med Marco Zanni, italiensk parlamentsmedlem i EU-parlamentet og en førende tilhænger af Glass-Steagall i Europa og en person, der har arbejdet med LaRouche-bevægelsen både i Europa og i USA i løbet af de seneste par år i denne kamp for at genindføre Glass-Steagall. Han blev interviewet af Paul Gallagher, Executive Intelligence Reviews redaktør for økonomi. Som man ser under Pauls introduktion af Zanni, så var han i Washington, D.C., for lidt over et år siden for en række møder om nødvendigheden af at vende tilbage til Glass-Steagall.

VIDEOINTERVIEW (Uddrag):

Paul Gallagher: Du var i USA i sommeren 2015 om disse spørgsmål, især om Glass/Steagall-loven i både USA og Europa. Du mødtes med medarbejdere i Kongressen og med nogle Kongresmedlemmer i begge Huse. Så du har nogen indsigt i dette. Hvad søger du i USA, nu?

Marco Zanni: Det er meget vanskeligt at se ret meget af, hvad den nye administration vil gøre mht. Glass-Steagall. Hvis man ser på, hvad hr. Trump har sagt, så støtter han sandsynligvis den form for bankregler, der også kunne omfatte en bankopdeling og genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Men samtidig ser jeg også det faktum, at han, til en masse toppositioner, i højtplacerede stillinger, hyrer tidligere investeringsbankfolk, der kommer fra Goldman Sachs og andre investeringsbanker.

Og også, at flertallet af de Republikanske kongresmedlemmer sandsynligvis ikke støtter en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Men, hvis hr. Trump er overbevist om, at USA har brug for en ny bankreform, grundlæggende set en ny slags Glass-Steagall for USA, så tror jeg, han meget, meget hurtigt, og meget, meget let, kan gøre sin indflydelse gældende og få Kongressen, det Republikanske Parti og hele sit team til at arbejde for denne form for reform.

Da jeg sidste år var i D.C., var det meget vigtigt for mig at vise, hvordan indvirkningen af blot bankregler kunne være farligt for en økonomi. Jeg viste eksemplet med Italien og Den europæiske Union. Så jeg bad medlemmer af Kongressen, som jeg mødte i 2016, om at gennemgå Dodd/Frank-loven, jeres banklov, fordi den er meget farlig. Der er bestemmelser om en regel for bail-in (ekspropriering af visse typer af bankindskud) i jeres Dodd/Frank-banklovgivning. Virkningen af bail-in i det europæiske banksystem har været meget, meget farlig. Ser man på aktieprisen for Deutsche Bank, f.eks., eller for italienske banker, så er aktieprisen og aktiemarkederne for disse banker faldet med gennemsnitligt mere end 70 % fra det øjeblik – altså fra januar, 2016 – hvor reglen om bail-in trådte i kraft i EU.

Denne regel er meget farlig. I har denne regel i Dodd-Frank. Den er aldrig blevet anvendt, men det kunne den blive om kort tid; så jeg mener, at I må revidere Dodd/Frank-loven. Jeg mener, at, hvis Trump vil gå ind for dette, vil han få støtte fra en meget stor del af det Demokratiske Parti, fra Bernie Sanders, mange kongresmedlemmer, som jeg mødte under mit besøg i D.C.

Gallagher: Jeg skal sige her, at LaRouchePAC i øjeblikket befinder sig i en mobilisering omkring en national appel. Det forlyder, at den første tale, Trump vil holde til begge Kongreshuse, bliver den 28. februar: vi er i en national mobilisering omkring en appel, der kræver, at han lover og fremstiller Glass-Steagall til denne Kongressamling den 28. februar – om kun én måned. Lyndon LaRouche har også krævet en afvisning af Steven Mnuchins nominering, en af de personer, du refererer til, til finansminister. Under hans høring i Senatet udtalte han sig ligefremt imod Glass-Steagall; på trods af den kendsgerning, at spørgeren (senator Maria Cantwell) mindede ham om, at den præsident, der har nomineret ham, i sin kampagne havde lovet at genindføre Glass-Steagall. LaRouche har krævet, at Mnuchin afvises og holdes ude af Finansministeriet.

Hvis der er mere, du ønsker at få frem til folk, der ser denne kanal i særdeleshed, så vær så god.

Zanni: Blot en sidste ting: Det er virkeligt gode nyheder med denne appel, som I lancerer i USA; for borgernes støtte er meget vigtig mht. at få politikere til at vedtage den rette lovgivning omkring banker og bankregler. Hvad med Europa? Og hvad med den amerikanske administrations næste skridt? Jeg håber, at den holdning, som den amerikanske administration fremlægger i forhold til Europa og Den europæiske Union, vil blive meget positiv for Italien. For at kunne træde ud af euroen har vi brug for støtte fra USA, og også fra Rusland. Så det er meget vigtigt, at den nye, samarbejdende holdning, som hr. Trump indtager mht. hr. Putin, til Rusland og til andre, fremvoksende økonomier, har en positiv virkning mht. at ødelægge konstruktionen af Den europæiske Union og genopbygge Europa. Et Europa, der bygger på suverænitet og frihed for nationer, og et samarbejdende Europa, der kunne fungere godt og også kunne samarbejde med USA fra den ene side, og med Rusland og det asiatiske område fra den anden side. Så vi har altså brug for begge siderne, brug for USA og Rusland, for at blive af med dette imperie-projekt, som er Den europæiske Union. Jeg håber, at hr. Trump vil fastholde sin holdning, vil bevare denne meget kritiske holdning, han har til EU, til Tyskland og til Europa. Vi kunne have et Italien, der forlader euroen og [kan ikke høres, 19:12] Europa, der genopbygger en ny historie; en ny ramme, der bygger på mere samarbejde, mere økonomisk vækst og flere jobs og mere investering. Det er mit håb, og det er min appel til den nye, amerikanske regering.

Gallagher: Fantastisk. Vi har talt i en halv time med Marco Zanni, medlem af EU-parlamentet.

(Hele videoen med Marco Zanni kan ses her)




Lad dette blive Dag Ét – indvielsesdag – for en ny æra
for udviklingen af menneskeheden som helhed!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 20. januar, 2017; Leder

Vi har et par emner, vi vil fremlægge her i dag, men vi lægger ud med en umiddelbar gennemgang fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche af de begivenheder, der fandt sted i dag, og vore marchordrer for de kommende par dage. Det er i dag naturligvis indsættelsesdag. Vi er nu officielt kommet til slutningen af 16 år med Bush/Obama-æraen. Vi står på tærsklen til noget nyt; vi har et nyt, officielt præsidentskab. Hvad dette nye præsidentskab vil blive, står endnu uklart; det er stadig udefineret, og det er Lyndon og Helga LaRouches vurdering, at vores job ikke har ændret sig. Det er stadig vores opgave at lægge Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love på bordet. Vi er, og må fortsætte med at være, dette lands intellektuelle lederskab, og det er vores ansvar nu at indvarsle et nyt, internationalt paradigme, som USA i høj grad må blive en del af – det, vi kan kalde for det »Nye Paradigme for Udvikling«.

Matthew Ogden: God aften; det er i dag 20. januar, 2017; indvielsesdag. Dette er vores special-webcast på indvielsesdagen fra LaRouchepac.com. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg to kolleger – Benjamin Deniston her i studiet; og, via video, Michael Steger, som er med os i dag fra Houston, Texas, hvor han har tilbragt nogen tid sammen med Kesha Rogers.

Vi har et par emner, vi vil fremlægge her i dag, men vi lægger ud med en umiddelbar gennemgang fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche af de begivenheder, der fandt sted i dag, og vore marchordrer for de kommende par dage. Det er i dag naturligvis indsættelsesdag. Vi er nu officielt kommet til slutningen af 16 år med Bush/Obama-æraen. Vi står på tærsklen til noget nyt; vi har et nyt, officielt præsidentskab. Hvad dette nye præsidentskab vil blive, står endnu uklart; det er stadig udefineret, og det er Lyndon og Helga LaRouches vurdering, at vores job ikke har ændret sig. Det er stadig vores opgave at lægge Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love på bordet. Vi er, og må fortsætte med at være, dette lands intellektuelle lederskab, og det er vores ansvar nu at indvarsle et nyt, internationalt paradigme, som USA i høj grad må blive en del af – det, vi kan kalde for det »Nye Paradigme for Udvikling«.

Dette er nogle af de emner, vi vil diskutere i dybden senere i programmet, med vægt på to, store projekter, der er eksempler på, og paradigmatiske for, dette Nye Paradigme for Udvikling: Kra-kanalprojektet i Thailand og Transaqua-projektet i Afrika – to projekter, som hr. og fr. LaRouche i årtiernes løb har været meget involveret i, og som blot eksemplificerer den form for store projekter for menneskelig udvikling, som må forfølges i de kommende måneder og uger, både internationalt, men også store projekter af den art, som vi må gennemføre herhjemme i USA.

Lad mig begynde med en næsten ordret gennemgang af nogle kommentarer, som både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche kom med umiddelbart efter præsident Donald Trumps indsættelsestale her i eftermiddag, og vi vil så diskutere dette lidt mere i detaljer, før vi går videre med en gennemgang af disse store, internationale udviklingsprojekter.

LaRouche sagde omgående, at det er meget uklart, mht. principper, hvad præsident Donald Trump har i sinde ud fra det, han fremlagde i sin indsættelsestale i dag. Lyndon LaRouche sagde, »De er meget forvirret på overfladen, og vi må vente og se, hvad der ligger under denne overflade. På baggrund af det, der blev fremlagt i denne tale, er der ingen klarhed over principper i det.«

Helga LaRouche sagde: »Det vigtigste på hjemmefronten er, hvordan Donald Trump vil honorere de løfter, han har afgivet. Hvilke handlinger vil han faktisk tage?« spurgte hun. Med hensyn til den internationale front, var Helga LaRouches vurdering, »Trump burde vide, at det ikke fungerer sådan; blot at sige ’Amerika først’. Spørgsmålet er: Hvordan finder man fælles interesser, som er fælles for mange nationer, og ikke kun ’Amerika først’? Hvad er de fælles mål for mange nationer, og hvordan handler man for at forfølge disse mål?«

Dernæst sagde Lyndon LaRouche: »Problemet er, at princippet endnu ikke er klart. Det kunne gå i retning af et forenende princip; men, ud fra det, der blev fremlagt, står det endnu ikke klart, at det nødvendigvis vil blive det, eller præcis, hvad dette princip vil være.« Helga LaRouche gentog, »Generelt set var talen en meget blandet pose. Der er bestemt løfter om, at dette kunne gå i den rigtige retning, men vi må se konkrete planer for handling. Vi, LaRouche-bevægelsen, LaRouche Political Action Committee, må forstærke vores mobilisering for Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love. Det er godt, at Obama er ude. Vi vil få en frisk vind, en frisk brise, men der er brug for langt mere klarhed.«

Sluttelig sagde Lyndon LaRouche: »Vi vil ikke gå for meget ind på deres argumenter. Lad dem selv forklare deres egne argumenter.« Helga LaRouche sagde: »Vi behøver ikke nødvendigvis støtte ethvert aspekt af, hvad præsident Trump siger. Vi behøver heller ikke være overdrevent kritiske, men vi bør fokusere på vore egne principper og vore egne mål.«

Først og fremmest: Hvad er disse mål?

Nummer 1 – og det er stadig dagsordenen – må Glass-Steagall omgående genindføres som landets lov. I løbet af de seneste 24 timer har vi atter set et udbrud, i vid udstrækning pga. den mobilisering, som I, dette webcasts seere, og medlemmer af LaRouche-bevægelsen i USA har været engageret i; Glass-Steagall er nu tilbage i forreste front, tilbage på dagsordenen. Dette sås tydeligst af de spørgsmål, der blev stillet under høringen for godkendelsen af den udpegede finansminister, Steven Mnuchin, og som rejstes af senator Maria Cantwell. Hun har, som folk ved, længe været en støtte af en tilbagevenden til Glass-Steagall, i mange år. Hendes første, og eneste spørgsmål til Steven Mnuchin, var, »Støtter De Glass-Steagall?«

Steven Mnuchins svar – og dette er Helga LaRouches analyse – var, »ægte sofisteri«. »Lyndon LaRouche har været meget klar omkring, at dét, vi har brug for, er den originale Glass-Steagall, uden ændringer. Så kommer denne Mnuchin-fyr og taler om en modificeret Glass-Steagall og blander det med Volcker-reglen«, sagde hun. »Dette er ægte sofisteri. Det er virkelig godt, at Maria Cantwell har meldt klart ud om dette spørgsmål, og nu må vi lægge meget pres på hende og andre, inklusive på præsident Donald Trump, for at få den ægte Glass-Steagall vedtaget. Som Maria Cantwell sagde, så kræver det en klar, skarp linje mellem investeringsbankaktivitet og kommerciel bankaktivitet sådan, som Glass-Steagall oprindeligt blev udarbejdet af Franklin Roosevelt.«

Men Glass-Steagall er blot det første skridt til det fulde program for de Fire Love; og jeg mener, vi vil diskutere dette, ikke nødvendigvis stykke for stykke, men som en generel gennemgang, det princip, der forener Lyndon LaRouches program. Og vi må, som Helga LaRouches analyse siger, tænke på det som blot Dag Ét af de første 100 dage.

Hvad vi omgående må få at se, fra dette øjeblik, er en omgående forbedring i de amerikansk-russiske relationer. Det er der allerede positive indikationer på. Der er en invitation til præsident Donald Trump til at deltage, eller sende en delegation til at deltage, i Astana Fredsforhandlingerne i Kasakhstan; fredsforhandlingerne om Syrien. Det kunne ikke være mere presserende, end det er nu, med nyhederne her til morgen om, at ISIS på tragisk vis nu har ødelagt de storslåede, romerske ruiner i Palmyra, det smukke amfiteater og de andre ruiner. Så det er presserende vigtigt.

Men samtidig må der blive et seriøst partnerskab mellem USA og Kina. Den store mulighed for dette – i kølvandet på præsident Xi Jinpings tale om en fremtid for en fælles og almen skæbne, som var temaet i hans tale for Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum under sit nylige besøg i Schweiz – er en konference, der kommer til maj i Kina, om Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, og som mange statsoverhoveder vil deltage i. En eksplicit invitation er blevet overgivet til Donald Trump personligt for hans personlige deltagelse i denne konference.

Det, der står klart, er, at vi befinder os midt i en global proces for dramatisk og radikal forandring. Der kommer et betydningsfuldt skifte i dynamikken, som allerede finder sted, men som vil fortsætte med at udkrystallisere sig i de kommende måneder. De franske valg er i horisonten. Ifølge nogle beregninger er 75 % af vælgerne nu for at reducere sanktionerne mod Rusland. Dernæst er der de tyske valg, der kommer lidt senere efter de franske. I løbet af disse måneder kunne vi få at se en meget anderledes verden komme til syne. Det står klart, at det ikke længere er »business as usual«. Bush/Obama-æraen er forbi, og vi står nu på tærsklen til noget helt nyt.

Jeg vil gerne invitere Michael [Steger] og Ben [Deniston] til at sige lidt mere om dette, før vi går over til disse projekter, men, lad mig blot sige, om denne nye æra, som Helga LaRouche refererer til som nødvendigheden af at definere fælles interesser blandt mange nationer, og dernæst at samarbejde om at opnå disse interesser, eller, som præsident Xi Jinping udtrykker det, en fremtid for en fælles skæbne.

To store projekter, som jeg nævnte det, og som eksemplificerer mulighederne for at engagere sig på et sådant niveau og indvarsle dette Nye Paradigme for Udvikling, er Kra-kanalen i Thailand, der nu er meget konkret tilbage på dagsordenen – jeg kommer med flere detaljer senere – og Transaqua-projektet i Afrika. Det, vi ser, er, at den Nye Silkevej, Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, går støt fremad og nu bærer frugt efter årtiers arbejde fra LaRouche-bevægelsens side internationalt. Senere i aftenens udsendelse vil vi vise et kort klip af en video, vi har lavet, og som belyser Kra-kanalens historie, og som i de kommende dage vil blive ledsaget af et interview med en af hovedarrangørerne af dette projekt, Pakdee Tanapura. Og så får vi en slags generel præsentation af dette Transaqua-projekt i Afrika.

Men dette er store projekter, der blot eksemplificerer det, der, kan man sige, må blive det »nye normale« i dette Nye Paradigme for Udvikling, og for det, som USA som en presserende sag må deltage i.   

Engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet:

LET'S MAKE THIS DAY ONE — INAUGURATION DAY —
OF A NEW ERA FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR MANKIND AS A WHOLE!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast, January 20, 2017

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's January 20th, 2017. Today
is Inauguration Day, and this is our Inauguration Day Special
Webcast from Larouchepac.com. I'm pleased to be joined today by
two of my colleagues — Benjamin Deniston, here in the studio;
and, via video, Michael Steger, who is joining us today from
Houston, Texas, where he's been spending some time with Kesha
Rogers.
        We have a few items that we're going to present to you
today, but we're going to begin with an immediate overview from
both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche of the events that occurred today,
and our marching orders for the days to come. Obviously, today is
Inauguration Day. We've come now, officially, to the end of 16
years of the Bush/Obama era. We're on the verge of something new;
we have a new Presidency, officially. What that new Presidency
will be, is unclear; it is very much still undefined, and Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche's assessment is, our job has not changed. We
still have the task of putting Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws on the
table. We are, and must continue to be, the intellectual
leadership in this country, and we are having the responsibility
now of ushering in a new international paradigm of which the
United States must very much indeed be a part — what we can call
the "New Development Paradigm."
        That will be some of what we will discuss in substance later
in this broadcast with an emphasis on two major projects which
are exemplary and paradigmatic of that New Development Paradigm:
the Kra Canal Project in Thailand, and the Transaqua Project in
Africa — two projects with which the LaRouches have been very
much involved over decades and which are merely exemplary of the
kinds of great projects for {human} development that must be
pursued in the coming months, in the coming weeks, both
internationally, but also great projects of that type which we
must carry out here at home in the United States.
        Let me begin with an almost verbatim overview of some
comments that both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche had, immediately
following President Donald Trump's inaugural speech this
afternoon, and then we will discuss that in a little bit more
detail before we get to the overview of these great international
development projects.
        What Mr. LaRouche said, right off the bat, is that it's very
unclear, in terms of principle, what President Donald Trump has
in mind, just based on what he presented in his inaugural speech
today. Lyndon LaRouche said, "It's very confused on the surface,
and we will have to wait and see what is underneath that surface.
On the basis of what was presented in that speech, there is no
clarity of principle there."
        Helga LaRouche said, "The most important thing on the
domestic front is how Donald Trump will deliver on the promises
that he's made. What are the actions that he will actually take?"
she asked. Regarding the international front, Helga LaRouche's
assessment was, "Trump should know it doesn't work that way;
merely saying 'America First.' The issue is: how do you find
{common} interests, shared among {many} nations, not just
'America First'? What are the common objectives of multiple
nations, and how do you act in pursuit of those objectives?"
        Lyndon LaRouche then said, "The problem is that the
principle is not clear yet. It could go in the direction of a
unifying principle; but from what was presented, it's not yet
clear that it necessarily will, or exactly what that principle
will be." Helga LaRouche's reiterating remarks were: "Overall,
the address was a very mixed bag. There are certainly promises
that this could go in the right direction, but we need to see
concrete plans of action. We, the LaRouche Movement, the LaRouche
Political Action Committee, must increase our mobilization on
Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws program. It is good," she said, "that
Obama is out. We will get a fresh wind, a fresh breeze, but a lot
more clarity is still needed."
        And then, finally, Lyndon LaRouche said, "We don't want to
get too close to their arguments. Let them clarify their own
arguments." And Helga LaRouche said, "We don't necessarily need
to support every aspect of what President Trump says. We also
don't need to be overly critical either, but we should be
focusing on our own principles and our own objectives."
        Now, first and foremost, what are those objectives?
        No. 1 — and the agenda still stands — Glass-Steagall must
be immediately reinstated as the law of the land. We saw, over
the last 24 hours, an eruption again, largely due to the
mobilization that you, the viewers of this webcast and members of
the LaRouche Movement in the United States have been engaged in;
Glass-Steagall is now back in the forefront, back on the agenda.
This could be seen most clearly by questions that were raised
during the confirmation hearing of Treasury designate-Secretary,
Steven Mnuchin, that were raised by Senator Maria Cantwell. Maria
Cantwell, as people know, has been a long-standing supporter of a
return to Glass-Steagall for many years now. Her very first
question and her {only} question of Steven Mnuchin was, "Do you
support Glass-Steagall?"

Steven Mnuchin's answer — and this is Helga LaRouche's analysis
— was "real sophistry." "Lyndon LaRouche has been very clear
that what we need is the {original Glass-Steagall, without
modification}. And here comes this Mnuchin guy, going on about a
{modified} Glass-Steagall, mixing it in with the Volcker Rule,"
she said. "This is real sophistry. It is very good that Maria
Cantwell has now put herself on the spot on this issue, and now
{we} have to put real pressure on her and on others, including on
President Donald Trump, to get the real Glass-Steagall in place.
As Maria Cantwell said, that requires a clear bright line between
investment banking and commercial banking in the way that
Glass-Steagall was originally designed by Franklin Roosevelt."
        But Glass-Steagall is merely the first step in the full Four
Laws program; and I think we're going to discuss that, not
necessarily piecemeal, but in terms of the broad overview, the
principle which unifies Lyndon LaRouche's program. And the way to
think about that is what Helga LaRouche's analysis was, that this
is merely Day One out of what must be the First 100 Days.
        What we have to see, immediately, from this moment on, is an
immediate improvement in U.S.-Russian relations. There are
already positive indications of that. You have the official
invitation of now-President Donald Trump to attend, or to send a
delegation to attend, the Astana Peace Talks in Astana,
Kazakhstan; the peace talks for Syria. This could not be more
urgent than it is right now, with the news that we received this
morning, that ISIS has, tragically, now destroyed the grand Roman
ruins of Palmyra, the beautiful amphitheater, and the other ruins
there. So, this is of urgent importance.
        But, simultaneously, there must be a serious partnership
between the United States and China. The grand opportunity for
that, following President Xi Jinping's keynote speech on the
future of shared and common destiny — that was his theme at the
Davos World Economic Forum during his recent trip to Switzerland.
[http://america.cgtn.com/2017/01/17/full-text-of-xi-jinping-
keynote-at-the-world-economic-forum] The most immediate
opportunity is a conference that's coming up in May, in China, on
the subject of the Belt and Road Initiative, which many head of
state will be attending. There has been an explicit invitation
extended, for Donald Trump, himself, to attend this conference.
        What is clear, is that we are in the midst of a global
process of dramatic and radical change. There will be a major
shift of dynamic which is already ongoing, but which will
continue to crystallize in the coming months. The French
elections are on the horizon. According to some calculations, 75%
of the electorate are now in favor of rolling back the sanctions
against Russia. Then you have the German elections coming later
after that. Over the course of these months, we could see a very
different world emerging. What is very clear is that this is no
longer "business as usual." The Bush/Obama era is over, and now
we're on the verge of something completely new.
        Now, I would like to invite Michael and Ben to say a little
bit more about this, before we get into these projects, but let
me just say, this new era, what Helga LaRouche is referring to as
the necessity of defining common interests among multiple
nations, and then working together to achieve those interests,
or, as President Xi Jinping put it, a future of shared destiny.
        Two great projects, as I mentioned, which exemplify the
opportunities to engage on that kind of level and to usher in
this New Development Paradigm, are the Kra Canal in Thailand,
which is now back on the agenda in a very real way — and I'll
get into some of the details on that later — and the Transaqua
Project in Africa. What we see is that the New Silk Road, the
Belt and Road Initiative, is steadily moving forward, and it's
coming to fruition after decades of work by the LaRouche Movement
internationally. Later in this show, we will be playing a brief
clip of a video that we made highlighting the history of the Kra
Canal, which also will be accompanied in the coming days by an
interview with one of the key organizers of that project, Pakdee
Tanapura. And then we will have sort of an overview presentation
of this Transaqua Project in Africa.
        But what these are, are great projects which are merely
exemplary of what must become, you could say, the "new normal" in
this New Development Paradigm, and what the United States must
{urgently} become a participant in.
        Let me leave it at that. We can have a little bit more
discussion and then get into some of the bulk of those projects.

MICHAEL STEGER: Well, I think everyone's fairly happy watching
this broadcast, given the fact that especially the last eight
years under Obama were a kind of psychological terror. There's
definitely a relief. The one thing that's clear, is that it's a
moment of action. Perhaps President Trump understands that. As,
Matt, you indicated, as Lyn said, himself, we have to see what
this actually means. But we, the LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche
Association internationally know very well what this means. It's
largely determined by the actions that both Russia and China have
taken over the last three years around the New Silk Road
initiative and a real collaboration, as Vladimir Putin himself
called for in the 2015 United Nations General Assembly — an
anti-Nazi coalition, like you saw in World War II — has to be
brought together, a collaboration of nations.
        And what that means — I think President Putin understands
this — and I think it's very important that the American people
grasp this. The eradication of this kind of terrorism, is the
elimination of the British Empire, in the essence of a
construction orientation; that you're actually building up the
civilizations again, you're building up the populations. You're
taking the areas of Southwest Asia, North Africa; the project of
the Transaqua is in a key area to begin to develop many parts of
Africa that are right now threatened by this terrorist scourge.
The same is true from India through Pakistan, the Kra Canal. The
areas of Myanmar and Thailand and into Malaysia are also
threatened. The Philippines.
        So these questions of development are really the means by
which an international coalition eradicates the terrorism;
eradicates the drug trade; and begins to collaborate on mankind's
true destiny, which is really much greater than simply solving
some of these basic problems.
        I'll say that for now. I think Ben might have more to say.

        BEN DENISTON: That's exactly the issue. Maybe we can get it
to it a little bit more, but you look at the United States, you
look at the issue of Mexico and our relation to Mexico, for
example, which has been a big subject of discussion. But what
hasn't been put on the table, is, again, the kind of campaign and
the programs that the LaRouche Movement has led up for major
development projects. Mr. LaRouche, again, has a very rich and
high-level history of relations with top Mexican officials,
including one-time President José López Portillo of Mexico,
with whom he had a direct personal relationship around this idea
of common development.
        This can be directly taken to one of the key issues we'll
get into — the issue of water development, as we'll discuss in
the case of Africa; but that can serve as a model for the kind of
projects that we could bring back to the United States. What
Michael is saying here is critical: development is the key;
development is the future; development is what's needed to
actually {solve} these problems, not just address immediate
crises, not just deal with catastrophes as they occur. But
actually how do you move the world in many of these regions that
have been plunged into years if not decades of horrific
activities led by the Saudis, Obama, Bush — all of these
factions? How do you actually bring that into some real solutions
and resolutions that will create a long-term substantial change?
        I think what Mrs. LaRouche said was very right on, in terms
of her response to the inauguration speech; is that it's a new
world.  We can no longer be thinking about individual nations
alone; that's just part of the natural state that mankind is at,
at this point.  Mankind has developed to the point where we're a
global force; the level of development and growth needed is
something that goes beyond individual national boundaries.  You
have to do it with respect to nations and their interests and
their boundaries and their cultures; but it's also undeniable
that we're at a point where we have to think as a global species
— and really, an interplanetary species.
        That's the basis for the future of mankind now.  Where do
you define these common areas of mutual benefit, mutual interest
that nations can participate in; which creates a net higher
amount of wealth and growth for all participants involved?
There's a principle!  Mr. LaRouche was raising the issue of
where's the principle; that's an actual scientific principle
rooted in the scientific nature of mankind as a creative species,
and rooted in the very historical view of the point of human
development that we're currently at.  That is a principle; that
is something which you can continue to come to as the defining
point for policy and what's needed now.

        OGDEN:  Absolutely!  There is obviously a sense of dramatic
change which is sweeping the country; and I think that President
Trump addressed what is a reality.  That there is a desperation
among the American people; and that is obviously what rendered
this election.  The forgotten men, the forgotten women who feel a
desperation and a despair as they look at these old abandoned
factories, as he said, standing like tombstones scattered across
the territory of this country.  People who feel like they have no
voice; and the sense that they now have the opportunity to
participate once again in the policies of the United States.  But
participating in the policies of this country means a necessity
for a deeply held education and profound understanding of
principle, not just policies but a principle around which those
actions can be taken.  The sentiment of saying we're going to
look at ourselves as standing on the threshold of a new
millennium and unlocking the mysteries of space; and using
American labor to build infrastructure across the United States,
and roads and railroads and tunnels and bridges, is a positive
one.  But the understanding of where mankind is at in our history
as a species right now, and what are the true scientific
challenges that are facing us that require our creativity [in
order] to be solved.  That is where the real questions lie in
terms of clarity of principle.  And great leaders of the United
States always had an understanding of what the principles were
that mankind as a whole must resolve; the principled questions
which are there to be solved.
        So, we're going to take a look at these two case studies
which we're selecting because of, first of all, their magnitude
in terms of the importance of their role in this interconnection
of a World Land-Bridge or a new land-based and maritime Silk
Road, as it's being called with the initiative from Xi Jinping;
but also because of the role that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have
played in these two projects over a number of decades, and the
fact that their progress at this point does actually represent a
milestone in terms of the coming to fruition of a campaign of
inaugurating this new era of development for mankind.
        So, we're going to start with a short excerpt from a video
that LaRouche PAC made a number of years ago on the Kra Canal;
the Thailand canal which has a long history going back over a
century in terms of people looking at the different possible
routes of cutting a canal through the isthmus of Thailand.  But
it's also something that Mr. Lyndon LaRouche personally was
involved in, in the 1980s.  There are a lot of new developments
and hopeful developments around this, including a new book that
just was published called {Kra Canal: The Strategic History of
Thailand}, which Pakdee Tanapura, who is an associate of the
LaRouche Movement in Thailand and who was one of the prime
organizers in the 1980s, is a contributor to this book; but also
a number of generals and admirals and other high-ranking and
leading figures inside Thailand.  This book is now being printed
in 10,000 copies and is being circulated among some of the
leading government institutions.  With the passage of the
previous king and the new king coming to power in Thailand, there
is a strong openness; not to mention that there is a strategic
shift now underway in Asia as a whole.  The abandonment of the
Obama Asia Pivot, the crumbling of the TPP; there's a strong
potential in terms of the possibility of this project moving
forward.
        So, I'll have a little bit more to say about this after we
play this clip; but again, this project — taken together with
the other project we're going to talk about today — are merely
exemplary of the type of new era of development that we must
inaugurate today.

VIDEO voice [begins mid-sentence]:  century, the concept of the
preferred location for the canal route generally shifted towards
southern Thailand, as compared to the earliest proposed routes.
        We can compare the dimensions of a proposed Kra Canal with
other well-known canals.  The width of the Kra isthmus at its
narrowest point is around 27 miles.  Compare this to the width of
the Panama Canal — about 48 miles.  The length of the various
Kra Canal proposals range from between 30 and 60 miles.  The Suez
Canal, for comparison, has a length of 119 miles.  The height of
the interior mountain chain where the Kra Canal would be
constructed is about 246 feet.  Compare this to the height of the
Gaillard Cut of the Panama Canal, which is slightly lower at 210
feet.
        The Straits of Malacca are not sufficiently deep for many
large ships to pass through; the straits are 620 miles long, but
very narrow — less than 1.6 miles at the narrowest, and only 82
feet deep at the shallowest point.  Currently, large ships are
required to travel much further south to the Lombok Straits near
Java; which have a depth of 820 feet.

        OGDEN:  This is the beginning of the clip that we're going
to play for you.  We're going to explore a little bit more of the
advantages of cutting this Kra Canal through the Thailand
isthmus.  What Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, is that you're
linking together two very crucial oceans in the world — the
Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean; this is a key connection in
terms of this new Maritime Silk Road, and will completely
transform the potential relationships between the countries in
the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.  So, we'll continue playing
this clip for you right now.

        VIDEO voice:  Clearly, a Kra Canal poses a more reasonable
option than travelling so much further south for larger ships; or
for any ship taking the 620-mile detour through the congested and
pirate-infested Straits of Malacca.
        The 600-plus-mile Malacca Straits are by far the most
heavily travelled of the world's canals, with more than twice the
traffic of the Suez and Panama Canals combined.  By a recent
estimate, one-fifth of world trade goes through the Malacca
Straits; congestion or obstruction of the straits would
dramatically increase the cost of trade.  The maximum capacity of
the Singapore-Malacca Straits being 200,000 ships annually.  A
more recent assessment estimates that the traffic of the straits
has been increasing at an annual rate of 20%.
        In 1973, Tams Engineering had conducted a study of choices
of Kra Canal routes, and suggested that route 5-A was the most
suitable for the construction of a Kra Canal.  At either end of
the canal would be located industrial zones estimated to span
collectively about 100,000 acres.  A decade later, in 1983-84,
the Fusion Energy Foundation and {Executive Intelligence Review},
together with the Thai Ministry of Communication, held two
successful conferences on the Kra Canal project.  FEF updated the
earlier feasibility study done by Tams, and developed further on
the project's economic and industrial benefits.  The Fall 1984
conference entitled "Industrialization of Thailand and the Kra
Canal" took place in Bangkok, Thailand.  The conference brought
together businessmen, engineers, and government officials from
all of the ASEAN countries, to hash out the feasibility of
building the canal.
        PAKDEE TANAPURA:  The idea of building the canal, of course,
was picked up again in 1983 when Lyndon LaRouche travelled to
Thailand and organized an international conference on the Kra
Canal.  The participation was very good; we had representatives
from India, representatives from Indonesia, representatives from
Malaysia, representatives from Japan.  In 1983, we didn't have a
representative from China, but the Chinese are very observant
about what we were doing.  We had participation of the Ministry
of Transport and Communications of Thailand, the Minister, Mr.
Samatzu Tamaraif [ph] himself came to deliver a speech at the
conference along with Lyndon LaRouche.  Also, we had the
participation of the GIF, the Global Infrastructure Fund group;
from Japan, we had Dr. Yamamoto from the GIF group, as well as
participation from Japan; a very prominent figure, Mr. Nakajima
of the Mitsubishi Research Institute — a very prominent figure
from the Mitsubishi Group.  We had Mr. Saito also from the
Toshiba Group, and we had lots of participation from [inaud;
28:55].  So, that was back in 1983.
        VIDEO voice:  The four panels covered all aspects, including
a presentation by EIR/FEF researchers on the use of PNEs — or
peaceful nuclear explosions — as the fastest, most efficient and
cost effective method of construction.

        OGDEN:  So, the full video that that was just an excerpt
from, is available on YouTube — "The Kra Canal; The Development
of Southeast Asia"; and the link to that video is available in
the description of this YouTube video.  But as you heard Mr.
Pakdee Tanapura mention, Lyndon LaRouche was a keynote speaker at
both the 1983 conference and the 1984 conference that were
organized there in Bangkok, Thailand with very high-level
representation from almost every Asian country and from the Thai
government itself.
        What Lyndon LaRouche said in a recent interview, and he
continues to emphasize, is the absolute critical nature of the
Kra Canal.  But he delivered an interview in 2014 to the {Fortune
Times} of Singapore, on the Kra Canal project.  I'm just going to
read a short excerpt of what Mr. LaRouche said, which will
clarify, I think, why this is such a key project in the overall
global development perspective that we're talking about.  Mr.
LaRouche said the following:
        "Divide the maritime region of East and South Asia into
three principal categories: China — a giant; India — a giant;
and the maritime connection throughout Southeast Asia's maritime
regions.  Add the impact of such a triadic maritime and related
connection to the physical economic relations to the Americas to
the east, and the Middle East's underbelly and Africa.  Then, the
potency of a Kra Canal development appears not only as an
eminently feasible feature, but as a strategic, political,
economic force for the planet."  He went on to say, "The sheer
volume of maritime trade between the two great nations of Asia —
China and India — and their connections through the South Asia
maritime regions make the canal probably the most potentially
beneficial and also efficient project for the entire region of
the Pacific and Indian Oceans regions; and the co-development of
the major regions of planet Earth as a whole."
        Then, later, the following year, in 2015, some comments in
an informal discussion, but here's quote from those comments:
"With the completion of the Kra Canal, on top of the Suez Canal
expansion which is ongoing in Egypt, there will be no longer a
separation between the Atlantic and Pacific economies.  China and
India will greatly benefit from those two canal projects, along
with the smaller nations along the Southeast Asian Rim.  This
must be pushed, hard.  This will end the British geo-political
games in the Eurasian region; it will change the economic
character of the entire world."
        So, I think that's the key here.  What we're looking at;
{this} is what Helga LaRouche was referring to when you identify
a vision of common destiny or principles which are shared for the
mutual benefit of many nations, of an entire region, or
potentially even, the entire globe; and then work together to
achieve those benefits.  That's the era of development; that's
the new era of development which we have to inaugurate here.  And
I think that's exemplary — as Mr. LaRouche was just saying — of
these kinds of global visions of how we can bring mankind to the
next platform in terms of our development of the planet for the
mutual benefit of all nations.
        So, let's take that as one project; and then, shift over to
Africa and look at what is now progressing around this really
unprecedented project in terms of water transfer in terms of the
magnitude and the potential benefits for that continent also.

DENISTON:  Regular viewers of our website might have seen this,
but it was just this past December that there was a new
Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Lake Chad Basin
Commission, the Nigerian government, and also a major company out
of China, called China Power.  This is now a new, formal, serious
step towards a feasibility study, a detailed engineering study of
what it would take to actualize this Transaqua project, as it has
been called in its earlier designs.  As it now stands, as the
designs stand and even a slightly smaller version which was cited
in this new Memorandum of Understanding would be the single
largest water transfer project ever created on the planet Earth;
being brought right into Central Africa to address some of major
needs of that region.  This has been on the table for decades —
we'll get into that in a second — but what stands out now,
again?  We're in a new global paradigm, and what appears to be
the key change that's now bringing this out of design and
discussion and general acknowledgement of it being important; but
into actual realization?  Again, we have China's role.  China
Power is the company that led the construction of the Three
Gorges Dam in China.
        So again, we're seeing China playing a key role in bringing
these much-needed, much-discussed mega-projects of development
into fruition.  While it might not technically be included as
part of the whole New Silk Road or what they are now calling the
Belt and Road initiative; it is intimately part of that entire
perspective, that entire program.  This design to bring water
from the Congo River Basin, not necessarily the end of the Congo
River where all the tributaries become the Congo River itself,
but many of the upper tributaries that are at higher elevations
further inland; to bring a fraction — 5%, 8% of this water flow
— divert it to the north and to the west into Lake Chad to begin
refilling Lake Chad.  This was designed in the early 1980s by
certain Italian engineers; in particular, Dr. Marcello Vichi, who
has worked with the Bonifica Engineering Consulting Firm, who has
been very happy to collaborate with the Schiller Institute and
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in the past and recently in his
promotion of this project.
        But again, this would be an incredibly amazing contribution
to this entire region.  Just compare it to the level of
discussion you still get in the West around poverty in Africa;
you still just get disgusting discussions of how we need to
provide them with gravity-powered light bulbs because they don't
have electricity, so you can create a mechanism to provide light
by a certain gravity-powered mechanism.  And that's some kind of
amazing contribution to the people of Africa who need
electricity.  That's just such a disgusting low level of thought
from this whole anti-development, Green perspective.  And you
look what China is saying:  Let's bring the most modern, the most
advanced, the largest water infrastructure project ever built on
the planet Earth; and let's engage Africa in building it there.
Just to clarify, despite some of the lies that are put out, this
would not be China coming in and building the entire project with
their own people and their own labor force.  That's often stated,
but it's not the case, and it's being demonstrated that it's not
the case.  Just look at what's already happened and what's
ongoing with the rail projects that China is working with various
African nations in developing.  New standard rail lines in Kenya,
for example; just look at the figures on that.  About 3000
Chinese are employed on that project there; 30,000 Kenyans are
employed, and Kenyans are being trained to run these rail systems
in addition to the skill sets being developed to construct these
things.  It's similar with other rail lines in other African
nations.  So, just to clarify that, this is not China coming in
and employing their own people and exploiting these African
nations.  This is coming in with this "win-win" perspective of an
investment; engaging with the populations there and developing
the region for the benefit of all parties involved.
        Just to emphasize, we have a first slide here [Fig. 1] just
to show a couple of examples; but this is a project and a general
idea that Mr. LaRouche and his associates have been advocating
for decades.  Prior to the design of the Transaqua itself, which
is the name given by this Italian engineer who did a more
detailed initial engineering study for this project, the general
idea was recognized as feasible and made sense if you just look
at the region — which we'll look at in a second — you can see
where there's an abundance of water; you can see where there
might regions where you can transfer it.  It was recognized,
going back to Mr. LaRouche's famous 1975 International
Development Bank, that these kinds of investments into
large-scale water transfer is exactly typical of the kinds of
projects we need for Africa, for example; for nations in Africa.
Similar ideas were featured in the Fusion Energy Foundation
report, "The Industrialization of Africa", just to cite another
example.  This has been often discussed and developed and
proposed in various other publications by {Executive Intelligence
Review}, by LaRouche PAC, by the Schiller Institute.
        But it's probably also worth just highlighting that in March
2016, {Executive Intelligence Review} held a seminar in
Frankfurt, Germany to discuss the development perspective needed
to solve the refugee crisis in northern Africa and stretching
into the Middle East; which has been something that Mrs. LaRouche
has campaigned on for well over year now.  That the solution to
this refugee crisis is to reverse the destruction that's been
caused by Bush's wars, Obama's wars in that region, the support
of terrorism through support of Saudi Arabia and more directly.
But do the complete opposite and engage in large-scale
development of this region to ensure that there's a future for
people; especially for the younger generation.  That's the only
way you're going to fundamentally get rid of terrorism; the exact
opposite of Obama's drone strike policy, where every wedding
party he drones, he creates ten times more future terrorists —
because their lives have been destroyed — than he killed with
his drone strikes.  So, this was a very high-level seminar on
that topic; and one of major projects that was featured, was this
Transaqua project.  It featured two of the leading engineers;
again this Dr. Marcello Vichi — and one of his associates who's
also involved and is an expert on the project — as well as a
representative of the Lake Chad Basin Commission.  This is the
level of promotion and discussion that our organization
{Executive Intelligence Review}, Mrs. LaRouche, also our friend
over in France, Jacques Cheminade who's currently running a
campaign for the Presidency in France, has been a major supporter
of this project.  So, we have a very close history with this
entire thing.  Now again, with China actually taking the lead,
this is becoming a reality.
        Just to put that in a little bit of context, I want to
briefly look at this map; because it's well known that water is a
major issue for many parts of the world.  And it's expected to
become a growing issue for many regions as water use increases,
population grows; and under the assumption that we're not going
to have the level of water infrastructure that we need.  If you
just look at this map, put out by a United Nations report on
global water issues, you can see in the lighter blues, you see
regions where there is water scarcity due to the physical
availability of water; and that's probably not a surprise in the
regions you see.  In the west and southwestern United States, we
see physical water scarcity.  But you see much of Africa is not
light blue, it's dark blue, which indicates economic water
scarcity; meaning the water is there, but the infrastructure
hasn't been developed to utilize the water supplies that are
there.  So, I think that's an immediate reference point that's
worth making.  You have major water supplies available throughout
the African continent; what's been lacking is the ability to
facilitate the kind of projects needed to develop and take
advantage of those.
        Here [Fig. 2] is just a global depiction of river run-off
globally for all the major coastal watersheds combined that run
into different oceans and basins.  Here, you can see where I'm
indicating, the Congo Basin has a very large and significant
water flow out into the South Atlantic Ocean there.  So, it's a
major — maybe not the largest — but a major region of water
flow that's available; the vast majority of which is not being
used for any economic purposes.  The Congo River itself, if
people don't know, is the second largest river on the planet in
terms of discharge into the ocean.  It's kind of hard to compete
with the Amazon itself, but the Congo is the second globally
largest river; running at 1300 cubic kilometers per year of
outflow.  For a comparative reference for Americans, the
Mississippi is 500 [cubic km].  So this is over 2.5 times the
size of the Mississippi River.  The Nile River, another major
river in Africa, that obviously supports a very large population
and development, is more in the range of 80-90 cubic km per year.
So, we're talking about an order of magnitude plus larger than
the Nile River.

Here [Fig. 3] we have a quick breakdown of the different water
basins in Africa.  This graphic is actually labelled in German,
so my German-speaking friends can read this just fine. But the
entire Congo River Basin, as I'm indicating here, so you can get
a sense of the size; all funneling down into the Congo River out
into the Atlantic again.  Then, just bordering it to the north
and to the west, is the Lake Chad Basin.  So this entire region,
all water deposited in here filters into Lake Chad itself.
Currently, this basin and the water in this basin, the water in
the Lake Chad system supports somewhere in the range of 30-40
million people.  Over the past 40-45 years, Lake Chad — in terms
of total surface area — is now only one-tenth of its former
size.  So, if you compare 1972 to today, it's one-tenth of the
size it was then.  There have also been issues of rainfall
decreasing in the past 20 years or so on the order of 15% to 20%.
        So, none of these figures are new or a surprise; this has
been known since our organization has been campaigning for the
development of this project.  But it is a very real and
developing crisis in the region, and it can be alleviated. Here's
a depiction [Fig. 4] of the actual change in the size of the
lake; it's rather dramatic.  The total outlying area here is the
1972 level; it had a low record in 1987, and it's recovered just
a little bit.  But it's still a tenth of its original, expected
size.
        So this rather brilliant, beautiful proposal is to create a
canal — again, that would not connect all the way down to the
headwaters of the Congo River itself; but it would feed off many
of the tributaries up in the highland regions and collect the
water through a series of dams and reservoirs and canals in that
region in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in the Central
African Republic.  You can see here an indication of the Congo
River Basin as a whole, and the catchment region, and this is the
canal that would be developed.  Once it captures the water in
that region, it could then be funneled into canals and existing
rivers crossing the Congo River divide into the Lake Chad Basin,
and then funneled directly into Lake Chad.  What is being
proposed here is something in the range of 50-100 cubic
kilometers per year for the diversion.  The original designs by
the Italian leaders who originally did the engineering studies on
this project, were looking at 100 cubic kilometers per year.
Again, that's something on the order of 8% of the total water
flow of the basin.
        It's also worth noting that this would also provide flood
control for the Congo Basin itself; so you could alleviate some
of the periodic flooding which itself can be very problematic
with the lack of infrastructure in the region.
        So, the original designs are looking on the order of 100
cubic kilometers a year; this new Memorandum of Understanding
threw out the figure of half of that — 50 cubic kilometers per
year.  Both of which are massive figures.  You're talking about
on the order of a Nile River of flow, created by man, refilling
Lake Chad over some number of years.  Again, just to help to get
a sense of some of these figures and what they mean, if you take
all of the western water projects in the United States:  the
Central Valley Project; the Franklin Roosevelt projects of the
'30s; the Pat Brown projects of the '60s; the projects to divert
from the Colorado River into various regions.  You combine all of
that, and you look at what is the total functional capacity of
all these projects; you're talking about a maximum of 20 cubic
kilometers per year.  So, this is already 2.5 if not 5 times
larger than all of California's water projects combined.
        You take China's beautiful brand new South Water North
project; they've completed two of the three routes for that
project; the so-called eastern route, and the so-called central
route.  Those combined are going to be transferring about 30
cubic kilometers a year.  When the western route is added on,
that'll be closer to 45.  But again, even the lower estimate of
the Lake Chad Transaqua diversion project is 50 — is larger than
the South Water North project in its entirety; and it could be
even twice that if the full extent is developed.
        Hydropower will be developed along this region to provide
much-needed electricity; and obviously the water will be used not
just for refilling the lake, but an entire development of this
region.  If the full design is developed in its entirety, you can
have a navigable canal that will be part of that; along with
which, you can have inland ports, new industrial development, all
kinds of economic activity along the canal itself.  The level of
land irrigation for farming that's being discussed — even with
the current proposal of 50 cubic km per year — is equivalent to
the entire California Central Valley.
        If you know what the California Central Valley means for
food production for the United States, this should tell you
something.  You're going to have a California Central Valley
potential of food production right in the central heart of
Africa.  So this is an amazing project that will not just benefit
the immediate nations touching the project; it will have
spreading effects throughout [Africa], and is typical of the type
of principle of development that is needed in this current
period.  You look for these large-scale actions that can benefit
all the partners involved.  China is making an investment;
they're going to benefit from the project by being able to
participate in its construction, but also getting new markets to
work with as these African nations are able to grow and develop.
All these African nations are going to get power, water, skilled
training to construct and operate these projects, the related
industry that can go along with these development corridors.
        This is exemplary of the type of programs that are needed
today.  I think it deserves a very high level of support and
praise for the potential of this thing becoming a reality. Again,
it should serve as a reference point for the level of discussion
needed for the United States.  Much could be said — we've
already taken up a fair amount of time with this, but the United
States' relation to Mexico; you have the entire NAWAPA design in
principle of managing the entire — and then potentials to add in
southern contributions from Mexico itself.  So, you have similar
ideas of joint development that can not only alleviate current
drought conditions that are ravaging California, the southwest
United States, and much of northern Mexico; you can actually
create a qualitatively higher level of ability to support
completely new levels of agriculture development.  You turn
entire territories that are now uninhabitable into potentially
some of the best land that you're going to want to get your hands
on.
        It's this future-oriented level of development on this
scale, rooted in these types of principles, that I think is only
reference point and the only standard that we should really be
holding ourselves to at this point.  So, you take, this is
exemplary; what we just discussed with the Kra Canal.  These are
just a few keystone projects that really signify a new era for
mankind, and define the level of discussion that we need to rise
to in the United States.

OGDEN:  So again, this is the paradigm which we wish to
inaugurate today.  This is something that the United States must
be a part of, when we talk about a vision of common destiny for
mankind; which was the way that Xi Jinping put it in his speech
at Davos.  When we talk about the mutual benefit among nations,
it's defining these sorts of principles of the future and
scientific challenges that can be overcome; and doing that
together among nations, which is the paradigm of the 21st
Century.  We cannot retreat from that.
        I think it's very clear, as President Trump said in his
inaugural address, the time for empty talk is over; now is the
hour of action.  True!  But the question is, what form will that
action take?  And according to what principle will that action be
conceived?  We go back to the Four Laws document of Lyndon
LaRouche.  The principle is very clear in that document; this is
not just a policy paper.  This is document which is formed around
the principle that makes mankind different from animals; that we
can master nature and improve it for the benefit of all mankind.
Increasing the productive powers of the labor force through new
technologies and new principles that are discovered; that's the
core principle of Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws document.  But I think
that's what defines this hour of action which must be taken.
        I'd like to put up on the screen right now the link to our
petition — which we are still circulating — this is
lpac.co/trumpsotu.  Again, this is a petition demanding that
Trump act on his words promising Glass-Steagall, which he said in
his campaign; and it must be a strict Glass-Steagall as LaRouche
has defined it.  This is between now and the State of the Union
address.  So again, if you haven't signed that petition, this is
still the active, leading campaign from LaRouche PAC here in the
United States.
        But let me let Michael say a little bit — if you wish to.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  I think what Ben indicated is that what are
possible today are platform-like projects; and that's sort of the
question for this new administration.  Are we going to take
actions which don't simply address the problems which we
currently face?  But as President Trump said, are we going to
move into the future?  That's not characterized by some linear
notions of time; that requires a physical leap in mankind's sense
of productivity and mankind himself as a species.  The kind of
projects that need to be taken up in the United States, being
here in Houston with Kesha Rogers, we had a chance to meet with
about 25 former rocket scientists from NASA.  Leading figures,
some of whom worked their entire careers in the manned space
program.  They are ready to move forward; they see the potential,
but I think what defines the Apollo-like project today is to
conquer the fusion energy program.  That's something mankind has
yet to do; we've clearly got a capability internationally with
robotics, and combined with the manned space program to begin to
really advance our abilities of exploration on the Moon and Mars.
        But the real question for mankind on Earth, and for mankind
throughout the Solar System, is going to be this fusion platform.
That's the kind of clear and distinct action that, if this
administration takes, we will certainly move into the future in
an un paralleled way.

        OGDEN:  We do see some references in this inaugural speech.
As President Trump said, we're standing on the verge of a new
millennium; and it's one in which we can unlock the mysteries of
space, free Earth from the miseries of disease, and harness the
energies, industries, and technologies of tomorrow.  Fusion power
as my example of what that could be.  But, it's not enough to say
those words; there has to be a clear pathway to achieve that, and
the clear intention from the leadership of the United States to
make that happen.  But it requires an entirely new paradigm of
thinking among the American people and among the nations of the
planet generally.
        We must maintain a sense of common destiny, a shared future
of common benefit; and I think if we take this as an Inauguration
Day, but in a much broader sense of the word.  Not just the
inauguration of a new President in the United States; but
potentially the inauguration of a new era of development for the
planet.  One which is already in motion; that paradigm is already
underway, but it's waiting for the United States to become an
active and willing participant in that new economic and strategic
paradigm.
        So, let me go back to the remarks that Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche made earlier today which I cited in the beginning. Helga
LaRouche was very clear; we must be focussed on our own
principles and our own objectives, and proceed as we have been
proceeding.  We are very clear in terms of the fact that yes, the
Bush and Obama era is over; a fresh breeze could be blowing
through.  A lot can change; this could potentially be the end of
business as usual, but more clarity is still needed.  And that
clarity can only come from the leadership exemplified by the
LaRouche Movement, defined and informed by clear scientific
principle.
        So, let's take these two great projects that we discussed
here today — the Kra Canal and the Transaqua project in Africa
— as paradigmatic of what the new era of development can be.
Let's make the decision that this is not just Day One of the
First 100 Days of new Presidency of the United States.  It's not
just Day One of a new administration, but let's make this Day
One, Inauguration Day, of a new era for development for mankind
as a whole.
        Thank you very much for joining us here today.  Please be
sure to watch the video of the Kra Canal project in full; the
link is available in the description.  And watch out for an
interview with Pakdee Tanapura that will be coming very soon. And
also hopefully, we will have more elaboration of the great and
optimistic vision that Ben laid out in terms of this potential to
develop the African continent as a whole.
        Thank you very much for joining us here today, and please
stay tuned.  We're in for, I think, a wild ride; and we have a
lot of work to do.  Sign up to our email list if you haven't yet;
subscribe to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; and stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.           




Det afgørende punkt er, at menneskehedens
fælles interesse er dens fremskridt.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
13. januar, 2017; Leder

Vores udsendelse i aften falder i tre dele. De tre dele er naturligvis indbyrdes forbundne, men første del er et klip fra et interview, som vores ven og kollega Jason Ross lavede med Ray McGovern, en CIA-veteran, der har været analytiker i 30 år, og som nu er medstifter af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Udsendelsens anden del er et klip fra en præsentation af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der var et gennembrud i Stockholm, Sverige, i går (11. jan.), for et publikum, der bl.a. bestod af et bredt udsnit af det internationale diplomatiske samfund.

Og det tredje indslag i aften forfølger vores igangværende understregning af en intensivering af forståelsen af Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske opdagelser; og det vil omfatte en gennemgang ved Rachel Brown af en artikel, som hr. LaRouche offentliggjorde for nogen tid siden, med titlen, »In Defense of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton« (http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_01-09/2017-02/pdf/32-42_4402.pdf) , som hun komplementerer med en gennemgang af noget af materialet fra hr. LaRouches opgradering og fordybelse af ideen om, ikke infrastruktur (i sig selv), men om økonomiske platforme. Disse tre dele vil udgøre vores udsendelse for i aften.

For at indlede vores første del, kan vi referere til et indslag på LaRouchePAC’s webside i dag. Titlen er, »The Foreign Power Corrupting US Politics Is Britain, Not Russia« (indholdet er dækket i Tom Gillesbergs indledning til Nyhedsorientering januar, læs: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17270)¸og det handler direkte om de efterretninger, som vi vil få klarhed over i aften. At de, som virkelig intervenerer i amerikansk politik, ikke er de russiske efterretningstjenester, men snarere direkte er britisk efterretningstjeneste. Det 35 sider lange – hvad man vel må kalde et falsk dossier – om Trumps angivelige forbindelser med Rusland, og som blev citeret af CNN tidligere på ugen i en nyhedshistorie; og som dernæst blev offentliggjort eller lækket af Buzzfeed. Det afsløres nu, at dette blev forfattet af en fremtrædende, angiveligt pensioneret MI-6-efterretningsmand ved navn Christopher Steele; han blev først hyret af operatører fra det Republikanske Parti, der var modstandere af Trump i primærvalgene, og som dernæst blev hyret af Hillary Clintons kampagne for at udføre politisk kontra-research om Donald Trump. Det skulle bruges, ikke som en efterretningsfil, men til at tilsværte Trump under valget. Så dette er slet ikke en efterretningsrapport, som den blev præsenteret for at være af visse amerikanske medier, der lækkede den; men den var snarere blot en politisk misinformationsfil, der, som vi ser, kommer direkte fra britiske efterretningsoperatører. Nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump brugte igen her til morgen twitter til at udfordre dette. Han sagde: »Det viser sig nu, at de falske anklager imod mig blev sammensat af mine politiske modstandere og en mislykket spion, der er bange for at blive sagsøgt. Totalt fabrikerede fakta fra foragtelige politiske operatører, både Demokrater og Republikanere. Falske nyheder. Rusland siger, at der intet findes; det er sandsynligvis udgivet af ’efterretningstjenester’, vel vidende, at der intet bevis findes, og aldrig vil findes.«

Det, der står klart, er, at efterretningssamfundet har erklæret krig mod USA’s nyvalgte præsident, der vil blive indsat om under en uge fra i dag. Dette er en situation uden fortilfælde; og briternes rolle er klar, som det ses af denne mand, Christopher Steele. Som jeg sagde, så, på trods af den narrativ, at det skulle være russerne, der kører en eller anden enorm indflydelses-kampagne for at forsøge at intervenere i og influere de amerikanske valg, så begynder det at se ud som om, at den virkelig misdæder her, var briterne.

Med denne indledning vil jeg nu gerne vise et klip fra interviewet med Ray McGovern. Som sagt har han 30 år som CIA-veterananalytiker bag sig; han var i sin tid ekspert i Rusland eller Sovjetunionen, da han var dér. Han var ansvarlig for at udarbejde nationale efterretningsestimater, og en daglig brief til præsidenten. Efter sin tid i CIA blev han medstifter af en organisation ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, der nu har omkring 50 medlemmer, pensionerede efterretningseksperter, der for nylig udstedte en erklæring, der satte seriøse spørgsmålstegn ved den narrativ, der blev offentliggjort om russisk indflydelse og russisk hacking. Hele interviewet vil være tilgængeligt fra søndag (15. jan.), på LaRouchePAC websiden og LaRouchePAC YouTube kanalen; og vi har udlagt andre uddrag af dette interview hen over de seneste par dage. Det uddrag, vi bringer her, er begyndelsen af interviewet, der blev udført af Jason Ross, med hr. Ray McGovern.  

Jason Ross: Det er den 10. januar, 2017; jeg er Jason Ross fra LaRouchePAC. Vi er meget glade for i dag at have Ray McGovern med os i studiet, en veteran, der har været i CIA i årtier, og som i 2003 var medstifter af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Mange tak for at være med os i dag, Ray.

Ray McGovern: I er meget velkomne. Jeg er glad for at være her.

Ross: Lad os springe direkte til ét af de store spørgsmål, vi hører så meget om i medierne i øjeblikket – spørgsmålet om den angivelige russiske hacking af de amerikanske valg. Jeres gruppe, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, udstedte en pressemeddelelse den 12. december, der sagde, at alle beviser pegede på en læk snarere end et hack. Siden da er to rapporter kommet frem; en fra DHS (Department of Homeland Security) og en, der hovedsagligt er forfattet af ODNI, Director of National Intelligence, og som siger, at her er beviset. Vi ved, Rusland gjorde det. Det var tvivlsomt, hvor brugbar denne rapport var. Og for et par dage siden var du så medforfatter af en kronik i Baltimore Sun sammen med William Binney, hvor du gentog dit standpunkt; at alle beviser peger på, at dette er en læk snarere end et hack, og under alle omstændigheder er der ikke blevet fremlagt nogen beviser for, at det skulle være et hack. Hvorfor har du dette standpunkt?

McGovern: Først må jeg sige noget om Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Vi oprettede vores organisation, da vi så, at vore kolleger – de kolleger, vi havde arbejdet sammen med – havde ladet sig forlede til at skabe, til at fabrikere efterretninger med det overlagte formål at franarre vore valgte repræsentanter deres forfatningsmæssige, særlige rettigheder til at erklære eller på anden vis bemyndige krig. Det var før Irak; og det kan ikke blive værre.

Bush, Cheney og de andre sagde alle sammen, »Åh, det var en frygtelig fejltagelse.« Det var ikke nogen fejltagelse; det var slet og ret bedrag. Da vi så dette finde sted, dannede vi en lille gruppe – vi var fem til at begynde med – og vi begyndte at gå offentligt. Vi udgav tre memoranda før krigen, hvor vi advarede præsidenten. Vores første memorandum blev udgivet samme dag, som Colin Powell (udenrigsminister 2001 – 2005) holdt sin tale – den 5. februar, 2003 – og vi gav ham et C- for indhold. Og vi advarede præsidenten (George W. Bush), »Efterretningerne bliver manipuleret, og de bør virkelig udvide kredsen af Deres rådgivere«, sagde vi mod slutningen, »til at omfatte andre end dem, der tydeligvis er opsat på at få en krig, for hvilken vi ikke kan se, der skulle være nogen tvingende grund, og de utilsigtede konsekvenserne af hvilken sandsynligvis vil blive katastrofale.« Den kendsgerning, at vi havde ret, fryder os ikke; der var et par andre personer, der sagde det samme, men der var ingen, der kom igennem til de etablerede medier.

Hvis vi spoler lidt frem, så ser vi, at de daværende NSA-folk ikke alene var rystede over, hvor mange penge, der blev smidt ind i programmer, som de vidste, aldrig ville virke; men de var også oprørte over et billigere program, som de selv havde udarbejdet – som blot kostede $330 mio. at indføre. Det andet program, som general Hayden støttede, kostede $3 mia. med et ’b’; så der var ingen sammenligning. Bortset fra, at det ene ikke fungerede; det gjorde dette her. Grunde til, at jeg nævner dette, er, at dette havde masser af beviser for, hvad der ville ske under 11. september; det lå i det. De gik tilbage og så efter; de lukkede dette hovedprogram ned, og da Tom Drake, som stadig var ansat der, gik ind og så efter, så fandt han masser af beviser, der ville have – hvis det var blevet omdelt – forhindret 11. september. Så man var dobbelt oprørt, og Bill Binney havde været teknisk direktør i NSA før han trådte af kort tid efter 11. september. Han tilsluttede sig så os, som så mange andre vidunderlige folk har gjort; og da dette kom på nettet online, dette her med den russiske hacking, så var det mest naturlige for mig at sige, »Hej, Bill. Vi har brug for et memo fra dig; vi har brug for, at du laver et udkast. For du designede de fleste af disse systemer, og du ved, hvad Ed Snowden har afsløret. Disse billeder? De ser virkelig interessante ud for os, men vi har brug for nogen, der kan gennemgå dem for os.« Så sagde han, »Helt i orden«. Så gav han os et udkast, og det, vi typisk gør, er, at vi cirkulerer det blandt de fem, seks eller syv personer, der har særlig interesse i det, eller særlig erfaring; og mellem os fandt vi ud af det rigtige. Vi var én af de første, der kom ud af starthullerne og sagde, »Jo, dette er en spand (lort)! Hvorfor? Af tekniske grunde.« Der var masser af andre grunde, men nogle folk – til deres ære, mener jeg – de er teknisk orienteret, og de vil vide, »Er dette muligt? Kunne russerne have gjort dette?« Svaret er, »Ja, men NSA ville have vidst besked med det.«

Det er chokerende, Jason, det er chokerende. Men NSA sporer alle e-mails på denne planet. Hvis disse går til udlandet, så har de samarbejdende tjenester og regeringer. Ikke blot seks, men de har 13 af dem. Hvis de går igennem USA, så får de dem; hvis de kommer udefra, får de dem alle. Og de kan spore dem; de har disse her små sporingsmekanismer forskellige steder i netværket. Så de ved, hvor hver eneste e-mail kommer fra, og hvor den ender.

Føj hertil den jernovervågning de har af den ecuadorianske ambassade i London, hvor Julian Assange er; og jeg er sikker på, at de overvåger hans kolleger også, uanset, hvor de er. Lad os nu sige, de russiske hack, og de fik det frem til Julian, og til en af hans medarbejdere. »OK, russere er virkelig dårlige mennesker«, siger folk; »Vis os meddelelserne.« »Åh, det kan vi ikke; vi har ikke meddelelserne. Men vi kigger på det.« De fik så præsidenten til, før han tog på ferie på Hawaii, at pålægge sanktioner, baseret på disse flygtige beviser, som de ikke kan vise os. Disse memoer – min første reaktion var at le ad dem, men det er meget sørgeligt at se, hvad efterretningssamfundet er blevet til; meget, meget sørgeligt. For dette er et vigtigt spørgsmål.

Hvad gjorde præsidenten så? Han slog ned på sanktioner; han smed 35 diplomater ud. Alt sammen ud fra hvis udsagn? John Brennans. Hvordan fik så New York Times al denne information? John Brennan. Det ved vi, fordi Wall Street Journal blev lidt sur over det, og de siger, »Ja, det er John Brennan, der taler med de andre fyre; han taler ikke med Wall Street Journal.« Hvad har vi så? Vi har en præsident, der tager en chance på lemfældigt grundlag og forårsager en endnu større fare, mere aggressiv kritik, flere spændinger i vore relationer med Rusland. På baggrund af hvad? Lad mig sige det sådan; jeg vil måske sige det sådan: Jeg sad og så på nogle YouTube-klip; og jeg faldt over et af Christiane Amanpour, der sendte fra London. Hun er i færd med at interviewe Lukyanov, en af de russiske guruer. Hun siger, »Hr. Lukyanov [imiterer Amanpours stemme] De siger, at der absolut ingen beviser er, ingen, siger De. Jamen, når der ikke findes beviser, hvorfor har USA’s præsident så smidt sanktioner på Rusland?«

Ross: Den er god.

McGovern: Jeg husker, at jeg fik stillet det samme spørgsmål omkring masseødelæggelsesvåben. [Imiterer igen Amanpours stemme] »Hr. McGovern, hvis De siger, at der ikke findes beviser for masseødelæggelsesvåben, hvorfor startede Bush og Cheney så en krig mod Irak?« Tja, svaret er det samme, det samme! Det er virkelig et dårligt flashback, for det, de må gøre, er at komme frem med beviserne. Det er min stærke opfattelse, at det vil de ikke gøre; ikke pga. kilder og metoder, men fordi, der ikke findes nogen.

(Engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet):                       

The Crucial Point Is that Our Common Interest As Mankind Is Man's Progress

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast January 13, 2017

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it's January 13, 2017.  My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our regular
Friday evening webcast from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the
studio today by Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC Science Team;
and via video by two members of our LaRouche PAC Policy Committee
— Michael Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California; and
Rachel Brown, joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
        We have a three-part show for you today.  The three segments
will obviously be interrelated, but they will feature first a
clip from a feature interview that our friend and colleague Jason
Ross did with Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA professional analyst
for 30 years, and now the co-founder of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.  We have a second segment which
features a clip from a breakthrough presentation that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche made in Stockholm, Sweden just yesterday to an
audience comprised of a large cross section of the international
diplomatic community.  And then a third segment tonight which
pursues our ongoing emphasis on deepening the understanding of
Lyndon LaRouche's economic discoveries; and that will include a
review by Rachel Brown of a paper that Mr. LaRouche published a
while ago, called "In Defense of Treasury Secretary Alexander
Hamilton", complemented by a review of some of the material from
the last few years of Mr. LaRouche's upgrading and deepening of
the idea of not infrastructure, but economic platforms.  So, that
will be our three part show from this evening.
        To begin our first part, I think that we can refer to an
item that's posted on the LaRouche PAC website today.  The title
of that is, "The Foreign Power Corrupting US Politics Is Britain,
Not Russia"; and this goes directly to the intelligence that
we're getting clarity on today.  That the ones who are in fact
interfering in US politics, are not the Russian intelligence
services, but rather, directly, British intelligence.  The
35-page — I guess you could call it dodgy dossier — on Trump's
supposed connections with Russia that was cited by CNN earlier
this week in a news story; and then published or leaked by
Buzzfeed.  This is now being exposed as being authored by a
prominent supposedly-retired MI-6 officer, a man named
Christopher Steele; who was hired first by Republican Party
operatives who were opposing Donald Trump in the primaries, and
then was rehired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to do political
opposition research on Donald Trump.  To be used not as an
intelligence brief, but to politically smear Trump in the
election.  So again, this is not an intelligence report at all,
as it was represented by certain US media outlets that leaked it;
but rather merely a political disinformation brief, coming
directly from, as we see, British intelligence operatives.
President-elect Donald Trump took to twitter again this morning
to call this out.  He said, "It now turns out that the phony
allegations against me were put together by my political
opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued.  Totally made-up
facts by sleaze-bag political operatives, both Democrats and
Republicans.  Fake news.  Russia says nothing exists; probably
released by 'intelligence', even knowing there is no proof and
never will be."
        What is clear is that the intelligence community has
declared war on the President-elect of the United States, who is
due to be inaugurated in less than one week from the present
moment.  This is an unprecedented situation; and the role of the
British in this is clear, as can be seen by the role of this
character Christopher Steele.  As I said, despite the narrative
that the Russians were running some huge influence campaign to
try to interfere and influence the American election, it's
beginning to look like the real culprit here was the British.
        With that said as a matter of introduction, I'd like to play
a clip of this interview that we did with Ray McGovern.  As I
said, he's a 30-year veteran analyst with the CIA; he was a
Russia or Soviet Union specialist at the time he was there.  He's
responsible for preparing national intelligence estimates and the
Presidential daily brief.  Now, since his time at the CIA, he has
become the co-founder of an organization called the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which now has about 50
members, retired intelligence specialists who recently put out a
statement seriously calling into question the narrative being put
out about Russian influence and Russian hacking.  The full
interview will be available beginning on Sunday on the LaRouche
PAC website and the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; and we have
released other excerpts of this interview over the past few days.
This excerpt you're about to see is the very beginning of the
interview, which was conducted by Jason Ross, with Mr. Ray
McGovern.

        JASON ROSS:  Hi!  Thanks for joining us.  It's January 10,
2017; I'm Jason Ross here at LaRouche PAC.  We are very happy to
have in the studio today Ray McGovern, multi-decade veteran of
the CIA and the co-founder in 2003 of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.  Thanks very much for coming today,
Ray.

        RAY McGOVERN:  You're most welcome; I'm glad to be with you.

        ROSS:  So, let's jump right into one of the big issues that
we're hearing about so much in the media today — the issue of
purported Russian hacking of the US elections.  Now your group,
the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity released a
press statement on December 12th, saying that all evidence
pointed towards a leak rather than a hack.  Since then, two
reports have come out; one from the DHS and one primarily
authored by the ODNI, the Director of National Intelligence,
saying here's the proof.  We know Russia did it.  The report was
of questionable usefulness. Then just a few days ago, you
co-authored an op-ed in the {Baltimore Sun} with William Binney,
where you restated your position; that all evidence points toward
this being leak rather than a hack, and in any case, evidence of
a hack is not been presented.  Why do you take that position?

        McGOVERN:  Well, I need to tell you something about Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity first.  We established
ourselves when we saw that our colleagues — the colleagues with
whom we had worked — had let themselves be suborned into
creating, into fabricating intelligence for the express purpose
of deceiving our elected representatives out of their
Constitutional prerogatives to declare or otherwise authorize
war.  That was before Iraq; and that's as bad as it gets.
        Bush, Cheney, and the others all said, "Oh, it was a
terrible mistake."  It was not a mistake; it was out and out
fraud.  When we saw that happening, we formed a little group —
there were five of us in the beginning — and we started
publishing.  We published three memoranda before the war, warning
the President.  Our first one was on the day of Colin Powell's
speech — the 5th of February, 2003 — and we gave him a C- for
content.  And we warned the President, "The intelligence is being
manipulated and you really should widen the circle of your
advisors," we said at the end, "beyond those who are clearly bent
on a war for which we see no compelling reason, and from which,
we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be
catastrophic."  We take no delight in the fact that we happened
to be right on that; there were a couple of other people saying
that, but nobody got into the mainstream media.
        So, if you fast forward now, you see that the NSA people who
were in place at the time, not only were appalled at how much
money was being thrown at programs that they knew would never
work; but were outraged when they found out that a cheaper
program that they devised themselves — which only cost $330
million to emplace.  The other one that General Hayden went for,
cost $3 billion with a "b"; so no comparison.  Except that one
didn't work; this one did.  The reason I mention that, is this
had plenty of evidence what was going to happen in 9/11; it was
in there.  They went back and they looked; they closed that main
program down, and when Tom Drake, who was still employed there,
went in and looked, he found plenty of evidence that would have
— had it been shared — prevented 9/11.  So, double outrage
here, and Bill Binney had been the technical director at NSA
before he left shortly after 9/11.  So, he joined us, like so
many other wonderful people have; and when this went viral, this
business about Russian hacking, it was the most natural thing for
me to do to say, "Hey, Bill.  We need a memo from you; we need
you to do a draft.  Because you know, you designed most of these
systems, and you know what Ed Snowden has revealed.  Those
slides?  They look really interesting to us, but we need somebody
to take us through them."  So, he said, "Sure."  So, he gave us a
draft, and what we typically do is, we circulate it around the
five or six or seven people who have special interests in that,
or special experience; and we got it right together.  We were one
of the first ones off the block saying "Yeah, this is a crock!
Why?  For technical reasons."  There were plenty of other
reasons, but some people — and I think it's to their credit —
they're technically oriented, and they want to know, "Is this
possible?  Could the Russians have done this?"  Well, the answer
is "Yes, but NSA would know about it."
        Now, it boggles the mind, Jason, it boggles the mind.  But
NSA traces {all emails on this planet}.  If they go abroad, they
have cooperating agencies and cooperating governments.  Not only
six, they have about 13 of them.  If they go through the United
States, they get them; if they come from outside, they get them
all.  And they can trace them; they have these little trace
mechanisms at various points in the network.  So, they know where
each and every email originates and where it ends up.
        Now, add to that the ironclad coverage they have of the
Ecuadoran embassy in London, where Julian Assange is; and I'm
sure that they monitor his colleagues as well wherever they
happen to be.  So, let's say the Russians hack, and they got it
to Julian, they got it to one of his associates.  "Well, OK,
Russians are really bad people," people say; "Show us the
messages."  "Oh, we can't; we don't have the messages.  But we'll
look at it."  Now, they got the President, before he went on
vacation to Hawaii, to impose sanctions based on this elusive
evidence that they can't show us.  These memos — my first
reaction was to laugh at them, but this a very sad thing to see
what the intelligence community has become; very, very sad.
Because this is an important issue.
        So, what did the President do?  He slapped on sanctions;
threw out 35 diplomats.  All on whose say-so?  John Brennan's.
Now, how did the {New York Times} get all this information?  John
Brennan.  We know that because the {Wall Street Journal} was a
little ticked off about it, and they said, "Yeah, it's Brennan
that's talking to these other guys; he's not talking to the {Wall
Street Journal}."  So, what do we have here?  We have the
President going out on a limb, causing even more danger, more
flak, more tensions in our relationship with Russia.  On the
basis of what?  Well, let me just say this; maybe I'll put it
this way:  I was looking at some YouTube clips; and I happened
upon one of Christiane Amanpour, broadcasting from London.  She's
interviewing Lukyanov, one of the Russian gurus.  She says, "Mr.
Lukyanov, [imitating Amanpour’s voice] you say there's {zero}
evidence, you say {zero}.  Well, if there's zero evidence, why is
it that the President of the United States has slapped sanctions
on Russia?"
        ROSS:  That's good.

        McGOVERN:  I remember being asked that question about
weapons of mass destruction.  [Again imitating Amanpour’s voice]
"Mr. McGovern, if you say there's no evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, why did Bush and Cheney start a war on Iraq?"  Well,
same answer; same answer!  It's a really bad flashback, because
what they need to do, is come up with the evidence.  My strong
view is that they're not going to do that; not because of sources
and methods, but because there isn't any.

        OGDEN:  Well, as I said, that's part of a much longer
interview, and part of it has already been posted on YouTube
under the title "Sources and Methods Versus National Interests";
and you can expect the full interview to be posted and available
coming Sunday, the day after tomorrow.
        But I would like to just use that to invite the other
members of the broadcast here today to just open up a bit of a
discussion on this subject.
        MICHAEL STEGER: In all of this discussion, apparently some
people are not pulling back over so-called "Trump's ties to
Russia." What this whole situation now makes clear, is that the
entire attack on the Trump campaign and the President-elect's
policy towards Russia, has been the target explicitly of British
Intelligence the entire time. The report that was released, this
35-page dodgy dossier, starts in June once Trump consolidates the
nomination, essentially, for the Republican Party, and doesn't
stop until mid-December of this just past year. And so, it's
clear that British Intelligence were the ones pushing this the
entire time. It's clear that Christopher Steele was close friends
with now-head of MI-6, Alex Younger. The British media are
panicking. A former Secretary General of the NATO, a British
Lord, came out and said this is a total panic. We could be
sleepwalking into a complete catastrophe.
        It's clear the British had an explicit intent to manipulate
the U.S. elections, to fabricate false intelligence on a major
candidate, to drum up a conspiracy — so-called "hacking" by the
Russians to disrupt U.S. foreign policy and U.S. interests —
against the welfare of the American people. To those who know
history, and know Mr. LaRouche's role in the last 40-50 years of
American politics, this role of British Intelligence, includes
people who represented British outlooks, like Henry Kissinger, a
public advocate of British foreign policy against the American
outlook; the British hand, not just in an attempt to destroy and
manipulate the Presidential election and alter U.S. foreign
policy changes, but the direct role of the British in support of
the terrorists in Syria, via Saudi Arabia, and other nations; the
direct role of the British, such as David Cameron, who just
high-tailed it out of Downing Street and the British Parliament,
because he was directly exposed in a fraudulent-led campaign
against Libya; the false intelligence of Tony Blair on the Iraq
war, which Ray McGovern was just referring to.
        Besides that, you've got then the international drug trade,
which we documented beginning in the 1970s, with {Dope, Inc.},
and the international drug trade run by Her Majesty, Queen
Elizabeth.  Who, by the way, could be on her death-bed; and that
wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
        You've got an international drug trade, and international
war program, international terrorism, and, of course, the
Wall-Street/London nexus of international finance, which has run
this absolute cult of financial policy for decades, for
centuries, in essence. This is the same institution which was
responsible for the assassination of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham
Lincoln, William McKinley, the attempted assassination of FDR,
the backing of Hitler.  By the way, I think the Russian Embassy
in London made it clear that it was the Brits, such as the
Cliveden set, who were responsible for backing Hitler. That
they're coming out now and targeting the potential policy changes
in the United States, one towards Russia, potentially towards
China — to end the threat of nuclear world war.
        They're also attempting to disrupt what could be a very
important — as I think we'll see from Helga Zepp LaRouche's clip
— relationship between the U.S., China, and Russia, on an
economic policy; and, as we know it to be very important that
we'll get to later as well, a fundamental change in U.S.
financial policy. This British nexus is targeting the Trump
campaign and targeting this entire change in U.S. policy. This is
British imperial tactics. This is what they do; they are at the
source of it. If there's going to be a Congressional
investigation of any foreign nations' or foreign agents'
involvement to manipulate U.S. democracy, I think first and
foremost, it has to be the United Kingdom.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY: The fact that on page 15 of these 35 pages,
it attacks LaRouche by name, saying that there were Trump
factions travelling to meet with Putin factions, as part of this
alliance in the summer of 2016. They cite LaRouche directly in
this report has having representatives that went to Russia as
part of this discussion; which did not happen. As this was
authored by the British, this is just the British Empire freaked
out about LaRouche's policies taking over, and the potential of a
United States/Russia/China alliance, especially the Russia/U.S.
cooperation.
        I think it is notable that if you have the United States,
Russia, and China working together, there's no problem on the
planet that can't be solved. That's an unstoppable alliance. I
think the British are desperate, and that's what we're seeing.

        OGDEN: That's exactly what Helga LaRouche presented at this
conference that happened in Stockholm, Sweden just yesterday.
This was an extraordinary conference, and I'm going to play a
clip of her opening speech to you right now. This was a
standing-room-only capacity audience that included 17 diplomats,
a cross-section of the entire planet, including seven
ambassadors. She delivers her analysis of what we've really seen
behind this showdown, as we've been discussing, of the British
and American intelligence establishment vs. the incoming
President-elect. She highlights, towards the end of these
excerpted remarks — and again, this is only an excerpt, in bits
and pieces — the whole speech contains a lot more substance in
terms of what you just said, Rachel.
        The motivation behind ending this confrontational policy
towards Russia and towards China, is that if Russia, China, and
the United States were to join, in a grand alliance, around what
is now a concrete policy initiative coming out of China — the
One Belt, One Road, or New Silk Road project — to bring
development to the interior of not only Eurasia, but also Africa
and the North and South America landmass, and were to reorganize
our relations around what's now being called the "win-win"
paradigm among nations — then everything is possible. She
explores a lot of these questions in the {full} speech, which
will be available in video form in just a few hours.
        In what you're about to hear, she touches on what must be
done, both strategically and economically, to shape the policy of
this incoming new Presidency. I apologize for the quality of the
audio. It was not the best audio recording, but again, in just a
few hours, we will have the full video that will be available.
This is just a taste:

        HELGA ZEPP LAROUCHE (Audio excerpt): … Let me start with
the Trump election. Now, I have in my whole political life, which
is now becoming quite long, several decades  —  I have never in
my whole political life, seen such hysteria on the side of the
neo-cons, on the side of the mainstream politicians, on the side
of the liberal media, as concerning Trump…. But what was caused
Trump, is that he simply promised end the political paradigm
which was the basis of eight years of George W. Bush and eight
years of Barack Obama, which was a direct continuation of the
Bush-Cheney policy.
        And it was a good thing, because it was very clear that if
Hillary Clinton would have won the election in the United States,
that all the policies she was pursuing, including an no-fly zone
over Syria, and an extremely bellicose policy towards Russia and
China, would have meant that we would have been on the direct
course to World War III.
        The fact that Hillary did not win the election was
{extremely} important for the maintenance of world peace. And I
think that of all the promises that Trump made so far, the fact
that he said … that he will normalize the relationship between
the United States and Russia, is, in my view {the most important
step}. Because if the relationship between the United States and
Russia is decent, and is based on trust and cooperation, I think
there is a basis to solve all other problems in the world. And if
that relationship would be in an adversary condition, world peace
is in extreme danger.
        So from my standpoint, there is reason to believe that this
will happen. The Russian reaction has been very moderate, but
optimistic that this may happen. If you look at the appointments,
you have several cabinet members and other people in other high
posts who are also for improving the relationship with Russia,
such as Tillerson who is supposed to become Secretary of State;
General Flynn, who is a conservative military man but also for
normalization with Russia, and many others, so I think this is a
good sign.
        Now, if you look at the reaction of the neo-con/neo-liberal
faction on both sides of the Atlantic to this election of Trump,
you can only describe it as {completely} hysterical. The
{Washington Post} today has an article "How to Remove Trump from
Office," calling him a liar, just every derogative you can
possibly imagine, just on and on unbelievable….
        And then naturally, you have the reports by the different
U.S. intelligence services, Clapper, Brennan, Comey from the FBI.
They all put out the fact that that it was Russian hacking of the
emails of the DNC and Podesta which would have stolen the
election, because they would have shifted the view of the
Americans to vote for Trump.
        Now, I think this is ridiculous. Not only have many cyber
experts, in Europe but also in the United States, already said
that all the signs are that it was not a hacking but an insider
leak giving this information out, which is more and more likely,
and there's absolutely {zero} proof that it was Russian hacking.
Naturally, what is being covered up with this story is what was
the "hacking" about? It was "hacking" of emails that proved that
Hillary Clinton manipulated the election against Bernie Sanders!
That is not being talked about any more….
        The real narrative is that it was the injustice of the
neoliberal system of globalization which has violated the
interests of the majority of the people, especially in the "rust
belt." Hillary Clinton in the election campaign was so arrogant
that she didn't even go to Ohio or some of the other states which
were formerly industrialized. You have to see that the United
States, contrary to what mostly is reported in the Western media
in Europe, is in a state of economic collapse….
        [T]here is one indicator which shows if a society is doing
good or bad, and that is if the life-expectancy increases or
shrinks. In the United States it's shrinking for the first time
for both men and women. In the period of 16 years of Bush-Cheney
and Obama, which you can take as one package, the suicide rate
has quadrupled in all age brackets; the reasons being alcoholism,
drug addiction, hopelessness, depression because of unemployment.
There are about 94 million Americans who are of working age who
are not even counted in the statistics, because they have given
up all hope of ever finding a job again. If you have recently
travelled in the United States, the United States is really in a
terrible condition; the infrastructure is in a horrible
condition, and people are just not happy.
        So the vote, therefore, the narrative, was that the reason
why Hillary was voted out because she was being perceived as the
direct continuation of these 16 years, and so the attempt to
change that narrative by saying it was "Russian hacking" is
pretty obvious….
        I cannot tell you what this Trump administration is going to
be. I think I mentioned the one point, I'm pretty confident
about…. But there are other interesting elements, for example:
Trump had promised in the election campaign to invest $1 trillion
into the renewal of the infrastructure in the United States. That
is very good, as I said, because the United States urgently needs
repair. It will, however, only function if at the same time,
another promise by Trump, namely, what he promised in October in
North Carolina, that he would implement the 21st Century
Glass-Steagall Act, will also be carried out, because the
trans-Atlantic financial system remains on the verge of
bankruptcy. You could have a repetition of the 2008 financial
crash at any moment; and {only} if you have a Glass-Steagall law
in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, what Roosevelt did in
1933 by separation of the banks, by getting rid of the criminal
element of the banking system, and then replacing it by a credit
policy in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, can you remedy
this situation. Otherwise, you cannot finance $1 trillion in
infrastructure….

        OGDEN:  Now, Helga continues from there to give a very
inspiring overview of the development projects from the last
three years that have been sparked by the initiative from China
on the One Belt, One Road or the New Silk Road initiative.  But
she also gives an incredible history of the founding of the
Schiller Institute and the role and she and Lyndon LaRouche have
played over the last 30-40 years in the fight for a new, just,
international economic and strategic order.  A fight which is now
coming to a certain point of culmination at least
internationally; but the urgency of winning this fight here in
the United States is something that she continued to emphasize,
and it's exactly what she ended with there in that excerpt.
        Right now, we must have the most urgent mobilization; there
are no excuses for delay from {any} elected representative for an
immediate restoration of Glass-Steagall.  We have now launched
and are in the midst of a national mobilization; we've talked
about this on previous broadcasts.  But as you can see on the
screen right now, we're circulating a petition which is
collecting signatures; it needs to more rapidly accrue
signatures.  But it's accessible at lpac.co/trumpsotu; and again,
this is a petition which originated from some citizen-activists
in Ohio, who are associated with the "Our Revolution" movement,
people who had been associated with the Bernie Sanders campaign
during the primaries.  But who have now taken it upon themselves
to rally behind the initiative that LaRouche PAC has led; that we
must have Glass-Steagall, and we must hold Trump to his word,
when he called for a 21st Century Glass-Steagall at that speech
in Charlotte, North Carolina.  As I said, this has bipartisan
support, and there are no excuses for delay.  The only way this
is going to happen, is if citizens across the United States
decide to participate in this LaRouche PAC campaign and sign your
name onto this petition: lpac.co/trumpsotu — State of the Union.
        Now, we did have a day of action in Washington this week.
The Congress is now officially back in session; they've been
sworn in and business is underway.  There was participation from
many states up and down the East Coast in person.
Representatives coming in from Virginia, from Maryland, from
Pennsylvania, from Connecticut, from New Jersey, from New York.
But there was also a lot of other participation from across the
country in terms of pressure being put on representatives to meet
with members of the LaRouche PAC.  There was a unique
representative from the Manhattan Project, Mr. John Sigerson,
who's the director of the Schiller Institute Chorus in New York
City; who's been participating in some of the recent choral
activities there, including the memorial at the Bayonne, New
Jersey 9/11 Teardrop Memorial, where members of the Schiller
Institute Chorus were joined by the PDNY Honor Guard and the
Honor Guard from Bayonne, New Jersey to honor the tragic loss of
the Alexandrov Choral Ensemble from Russia.  This is just one
example of the kind of power that the music program from the
Manhattan Project, from New York City, has been able to play to
shape the political dialogue in the United States and also across
countries.  In this case, the potential for a far-improved
relationship between the United States and Russia.  So again,
this was a day of action in Washington, DC, but the mobilization
has to continue.  We are in a countdown; it's now a 7-day
countdown until the inauguration.  Then shortly after that, we
will have the State of the Union; and again, this petition is to
insist that Trump put a premium on highlighting the necessity for
a return to the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act during that State
of the Union.  This has to be one of the number one agenda items
of the first 100 days.
        But, let's discuss a little bit more broadly what Helga
LaRouche brought up at the end of that discussion; that
Glass-Steagall is only the first step, and there's a much more
far-reaching and profound approach to a revolution in the
economic policy of the United States that's necessary and which
has been framed by Mr. LaRouche.

        STEGER:  Well Matt, I think it's important to start with how
Mr. LaRouche initially responded immediately after the Trump
election.  His response was that this was global; and I think
that really does capture this.  The political process that is
shaping the United States in contradiction to this British
intelligence operation to destroy the United States, is really a
global phenomenon; and I'll get to that in a second.  But what
Mrs. LaRouche then touched on in her speech is something that
most Americans are experiencing, but because of that British
intelligence operation, because of this mass-lie campaign that
the American people have been living under; the official lie, in
essence, Orwellian policy that even the Russian Foreign Ministry
now refers to, that Americans have been living in since 9/11.
This has kept them from identifying what is now physically
identified; that the actual quality of life is collapsing at such
rates that life expectancy is now beginning to collapse.
        We have officially, you might say, entered into a Dark Age;
a mini-Dark Age has begun in the United States.  Now, this can be
reversed.  But the level of drug addiction has more than tripled
under Obama's Presidency; the level of opiate addiction, the
abuse of drugs like marijuana has skyrocketed under an
Obama-supported legalization campaign.  Which is of course,
backed by the same drug cartels which are providing the financial
backing to the banking institutions.  This was Obama's program.
You've seen a massive level of homicides and crime and murder
rates escalating in severely impoverished areas, including
Obama's so-called "own neighborhood" of the South Side of
Chicago.  This level of breakdown has never been seen in the
history of the United States; and it is only characteristic of
societies which are beginning to utterly break down.  Long-term
survival is not even a question; what's at immediate risk for an
increasing majority of Americans is short-term survival.  That's
what you see when you have decreasing life expectancy rates,
increasing numbers of people are dying faster and faster; largely
from things like alcohol addiction, drug addiction, diseases
related to despair, suicide and so on.
        That's where Glass-Steagall comes in; and this is what
really has to be captured.  And why it's not simply
Glass-Steagall, but the full Four Laws.  I think Megan and Rachel
can say more, because we're currently working on a project to
make this clear.  But the role of fusion and the space program
really captivate the fourth law in what direction our country has
to take to reawaken a sense of optimism, a sense of development
within the American culture.  To break out, not just of disrepair
— breaking down of bridges, bad roads — we all know the bad
roads and highways, especially on the East Coast.  But that's not
what we have to emerge from.  Building better roads isn't
escaping from the clutches of a Dark Age; something greater has
to capture the real spirit of human identity and creativity.
        Now, this is why it's so important to identify this global
phenomenon; because the steps of the Four Laws:  Glass-Steagall
immediately; shut down this Wall Street banking cartel and
basically a drug operation.  The second is the public credit of a
national banking system, which Paul Gallagher elaborated last
night; we could say more on.  To consolidate, aggregate the US
debt that exists, as well as other financial resources towards
the most important projects of development for the country; the
most advanced levels of infrastructure, or the broader physical
platform of industry and production.  And of course most
importantly, the fusion and space program.
        This phenomenon globally is just somewhat breathtaking; and
Mrs. LaRouche touches on it directly.  The Transaqua project in
Africa is something that we've been promoting for decades; this
is something which begins to take the sub-Saharan area of Africa
from the great lakes near the eastern part of Africa towards West
Africa and Nigeria, up into the southern border of the Sahara
Desert.  It begins to look at how we use major infrastructure
projects of water transportation, the refilling of Lake Chad, and
the development of this central African area.  There's also a
major rail line, which is not initiated — it's been inaugurated;
it's now running from Ethiopia to the coastline of Djibouti.
This rail line is one of the key continental rail passages that
the Schiller Institute and {EIR} have been fighting for, for
decades; to begin to integrate the full potential of Africa's
people and its resources and its industrial capacities into an
integrated economic breakthrough.  A real shift in the
productivity and lifestyle and scientific potential of Africa.
Those things are now unfolding; these are coming from largely
Chinese investments, Chinese engineering companies are directly
onboard.
        The same is true from another project, and I think it's
worth just highlighting, because we have gotten reports recently
that it's practically shovel-ready.  This is Kra Canal.  All this
contention over the South China Sea that everyone's heard about;
and the Americans remain, I'm sure, still somewhat confused.
What's the big deal about a couple of islands in the South China
Sea?  As the President of the Philippines said, we're not going
to eliminate humanity over a couple of fishing spots in the South
China Sea.  The real question is the Kra Canal; this is something
explicitly that the British Empire has prevented by diktat, to
shut down.  Matt, you and others have been involved in video
production specifically on this project and the role of the
British to shut this down over centuries to eliminate this
project.  The Chinese have said that they are ready to begin the
development of the Kra Canal.  The Thai government, with a new
king, seems favorable; the military, the prime minister seem
favorable.  The question of Japan's collaboration is something
that goes back to the 1980s; with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche directly
involved in this project.  The people we worked with then, in
Thailand, are again promoting and advocating for its initial
construction today.
        So, these projects are transformative.  We've gone through
more on that; I'm not going to give the layout of these projects.
But there are major development orientations taking place that
are gripping mankind.  There was an offer today, apparently, in
the {Hindu Times} in India from a Chinese journalist, which said
"Will Donald Trump Participate in the Silk Road Conference in
China?"  I think that really is the potential which we've got
today.
        So, the Glass-Steagall fight, this question of the United
States deciding that we're going to build our nation again, we're
going to shut down this Wall Street racket and take on this kind
of potential; that's really what has to be ignited.  And there's
no reason Donald Trump should not take that up at the
inauguration and the State of the Union.

        BRINKLEY:  Right!  And on this question of the murder policy
of Obama, there's an attempt now to cover it up and make him the
cute President and Joe Biden getting an award.  No, this is
flat-out murder, and if this mass movement across the world is
properly educated, it won't be stopped.
        So, there was discussion recently around infrastructure, as
Helga brought up, from Trump.  It's still not to the level of
LaRouche's conception of infrastructure.  For example, here's
what Speaker Paul Ryan said about infrastructure:  "In the spring
budget, we believe we will be able to address the infrastructure
issue."  The chairman of the Republican study committee, Mark
Walker, says "I don't know that we've settled on $1 trillion.  If
it's $1 trillion in infrastructure, that is something we'd have
to say, 'There's a portion of this that we're not comfortable
with and come back to the table.'|"  And then Sam Graves, the
head of the Transportation Subcommittee, says "We just simply
can't afford it," adding that "It can't all be done through
public-private partnerships as the President-elect is talking
about."
        They're still looking at this as an issue.  LaRouche
developed this concept.  Helga LaRouche made the point that 2017
should be the year of the rejuvenation or flourishing of
LaRouche's ideas.  He wrote a paper in 2010 called, "What Your
Accountant Never Understood; the Secret Economy".  He goes
through a universal history of the greater concept of
infrastructure.  He starts with the question of transoceanic
travel; navigation across the oceans.  He says, "For example,
look back to the approximately hundred-centuries of the Earth's
last great glaciation.  While some part of the human population
had remained mired in the habits of life of some fixed,
relatively narrow regions free of glaciation, great transoceanic
maritime cultures were also developed.  The requirement of a
stellar mapping for navigation for the existence of maritime
cultures, gave us the stellar notion of the efficient existence
of a functional form of an ontologically-actual universe; as
echoed by such great residual artifacts as the Great Pyramid of
Giza, and by the physical science of spherics.  Now, into this
so-called Platonic long cycle, into the Pythagorean predecessors
of Plato."
        So, you have the concept of how to travel on an ocean.  How
do you navigate?  By the stars.  How do you map the stars?  On a
flat plane?  No, you find you have to use a spherical map; so the
beginning of this spherical foundation of a physical science of
the Universe was discovered.  This was applied to navigate the
oceans.  He says from there it goes on to the idea of inland
travel, not just oceanic, but inland via internal waterways.  He
says this you saw developed with Charlemagne first.  He says,
"Charlemagne's reforms served as a precedent for the development
and role of the great internal system of rivers and canals, which
provided the crucial steps toward modern European economy, and
the application of the same reform within our United States.
Those inland waterways prepared the leap toward the revolutionary
US trans-continental railway systems.  First, inside the United
States; and in turn, the trans-continental rail systems of
Eurasia."  So, this was John Quincy Adams uniting the country
with waterways and with the rail systems.  He was the first to
fully unite the United States as a single territory.  This was
followed by Bismarck in Germany and Mendeleyev in Russia.  That
was the next advancement.
        Then he says, "Now, the prospect of the combined effect of
magnetic levitation mass transport systems and rail, which will
connect the principal continents of the world, would render most
ocean transport of freight technologically obsolete; because the
modern successor of ordinary internal rail transport will have
rendered much of ocean freight technologically, and therefore
economically, obsolete."  We are starting to see the beginnings
of this with things like the North-South transport corridor from
India to Iran to Russia; which cuts off the maritime route by
making it 40% shorter.  There are also new rail lines developing
between China and Europe.  The first train of which, for example,
just went from Beijing to London, starting January 1, 2017; the
first time ever in history.  There are 39 various routes now
between China and Europe; inland rail following the route of the
old Silk Road, but with modern rail.  As LaRouche says, if you
have high-speed magnetic levitation rail, that would be even a
further advancement.
        Next, he says, "Changes such as those, illustrate a general
principle which will be expressed in certain nearby Solar System
locations.  Now, we're going to go to the next step, such as our
Moon and Mars, when they will have come to be considered later,
as within the bounds of our presently still-young, new century's
plausible instances of work and habitation.  Typical problems to
be overcome for the purpose of human transport and dwelling in
nearby solar space, and later beyond, must look to such future
developments already foreseeable for later in the present
century.  We should then recognize that the development of basic
economic infrastructure had always been a needed creation of what
is required as a habitable development of a synthetic, rather
than a presumably natural, environment for the enhancement or
even the possibility of human life and practice at some time in
the existence of our human species."
        So, he's bring up, one, this long-term conception; he says
later, three generations — 75 years — should be our orientation
for space.  We have the questions of habitation and transport as
fundamental challenges; and this is the idea of the next phase.
But in general, also this last question of synthetic versus
natural; that these various new modes of habitation and travel
were based off of new discoveries that created a whole new
platform of existence, of habitation, of travel, where mankind
could reach through these advances.  And those were all creations
of the human mind in the likeness of the Creator.  Infrastructure
is not just making a bridge or something to get from here to
there; it's the question of a new advancement, of a new principle
that is applied throughout your entire society.  So, it's not an
add-on to your economic policy as Paul Ryan was saying.  "We'll
get to that; we'll figure out how to fit it in the budget."  It's
the beginning of your notion of economy.

        MEGAN BEETS:  Yeah Rachel, I think what you just put forward
here from Mr. LaRouche's overview and what you were just saying,
it's a way of thinking that most Americans have forgotten about.
People have lost touch with the kind of big thinking about long
sweeps of human history, and I think that that way of thinking —
the idea that we can consider 50-100-year cycles of human
progress in general — flies in the face of the biggest British
Empire lie which has dominated for some time.  The idea that
human growth is bad; human progress is bad; population growth
destroys the Earth and it's bad.  We have to hold back
technological progress; we have to go backwards.  Instead of
towards nuclear power, we have to go backwards towards solar
power, wind power; and reduce our impact and our presence on the
Earth.  That lie is exactly what's being threatened with both the
rise of the New Paradigm being led from Eurasia and the
potentiality of Mr. LaRouche's ideas; which are really the most
advanced version of the American System ideas of Hamilton,
Franklin Roosevelt, and Lincoln, of putting the creative power
and really the responsibility of the creative human mind to
change nature.  To alter nature to better support human life;
alter the biosphere to higher levels of productivity, as we do by
improving agriculture, for example.
        I just think that what you're bringing up here really is the
crucial point; that our common interest as mankind is man's
progress.  That right now dictates that we can't accept anything
lower than a long-term dedication to the highest forms of
technological advance and growth; which is nuclear fusion power
and its companion, a space program.  The colonization of the Moon
and eventual colonization of Mars.  That would really be a
beautiful renaissance expression of the American people working
with the rest of the world towards the uplifting of humanity
toward our real, true potential.

        OGDEN:  Well, as I said,  we are going to continue the
discussion of the substance — this was, I think, crucial Rachel;
because it's exactly what you're saying.  This insight into the
real meaning of something which has become banalized —
infrastructure; that's the key to all of economic science.  If
humanity is going to make the shift into the next phase of our
global existence as a species, it's only going to be possible if
we have a flourishing of this kind of philosophical understanding
of the science behind real, true economics.  It's a critical
ingredient of the ability of humanity to move forward.  So, I
think we're going to continue this; and there are a lot of
interrelated works that Mr. LaRouche authored over the last
several years which explore this concept of the real meaning of
infrastructure, the idea of the economic platform, and the role
that Hamiltonian credit should play in facilitating all of that.
        So, that said, that's the crucial insight and understanding
that you need to fight with us right now for the necessary policy
revolution here in the United States.  This all revolves around
the initiation of Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws.  Michael
went through them, but it's Glass-Steagall, number one.  We need
to return to Hamiltonian national banking, number two.  We need
an initiation as Franklin Roosevelt did it, of Federal credit
using that Hamiltonian national banking system to raise the
productive powers of labor of the workforce as a whole.  And this
all has to be driven by a dedication to the breakthroughs in
science; most especially right fusion and space exploration.
        So, there are two things that you need to do before this
program ends tonight.  Number one, you need to immediately sign
the petition that's being circulated by LaRouche PAC.  Again, the
address is: lpac.co/trumpsotu — all one word — trumpsotu for
State of the Union.  If you've already signed this, then it's a
great opportunity for you to spread it to your entire network and
help us reach the goal.  We've set the goal of 10,000 signatures
on this petition.  We are increasing the number of signatures,
but it has to increase at a much more rapid rate.  It's a perfect
opportunity to help us increase the outreach of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee.  Then, number two; immediately
subscribe, if you haven't already, to the LaRouche PAC daily
email list.  For two reasons: 1. in the 7-day countdown between
now and the inauguration, you need to have the daily marching
orders and the daily updates.  This is a very fast moving
situation, as you can see from the intelligence situation that we
presented at the beginning of this show.  Then after that, in the
critical first days of the new Presidency, as things change very
rapidly, you need to have the insight that only LaRouche PAC can
uniquely provide you.  And then, another reason is, as we develop
more crucial and unique, exclusive content like what you got a
taste of here today, especially this interview with Ray McGovern,
the veteran CIA intelligence analyst and the co-founder of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, you will receive a
notice in your email inbox and this is material that you can't
afford to miss.  You really need to know as soon as we publish it
and as soon as we make it available.  So again, you can look for
the full interview that Jason Ross did with Ray McGovern to be
posted on the LaRouche PAC website and our YouTube channel on
Sunday, the day after tomorrow.  And you can also look forward to
the full speech that Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered at this very
important, breakthrough diplomatic seminar in Stockholm, Sweden.
        So, thank you very much for tuning in tonight.  I think this
was a successful broadcast, and I'd like to thank Megan, Rachel,
and Michael for joining me in the discussion.  Please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com and good night.
 




Gør 2017 til året for LaRouches ideer!
Ændr jeres opfattelse af, hvad der er muligt!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
6. januar, 2017; Leder.

Vi befinder os i en nedtællingsperiode; vi er i de sidste to uger, før overgangen til det nye præsidentskab. Om præcis to uger fra i dag er det indsættelsesdag, den 20. januar, og vi vil have en ny præsident i dette land. Som I ved, hvis I var med i går på Fireside Chat på LaRouchePAC’s hjemmeside, og hvis I har fået vore daglige og ugentlige e-mailopdateringer, så er vi engageret i en stor mobilisering. Det er vores ansvar, og jeres ansvar, at skabe dagsordenen for dette tiltrædende præsidentskab. Det må være vores holdning, at 2017 er året for den Nye Silkevej, året for det Nye Paradigme internationalt, året for en genoplivelse af Alexanders Hamiltons ideer, og for Lyndon LaRouches ideer. I USA betyder det, at Glass-Steagall omgående må vedtages; må sættes på dagsordenen; må underskrives og sættes i kraft som lov af den nye præsident. Dette vil ikke ske af sig selv; der er intet internt momentum, der vil gøre det muligt for dette at ske, mens vi læner os tilbage og kigger på. Som det hele tiden har været tilfældet, så vil dette kun ske på baggrund af en ekstraordinær mobilisering fra aktivisters side, i hele USA. Et meget vigtigt initiativ er blevet taget af en gruppe aktivister fra det nordlige Ohio; og LaRouchePAC vil udgive et åbent brev eller en pamflet, som skal forstærke og opmuntre mobiliseringen omkring dette initiativ.

Jeg vil indlede vores udsendelse med at læse LaRouchePAC’s introduktion i denne pamflet, og derefter oplæse lidt af teksten i dette åbne brev. Det lyder som følger:

»Dette brev blev oprindeligt omdelt af en gruppe ved navn, ’Vores revolution i det nordvestlige Ohio, med et forpligtende engagement til at forene hele nationen. De har udstedt en opfordring til alle grupper – for eksempel, Tea Party, Republikanere, Demokrater, fagforeninger og erhvervslivet – til at komme sammen omkring det nødvendige, første skridt, som er vedtagelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven. Da deres indsats er i overensstemmelse med LaRouchePAC’s mål, cirkulerer vi det, som en del af en national mobilisering for en omgående vedtagelse af Glass/Steagall-loven i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og underskrevet og sat i kraft af præsident Trump.

På dette grundlag anmoder vi alle borgere om at samles omkring dette økonomiske program, som den eneste, reelle måde, hvorpå både den alvorlige, økonomiske og finansielle krise, efter årtiers ødelæggende politik, kan adresseres, såvel som også muligheden for storslået udvikling – som vi nu ser det i hele Asien og videre, med Kinas initiativ for den Nye Silkevej.«

Dernæst anmoder brevet:

»Underskriv denne appel; omdel den til jeres venner, familie og netværk. Hvert underskrevet eksemplar vil blive personligt overbragt til jeres kongresmedlem og senatorer. Som præsident Franklin Roosevelt erklærede i sin første indsættelsestale: ’Denne nation kræver handling, og handling nu.’«

Teksten til dette åbne brev er som det følgende. Jeg læser det i sin helhed, fordi vi støtter dette initiativ. Det bærer titlen, »Åbent brev til Donald Trump og til alle medlemmerne af Kongressen«; dato januar 2017.

»Underskriverne af dette brev føler stærkt, at det er nødvendigt at beskytte vores økonomi fra endnu et unødvendigt markedssammenbrud og en recession som den, vi oplevede i december, 2007. Med Deres indtræden i embedet er omstændighederne for et kollaps alt for lig dem, der eksisterede i 2007: stigende værdi af værdipapirer, sammen med en manglende adskillelse af bankvirksomhed, der er beskyttet af FDIC, og så højrisiko-investeringsaktivitet.

Vi bifalder [præsident Trumps] kampagneudtalelse i Charlotte, North Carolina, 26. okt., 2016, hvor han støttede et krav om ’En Glass/Steagall-version for det 21. århundrede’, og om en genindførelse af en moderne Glass/Steagall-lov. Vi har tillid til, at De forstår, at en stabilisering af erhvervsklimaet og en sikring af de værdier, der er adskilt fra Wall Streets spekulation, er af afgørende betydning for velstand under Deres administration.

For at slå tonen for drøftelser i Kongressen i 2017 an, anmoder vi om, at [præsident Trump] gentager [sin] støtte til Glass/Steagall-loven i sin Tale til Unionen.

De kan være forvisset om, at, med denne handling, vil De finde fælles fodslag med både Republikanere og Demokrater; siden begge partiers politiske programerklæringer indeholder støtte til en banklovgivning, der adskiller forsikrede konti fra Wall Street spekulation, i de respektive partiers politiske programmer.

Vi takker Dem for Deres respons til krav fra borgere, folk fra erhvervslivet, bankierer og kongresmedlemmer, på vores vej frem. [Med en opfordring til, at Glass/Steagall-loven vedtages i både USA’s Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og at loven underskrives og sættes i kraft af den tiltrædende præsident, Donald Trump, underskriver de følgende personer:]«

Så igen, dette er en appel, der cirkuleres af en gruppe aktivister; mange af dem var oprindeligt tilknyttet Bernie Sanders kampagne i det nordlige Ohio. Men det er en tværpolitisk gruppe ved navn »Vores revolution« med hjemsted i det nordlige Ohio, og som nævnt i pamflettens indledende afsnit, så er LaRouchePAC enige i dette initiativ; og dette er ét aspekt af vores nationale mobilisering for at tvinge Glass-Steagall på dagsordenen i de 14 dage, der er til indsættelsen af den nye præsident. Dette må selvfølgelig ske i sammenhæng med den fulde vedtagelse af programmet for LaRouches Fire Love; dette adresseredes af en resolution, der blev vedtaget af staten Illinois’ delstatskongres i juni sidste år, 2016, med titlen, »Appel til Kongressen om at vedtage Loven om Amerikas Økonomiske Genrejsning«, og som nævner de fire elementer i LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love – Glass-Steagall; statslig bankvirksomhed efter Hamiltons princip; statslige kreditter til forøgelse af den produktive arbejdsstyrke i USA; og en tilbagevenden til et forceret rumprogram, med videnskab som drivkraft, og et forceret program for opnåelse af fusionsteknologi, og så fremdeles.

Så jeg siger det ligeud, at vi har 14 dage; vi befinder os i en nedtælling. Obama-administrationen er for afgående, og den nye administration tiltræder. Som vi ser på mange fronter, så befinder USA sig virkelig i et opgør netop nu om, hvad det nye præsidentskab vil blive; intet er afgjort. Vi ved dog, at der er hysteri mange steder, som de ses af de deciderede angreb på den tiltrædende præsident fra førende medlemmer af efterretningssamfundet; virkelig et uhørt niveau af angreb, giftigheder fra James Clapper og andre i deres beretninger for kongressen. Jeg tror ikke, vi har set dette tidligere i historien; og det står klart, at hysteriet opstår omkring den kendsgerning, at der er udsigt til et dramatisk skift i vores udenrigspolitik. [Dette skift] defineres mest af den kendsgerning, at den tiltrædende præsident har erklæret, at vi ikke vil indtage en holdning med krigskonfrontation med Rusland; hvilket har været de sidste otte års politik med Obama, hvis ikke mere. Så der er et stort potentiale mht. USA’s forhold til et paradigmeskift, til en dynamik, der er under forandring, på verdensscenen; men meget er fortsat uafgjort. Det er vores ansvar at tvinge Glass-Steagall/Hamilton-programmet på dagsordenen i løbet af de næste 14 dage.

For at kunne gennemføre dette, har vi brug for et langt dybere niveau af forståelse hos den amerikanske befolkning som helhed, og især hos de ledende borgeraktivister i dette land, en forståelse af, hvor Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske politik kommer fra, og hvad den større dybsindighed bag denne politik er. Vi erklærer hermed, at år 2017 vil blive et år, hvor disse ideers større dybsindighed bliver udviklet og forstået; meget lig den måde, hvorpå vi i løbet af de seneste måneder har haft en aktivering omkring en forståelse af Alexander Hamiltons ideer, med en tilbagevenden til hans politik, hans originale rapporter [til Kongressen] om statsbankvirksomhed, om producenter og så videre. Det er denne form for fordybelse og undersøgelse af den fysiske økonomis grundlæggende principper, der vil gøre dette initiativ succesfuldt og gøre det muligt for os at hæve niveauet mht. vores involvering i skabelsen af dette Nye Paradigme på verdensscenen.

Det vil Ben [Deniston] uddybe lidt nærmere; men dette er i realiteten en appel om handling og om mobilisering for at komme godt i gang med dette i det nye år.

(Her følger udskrift af hele webcastet på engelsk):

 MAKE 2017 THE YEAR OF LAROUCHE'S IDEAS! CHANGE YOUR CONCEPT OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast, January 6, 2017

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's January 6, 2017. Happy
New Year! This is our first Friday evening webcast of the new year from larouchepac.com.

My name is Matthew Ogden, and joining
me in the studio is Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team; and two members of our Policy Committee joining us over
video. Kesha is joining us from Houston, Texas; and Rachel is
joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
        We are in a countdown period; this is the final two weeks of
the Presidential transition.  Exactly two weeks from today is
Inauguration Day, January 20th, and we will have a new President
in this country.  As you know, on the LaRouche PAC website, if
you were on the activist call last night, the Fireside Chat, if
you've been receiving our daily and weekly email updates; we are
engaged in a major mobilization.  It is our responsibility, and
it is your responsibility, to shape the agenda of this incoming
Presidency.  We have to have the attitude that 2017 is the year
of the New Silk Road, the year of the New Paradigm
internationally, the year of the revival of Alexander Hamilton,
and the year of the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.  What that means
immediately in the United States is that Glass-Steagall must
immediately be adopted; must be put on the agenda; must be signed
into law by the new President.  This is not going to happen on
its own; there is no internal momentum which is going to allow
this to happen while we sit back and watch.  Just as has been the
case all along, this is only going to happen from an
extraordinary mobilization by activists from all across the
United States.  A very important initiative has been taken by a
group of activists in northern Ohio; and LaRouche PAC is issuing
an open letter or leaflet which is meant to amplify and encourage
the mobilization around this initiative.
        I'm going to begin our broadcast by just reading the
LaRouche PAC introduction, and then some of the text of this open
letter.  This reads as follows:
        "This letter was originally distributed by a group entitled
'Our Revolution' in northwest Ohio, with a commitment to unify
the whole nation.  They have issued a call to all groups — for
example, the Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats, labor, and
business — to rally around the necessary first step of passing
Glass-Steagall legislation.  As their effort is consistent with
the aims of LaRouche PAC, we are circulating this as part of a
national mobilization for the immediate passage of Glass-Steagall
legislation by the House and the Senate; to be signed into law by
President Trump.
        "On this page, we are asking every citizen to rally around
this economic program as the only effective way to address both
the dire economic and financial crisis after decades of
destructive policies, as well as the potential for great
development — as we now see throughout Asia and beyond, with
China's New Silk Road initiative."
        So it asks, "Sign this petition; share it with your friends,
family, and networks.  Each signed copy will be hand-delivered to
your Congressman and Senators.  As President Franklin Roosevelt
stated in his first inaugural address, 'This nation asks for
action, and action now.'"
        Now the text of this open letter is as follows.  I'm going
to read it in full, because we're encouraging this initiative.
It is entitled "Open Letter to Donald Trump and to All Members of
Congress"; dateline January 2017.
        "We the undersigned strongly feel the need for protecting
our economy from another unnecessary market crash and recession
like the one experienced in December of 2007.  As you take
office, the conditions for a collapse are too similar to those of
2007: rising asset values together with a lack of separation
between FDIC insured banking and risk-investment brokering.

        "We applaud [President Trump’s] campaign statement in
Charlotte, North Carolina, October 26, 2016, endorsing a call for
'A 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall,' and reintroducing a
modern day Glass-Steagall Act.  We trust that you understand that
stabilizing the business climate and securing the assets as
separate from Wall Street speculation is a key to prosperity
during your administration.

        "To set the tone of discourse in Congress 2017, we ask that
[President Trump] restate [his] support for a Glass-Steagall Act
during [the] State of the Union address.

        "Be assured in doing so, you will find common ground with
both the Republicans and the Democrats; since both party
platforms have the support of banking legislation that separates
insured accounts from Wall Street speculation in their respective
platforms.

        "Thank you for responding to the call from citizens,
businesspersons, bankers and legislators as we move forward. [In
urging that Glass-Steagall legislation be passed in both the
House and the Senate of the U.S. Congress, and signed into law by
incoming President Donald Trump, we are the undersigned:]"

        So again, this is a petition which is being circulated by a
group of activists; many of whom were originally associated with
the Bernie Sanders campaign in northern Ohio. But it's a
non-partisan group called "Our Revolution" based in northern
Ohio, and as we said in the introductory paragraph, LaRouche PAC
finds common cause with this initiative; and this is one aspect
of our national mobilization to force Glass-Steagall onto the
agenda in the 14 days between now and the inauguration of the new
Presidency.  Of course, this also has to go along with the full
enactment of the LaRouche Four Laws program; this was addressed
by a resolution which was adopted by the Illinois state
legislature in June of last year, 2016, which was called "Call
Upon Congress to Enact the American Recovery Act" and this cites
the four elements of LaRouche's Four Economic Laws — Glass
Steagall; national banking in a Hamiltonian form; Federal credit
to increase the productive labor force in the United States; and
a return to a crash science driver program for space, fusion
technology, and so forth.
        So again, I'll just say right off the bat, we have 14 days;
we are in a countdown.  The Obama administration will be exiting
and the new administration will be coming in.  As we can see on
many fronts, the United States is really in a showdown right now
for what the new Presidency will be; nothing is defined.  We {do}
know that there is hysteria in many quarters, as can be seen by
the outright attacks on the incoming President by the leading
members of the intelligence community; really an unprecedented
level of attack, vitriol from James Clapper and others in
Congressional testimony.  I think this has not been seen before
in history; and it's clear that the hysteria is coming around the
fact that there is a dramatic change in our foreign policy on the
horizon.  Defined mostly by the fact that the incoming President
has declared that we will not be in a war-confrontation posture
with Russia; which has been the policy of the last eight years of
the Obama administration if not before.  So, there's a lot of
potential in terms of the relationship of the United States to a
changing paradigm, to a changing dynamic on the world stage; but
a lot remains undefined.  It's our responsibility to force the
Glass-Steagall Hamiltonian program onto the agenda in the next 14
days.
        Now in order to do that, we are going to require a much
deeper level of comprehension among the American population as a
whole, and especially among the leading citizen-activists of this
country, of where Lyndon LaRouche's economic policies come from
and what the deeper profundity is behind this policy.  We are
declaring that 2017 is going to be a year in which the deeper
profundity of these ideas is developed and understood; much in
the way that we had an activation around understanding the ideas
of Alexander Hamilton in the last few months with a return to his
policies, his original reports on national banking, on
manufactures, and so forth.  It's this kind of delving deep and
researching the essential principles of physical economics which
is going to make this initiative successful and allow us to raise
the bar in terms of our involvement in creating this New Paradigm
on the world stage.
        So, I think Ben might have a little more to say on that
subject; but we're really approaching this as sort of a call to
action and a mobilization to get the new year off to this kind of
start.

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  The key point is that Mr. LaRouche has
defined the scientific standard for a recovery of the United
States; that's true, but more fundamentally, for the future of
mankind.  His work in defining a more rigorous science — he
definitely drew upon the work of Hamilton and followers of
Hamilton — but he made a completely revolutionary discovery in
terms of what is the actual hard, physical science underlying
human progress, underlying economics.  One area that we're doing
some work on, this is kind of a critical convergence point in the
fight around understanding these issues, is what people call
infrastructure.  It's become a kind of hot, popular word;
everyone just says it.  Republicans say it, Democrats say it;
it's become kind of a buzz word as some people have said.  It's
as American as apple pie at this point; everyone talks about how
great infrastructure is.  I think Schwarzenegger even struggled
to pronounce it once or twice in California.  But do people know
what it actually means?  That's a fight that Mr. LaRouche has
waged in the recent years, that people don't understand what the
real significance of full-scale, integrated infrastructure
systems is.  You're not going to define what's needed in terms of
the next level of infrastructure if you're not operating from the
standpoint of an insight into the role this actually plays in
revolutionary economic progress.  You can have a lot of
discussions about how we need to rebuild this, this is decaying,
our water systems — the American Society of Civil Engineers I
think it is, puts out this report card, and you can just run
through it on the infrastructure systems and it's just
horrendous.  The water leakage, the transportation systems being
run down, the power systems, the locks and dams that are ready to
bust.  But the issue is not just repairing all of those things;
the issue is infrastructure mediates a process by which mankind
is able to initiate completely unique and revolutionary
self-transformations in mankind's very nature of his relationship
to the natural world, so-called.  Mr. LaRouche pioneered key
metrics of this with his work on potential relative population
density, for example; and actually examining how we can quantify
and understand the fundamental nature of human economic progress.
One starting point might be if you just take the standpoint of
ecology; ecology is a general idea of studying a species'
relation to an environment.  If you apply that to species, you're
able to define certain characteristics of what that species is;
not just by its color, or size, or mass, but by how it relates to
the natural world — to the biosphere around it.  That as much
defines that species as its other characteristics.
        So, it's a general study for life that has validity.  But
what happens when you apply that to mankind?  You don't get any
fixed metric; mankind is not defined by any particular ecological
relationship to the environment.  What you see that distinguishes
mankind is something fascinating; that mankind actually changes
those metrics.  Mankind's very nature is the fact that he can
fundamentally change his relationship with the natural world
through his own actions and the actions of society.  You can
measure this in terms of what Mr. LaRouche defined as the metric
of potential relative population density.  If you take any animal
species, you can have some idea of a carrying capacity, a maximum
potential population that could be sustained for that species in
an environment in the biosphere as a whole, for example.  You can
apply similar studies for mankind, and you can define — maybe in
broad strokes — certain boundary conditions for the number of
people the planet can sustain.  But those change; and that's the
most fascinating thing.  Mankind changes those characteristics.
Today, we have 7-8 billion people on the planet; hopefully
increasing now that we have some order in the world moving in a
better direction.  You go back to society 1000 years ago, you
could not have supported that level of population in the
conditions of human society back at that time.  Today, you can;
and if we win, tomorrow we'll be able to support a whole lot
more.
        What drives that? This concept is critical right now,
because especially in the West in the United States, people have
really gone full on board with this zero-growth idea. The very
fundamental concept of completely revolutionizing our society as
a whole to support an order-of-magnitude higher population,
completely revolutionary technological development — that should
be natural; that's not in most people's minds today.
        But that's infrastructure! That's what infrastructure is.
Infrastructure is an expression of defining how mankind creates a
system by which he relates to the natural world. I think some of
Mr. LaRouche's work on this is really worth digging into a lot
more. He took his understanding of potential relative population
density to some degree to a new level with this concept of the
physical-economic platform, as a proper understanding of what
"infrastructure" really is. He laid out this amazing insight into
the arc of human development as expressed in a motion between
successive physical-economic platforms. He said go back as far as
we have records of civilized humanity, to what is sometimes
called "pre-history," and certain insights into very ancient
intercontinental ocean maritime civilization that was very
sophisticated. It could travel the world much earlier than most
modern academics admit.
        The very nature of that society was defined by mankind's
relation to the ocean systems and to the coastal regions. That
kind of defined a certain boundary condition for the potential
relative population density, the state of the society globally at
that time. And then you had a complete revolution with the
beginning development of inland water systems. That became a
means by which — and the technologies associated with being able
to do that, and the energy-flux densities associated with being
able to do that — that defined a means by which an entire region
of the planet, of the natural world, which was just not
accessible to human development, became accessible to human
development. People could go to these places; you could walk
inland, but you couldn't support a city there. You couldn't
support society there, you couldn't support a growing population
there; it wasn't part of the domain of the influence of mankind.
With the development of these inland waterway systems — and Mr.
LaRouche points to the work of Charlemagne in particular as
really pioneering this — this was a revolution in mankind's
ecology (if you want to call it that), in his ability to interact
with the natural world in a completely new way.
        But it didn't end there! Then you had the development of
rail systems. Now you're not just limited to certain rivers and
man-made canal systems and waterways. Now you can bring, with
rail — and again, the associated leaps in physical-chemistry,
materials sciences, energy-flux density obviously with moving
into new fuel sources: steam engines and these sorts of things —
now you open up the inland territories in a completely new way,
in a way that was never …

        OGDEN: Rail corridors are almost like artificial rivers —
places where you didn't have the means of navigation, but now all
of a sudden you have this rail corridor which allows you to open
up areas that are not even accessible through water.

        DENISTON: Yeah, absolutely! Once again, you have a complete
transformation in what territories, what areas are accessible to
real human development. Mr. LaRouche said the next step is really
high-speed rail systems; magnetic levitation, other advanced
high-speed rail; also inter-continental connections. You're
integrating the whole world in a very high-speed transportation
system; which is being pursued now by what China's leading, with
the New Silk Road program. We could spend hours going through all
the spin-offs of that that are really taking us closer and closer
to this full World Land-Bridge proposal. But that is really the
pursuit — the development of this next platform that Mr.
LaRouche had defined. The next one, really beyond that, is space,
and we should be looking to that.
        But the thing is, people have to understand infrastructure
is not something you measure just by the payback you get from it
itself. It's not a cost you have to pay for by the direct
immediate service. It pays you! It pays society. It's what
supports the ability, for again, these kind of revolutionary
changes. These issues are usually banalized by discussions, just
by using the term "infrastructure." Take transportation systems.
When mankind goes through revolutionary changes in his
transportation systems, people reduce it to "just getting
somewhere quicker." You're literally changing the physical
space-time relationship of mankind; individuals, but also
productive processes. A day means something completely different
in the context of an integrated high-speed rail system, maglev
system, than it did in the prior platform. What does "one day"
mean? It means now you can have access to a much greater
territory, various types of productions, various specialized
regions that were not accessible in that same timeframe, or maybe
for the same processes. Now they become accessible to you.
        You're talking about revolutionary leaps in the very
fundamental character of mankind's interaction with the natural
world. That has to be the standard. We're not going to have a
recovery by rebuilding what we had before. We need to fix things
that need to be fixed; but it needs to be done in the process of
creating this next higher stage that's going to support, again, a
completely new level of existence. We have a critical role in
elevating the discussion to that level. Because you take
transportation, you take water management — another key issue —
it's pretty obvious and simple. Mankind takes desert regions and
then they become flourishing, green bastions of life. The
greenies out there don't like water projects, they don't like
green; they don't want to actually have increased plant growth.
It's insane. If you look at the kind of water management systems
we can be developing, you take entire territories that are just
devoid, pretty much, of life; and we could make them into very
productive, accessible regions. You combine that with a real
driver for fusion power, nuclear power, a full nuclear economy;
and you're defining a future of mankind which can have the same
relation to how we view society presently, as we might look back
to the 1850s or something.
        That's how we should be thinking! That also defines the
space program on a completely new level. Space doesn't always
have to be this super-expensive niche area that only a few things
can be done in, but it's left to this exciting side-part of
society. It's going to become an integrated part of human
activity more and more, if we pursue these natural qualities of
human progress.

        OGDEN: What you said in the beginning about these platforms
of infrastructure being measured, not by the money that it
returns, or the tax revenue, or something, but by, literally, the
metric of how have you changed your carrying capacity, how have
you changed your potential relative population density for a
given area.
        You can think about that in the negative. If you didn't have
that sort of transportation infrastructure to bring the food to
the cities, if you didn't have the sanitation infrastructure, if
you didn't have the water management, if you didn't have the
electricity infrastructure; think about how quickly your
population your population level would collapse. Think about how
quickly you would lose the current carrying capacity of a given
land area; and how you would move backwards in what you were able
to support in terms of population density.
        That is the metric for any given platform, and how you
quantify one platform to the next. It needs to be seen as that
sort of metric of potential relative population density. The
other thing to think about is the fact that over the last 40-50
years, we've had access to technologies which really should have
revolutionized our economy, but for one reason or another, have
not. We have yet to reach full saturation, in terms of nuclear
power. We have yet to reach full saturation, in terms of
high-speed rail — rail for that matter — but high-speed rail.
We have yet to fully exploit even what our capabilities were, in
terms of space exploration. Coming up in two years, in July 2019,
we're going to be observing the 50th anniversary of man landing
on the Moon, and we haven't even been back to the Moon for 45
years; let alone have we gone where we should have gone, as was
envisaged at the time that Kennedy created the mission to put a
man on the Moon. We have yet to exploit and yet to follow
through, even on the level of technology that we had {then}, let
alone using that as the diving board to leap off and to get to
the next platform of what we should have achieved.

        KESHA ROGERS: What you're talking about, what we're speaking
about, is not just inter-continental development; we're talking
about inter-galactic development. I think it's important to go
back to, again, making 2017 the year of Lyndon LaRouche's ideas,
which have completely shaped and transformed the planet, to this
very point. I think it's important that we really draw out the
conception that what Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws and the
foundation of his work behind those Four Laws, really do, is to
take away the power of the oligarchy and of this British imperial
system which has been involved in the destruction of nations and
of bringing down the potential for real scientific progress of
mankind to flourish. LaRouche's Four Laws takes away the power of
the oligarchy to push through their policy of population
reduction.
        The idea that Mr. LaRouche has founded his science of
physical-economy on, is, in essence, to take the idea from
Genesis 1:28. That is, the prerogative of mankind to multiply and
subdue and replenish the Earth. This is what the oligarchy has a
problem with; this is what the British imperial system doesn't
want to see happen. I think that what Mr. LaRouche has continued
to define — even before the question of infrastructure came out
— he really coined and developed this conception of a true
science of physical-economy, which is the basis of what was
established and what was really at the center of the human
creative mind of Alexander Hamilton's works — the definitions
that were defined in Hamilton's understanding of a national
banking policy and a credit policy.
        But even with that, it's not as understood as what Mr.
LaRouche has been able to take up, as you just said, Ben, in the
beginning. How is it that society has been able to get to a point
where we have over 7 billion people on the planet? Without the
breakthroughs in technological and scientific leaps of making new
discoveries and bringing new principles into the domain of the
organization of society, we would not have ever gone from a
coal-burning society. We would not have ever developed the
capability where right now, despite the fact that the British
oligarchy and their puppets like Obama want to hold mankind back
from the development and the complete breakthroughs which are
necessary in fusion technologies, in advancing mankind into
taking up a new leap in fusion development; we are now on the
verge of doing that, because of what has been set forth in the
potential for international cooperation and relations.
        So, I think we're saying we are now in an urgent
mobilization to put on the table the immediate economic solutions
that the newly-elected President Donald Trump must take up.
First of all, there has to be a crash educational on getting the
American people and getting the leadership of this nation —
Congressional leaders and others — to understand that economics
is not what you were taught in your 101 classes in college, of
macro- and micro-economics and following the charts of the Wall
Street market status of where the markets were taking you.  The
question of economics is on this question of the power of the
individual human mind to make new discoveries that are going to
increase and actually develop new capabilities for replenishing,
multiplying, and creating a more fruitful society.  I think
that's what has been missing, now that the buzz-words that are
thrown around as you said — "infrastructure" — they don't have
a real human foundation to go with them.  How are you going to
build infrastructure if you don't have a productive labor force?
This is what Mr. LaRouche has laid out in some of the
fundamentals and the foundations of his educationals in
economics.  The power of labor and the science of physical
economy start with the fact that at the core of economics is the
human mind, and are human beings.  The productive capabilities of
human beings which have been destroyed.  That's going to be the
challenge to President-elect Trump; and what he really has a
challenge of doing right now, which is something which has not
been done in a very long time.  Not really since the foundation
of our nation under Alexander Hamilton.  What Hamilton, what
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to create, was really a new
economic system; that's what we're challenging and educating on.
This is not just about passing a piece of legislation and
separating the banking system by putting forth Glass-Steagall.
LaRouche has laid out the metrics to create a new economic system
that is going to be a system based on the development of the U.S.
potential for increasing our productivity and productive powers
of labor in collaboration with international relations which are
absolutely fundamental right now.  It's not going to happen, as
has been pointed out in many cases already, without very concrete
and prominent cooperation with leading nations such as Russia and
China.  We can come back to some of that, but I just wanted to
make those points at present.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY:  Listening to this discussion and
participating in it, it's just very fresh and optimistic compared
to what you hear everywhere else in the media.  I think it's just
there for 2017 — we're entering a new year — to take it upon
ourselves, for every person viewing this webcast to take it upon
themselves to really live these ideas and grow by it.  To see
your life not just as trying to pay the bills and survive in a
British mode of existence in our current culture; but to realize
that this is the way the Universe operates.  I think it's just
very fresh and exciting; people should not just view it as
something that they watch and support; but really figure out how
you can do more yourself as a person to make this happen.  It's
not just going to come from Trump.  We support what he's done in
the positive, and he deserves all support of the population at
this time; but we also have to look at this from LaRouche's work,
as has been discussed.  And as Helga LaRouche has really
emphasized, this has to really be the year of LaRouche's ideas.
We need to recognize that we're in a cycle of history which is a
larger arc of history, which is created by ideas which actually
had no physical existence — had no color, had no weight — but
are having an effect.
        Just for the sake of this idea of the Year of LaRouche, I'll
just read a short section from his paper from 2006 called "Saving
the U.S. Economy".  He says:  "The most common failure of
economists and others today is their inclination to view economic
and cultural cycles incompetently from the standpoint of
Cartesian or Cartesian-like mechanistic statistical projections.
That method is easily recognized as the common failure of
generally-accepted economic forecasting today.  However, a still
deeper problem presents itself.  Actual cycles in history are
never determined in the way which mechanical, statistical methods
tend to imply.  Actual cycles of importance are, as I have said,
dynamical rather than mechanistic; and may be compared on that
account with the notion of astronomical cycles as Johannes Kepler
first, uniquely, introduced those conceptions into modern
physical science in his {Mysterium Cosmographicum} and {The New
Astronomy}.  The proper term for astronomical-like cycles in
history is again, Riemannian.  The notion of a Riemannian rather
than a statistical conception of forecasting of economy is of
crucial importance for those among us engaged in providing a
genuine physical economic recovery from those quicksands of
misery which the alleged reforms of the 1971 to 2006" — or you
could say now, 2016 — "interval have dumped upon especially the
lower eighty percentile of our income brackets today."  Then he
adds:  "Hey, Congress!  Tell us; tell the lower eighty percentile
of our citizens what have you done to the U.S. Constitutional
General Welfare principle's superior role in the making of our
law?  Without a fair comprehension of the issues associated with
that distinction, no competent legislation could be crafted for
the presently onrushing crisis."
        So, I think it's true; we have to look to LaRouche's history
and ideas for this period.  Just on that, we were in Congress
this week, discussing Glass-Steagall; and the current Congress
does not view Glass-Steagall as a priority.  Many Congressmen are
exactly what LaRouche refers to here — still thinking in
statistical modes or basically looking at economy the same way a
Wall Street banker does.  They say they're against Wall Street,
or trying to rein it in, but they're doing the exact same thing,
in effect.  There's no change.  It is going to be up to us and
the population to demand this idea of a resurgence of the U.S.
Constitutional principle of the General Welfare.  The only way
that can be done, is with Glass-Steagall.
        This system is absolutely ready to go.  There are two
components of that.  One is the level of bankruptcy, of the
derivative debt and the leverage ratio; and the second is the
interconnection of the system, of U.S. banks to European banks,
and different sectors of the economy all tied in together also.
Insurance with hedge funds, with banks, with commercial banks;
it's all interconnected.  The system can't be saved in its
current form; it has to be Glass-Steagall joined with the rest of
LaRouche's Four Laws.  So, that's the urgent call to put this
legislation on Trump's desk; it's what we have to do.

        DENISTON:  Absolutely.  The point is, we have to make clear
with people that this is what Glass-Steagall opens up.  Just
clean out the system; cut out the speculation; and use money and
credit in the financial system for what its intended purpose is
— to facilitate this kind of process.  Some of the difficulty
comes when people compartmentalize these laws as distinct things.
But money doesn't mean anything outside of the context of the
physical economy.  The Four Laws are really one entity and I
think making that point, if people want a recovery, if they want
living wages, if they want their infrastructure rebuilt, if they
want water that's not going to kill them and make them sick; you
need Glass-Steagall so you have a system that can facilitate the
kind of long-term investment and growth that will enable these
things to happen.  I think breaking this totally ridiculous idea
of market economics and the way people think about these things
today, shattering that with this real physical conception is
critical.
        Just to come back to the global picture also, the world is
moving in this direction; you have a potential now.  That's
what's so exciting about this period, the potential.  A lot is
not decided, a lot is unclear; but we have an opening that hasn't
existed for — you could say the past 16 years, you could say
back to Truman coming in and completely overthrowing the Franklin
Roosevelt vision and orientation for the post-war world.  All of
that is now up in the air; and you have now the openness where
serious people in power are honestly thinking, "What do we do to
move mankind forward?"  Instead of people like Prince Phillip,
who are saying "What can I do to kill as many people today before
I go out for lunch?"  This is the time when you need to have this
full outreach orientation and make these ideas the dominant
conception in the American population today.
        So, I think what's been referenced in terms of this call to
action is really critical.  Everyone watching this should be
taking to heart the responsibility we all have right now at this
current historical moment to make this a reality.  This is not
something that comes and goes frequently, these kinds of
opportunities.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, and I just want to reiterate that.  The
responsibility lies on the citizens of the United States that
decide to take that responsibility on.  Nobody should be under
any impression that somehow everything is just going to fall into
place, or that even this administration is necessarily positive
on its own merits.  Everything that has been created as an
opening has been forced as such by years and years of activism
among people in the United States and a shifting global dynamic;
something that the LaRouches have been right in the middle of.
It's true that Trump has definitely overturned a bunch of chess
boards and has made a lot of enemies among the neo-cons and the
anti-Russia crowd and so forth.  But on economics, it is our
responsibility to set the agenda.  It's very unclear what that
policy is going to be.  The only thing that is clear is that
there is a core group of people among the activist-citizens in
the United States who have made a decision to say, "We are going
to hold him to Glass-Steagall; and we are going to force the
agenda around this policy."  That's why we are highlighting this
initiative that's been taken by the group of activists out of
Ohio and others who are now coming in on that.
        But people do have to have a sense of a broader sweep of
history.  What is it that makes a President great?  In the
history of the United States, especially, you can actually go
back to every great President and associate with them a
seriousness about moving mankind to the next level of economic
achievement.  What Hamilton did for the Washington
administration, creating the ability to have the United States
become a manufacturing country; a lot of that was done through
inland navigation, canals.  Water power was a major aspect of
what we were able to accomplish in the first few decades of our
existence as a country.  John Quincy Adams built more of those
canals, but also initiated the age of the railroad in the United
States.  And of course, Abraham Lincoln took that to its logical
next step through the construction of the Transcontinental
Railroad in the midst of the Civil War; but he understood this
was the next economic platform for the United States.  Franklin
Roosevelt — I mean, this was the age of mass power generation.
At that time, it was hydroelectric power; look at the Grand
Cooley Dam, look at the TVA.  But also, Franklin Roosevelt
understood that electrification was not just something for the
urban areas; even though it was not something that you were not
going to get a monetary return from immediately, Roosevelt
understood that you needed electrification for the whole country.
The Rural Electrification Administration used the power of the
Federal government to extend that financing, to extend that
credit, to do something that was not immediately profitable in
monetary terms, but was necessary to move the country to the next
level economically.  Then, of course, that was the time of the
exploration of the harnessing of the power of the atom with the
Manhattan Project.  Then, John F Kennedy, in his very short time
in office, became the champion of the space program, which was
the next step.  What is it that makes a Presidency great?  It's
moving the country and the world to that next platform in terms
of economic achievement; and that's what Lyndon LaRouche has been
defining for 30 years.  The breakthrough in fusion, the
breakthrough in space exploration, and technologies that we don't
even know exist yet.  But forcing the mind of man to push the
envelope in terms what we know and what we are able to imagine.

        DENISTON:  Sounds like a fun year to me.

        ROGERS:  Yes, and I think that what you just laid out, Matt,
has to be seen with all of these breakthroughs and continued
developments, is that the impact that it had on increasing the
level of productivity not just of the United States, but of the
entire world economy.  What Franklin Roosevelt did with his
programs around the TVA, the rural electrification, wasn't just a
project for a certain southern part of the United States.  People
came from all over the world to be inspired and to come to
understand the science and the metrics that went into this
development and the understanding of the policies of Franklin
Roosevelt.  Today, the question still remains; what are going to
be the unique contributions of the United States working in
collaboration and cooperation with other nations to increase the
productivity of the world economy?  We are in a global system,
where the question right now is really to find an increase in a
new paradigm which is going to effect the common aims of all
mankind.  The best expression of that is some of the beautiful
expressions that we're getting back from the space program.
Those in cooperation with participating in the International
Space Station from all over the world right now, and the
continued idea is that the nature of man goes beyond any kind of
war, conflict, or borders.  The identity of the increasing of the
productivity of society is really the basis for all human
progress.  I think that continues to be the point right now.  We
have a unique shift that's happening globally, which honestly is
freaking the oligarchy and the empire out.  They don't know what
to do about the fact that they have lost all control; that's what
you're dealing with right now.
        As we were discussing before the show a little bit, this is
not necessarily about attacks on President-elect Trump himself;
this is not Trump vs. those forces who want to go against him —
such as the intelligence community and so forth — because they
don't like the way he's talking to them.  It goes a little bit
deeper than that, because you now have the emergence of a new
system coming into being right now, of cooperation that the
British Empire and financial oligarchy and Wall Street interests
have been trying to keep separated and keep tabs on for a long
time.  They've lost control and they've lost power.  As we
continue to say, with 60-plus nations joining with the New Silk
Road and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, this is what
we're talking about bringing the United States into; and
Glass-Steagall will be the first step in bringing the United
States into this global alliance and international cooperation
that breaks the back of the financial oligarchy and destroys this
Wall Street control.  That is what people have to look forward to
— their role in the galactic system of the Universe in creating
something more profound.

        OGDEN:  Helga LaRouche, when we were speaking with her
earlier, cited the fact that President Xi Jinping of China always
talks about this in terms of a future of shared destiny among
mankind as a whole.  This is the same thing that Dr. Edward
Teller talked about in the 1980s, and Mr. LaRouche has cited, as
the common aims of mankind.  This is how you have to think about
international cooperation; nations have their own self-interests,
but it's in the interest of all mankind to achieve this future of
shared destiny, or these common aims of mankind.  That doesn't
mean that there aren't differences between nations, and that
there aren't different policies; but the higher principle which
unites the contradictions through which you can resolve these
conflicts or contradictions among peoples is through this idea of
a vision for the future.  This has to be what defines our
relationship with China; this has to be what defines our
relationship with Russia.  Some of the more sober people have
begun to realize that the only way we can defeat terrorism — as
can be seen in Syria — is through collaboration with Russia.
        But there are other positive programs that have to be
pursued; and you can see a lot of potential right underneath the
surface.  Last week we talked about how the memorial to the
Alexandrov Russian choir, many of whom died in the tragic plane
crash on their way to Syria, the Schiller Institute went to the
Russian consulate in New York City and sang a memorial for these
individuals.  This has become an overnight sensation on the
internet, on YouTube; this video already has over half a million
views.  This is the kind of relationship among peoples that we
have to pursue.  On that subject, there will be another memorial
by the Schiller Institute Chorus in New York City, who will be
visiting the 9/11 Teardrop Memorial in Bayonne, New Jersey; which
is right across the Hudson River, looking at downtown Manhattan.
This memorial to the victims of 9/11 was contributed by the
Russian people to the people of the United States.  This is being
highly anticipated; the press release has been circulated widely.
The Committee for East-West Accord has posted the announcement of
this on their website.  The very beginning of this press release
is as follows, and we're going to be watching this tomorrow.
        "Christmas Remembrance of the Alexandrov Ensemble of the
Victims of 9/11.  On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10AM, the
Schiller Institute New York City Chorus will be singing the
'Star-Spangled Banner' and the Russian national anthem at a
wreath-laying ceremony at the Teardrop 9/11 Memorial in Bayonne,
New Jersey.  The chorus will be joined by: the NYPD Ceremonial
Unit Color Guard, as well as FDNY representatives; Ms. Terry
Strada, the chairman of the 9/11 Families United for Justice
Against Terror, and others will make brief remarks."
        I think this is just one of many initiatives that can guide
us into this New Paradigm as we begin the new year.  We have to
realize that a lot has changed; this is not business as usual.  A
lot of the ideas of what was possible and what was pragmatic
under the former rules of the game, and so forth, have got to be
changed.  Members of Congress who might have supported
Glass-Steagall in the past, but said, "Oh, there's too much
opposition; the Republicans won't let it pass"; or "The Wall
Street bankers are too powerful."  All of those parameters have
changed now; and it's up to us to tell people, "This is a changed
world; this is not business as usual.  You have to renew your
commitment to what you think what must be done, and you have to
change your concept of what is possible."
        So, I think with that said, I'll go back and cite that
petition we presented earlier in the show.  This is obviously the
initiative over the next few days.  We have 14 days until the
inauguration; the countdown of this transition to a new
Presidency.  The only thing that is assured is what you decide to
do; the mobilization that you engage in, and the responsibility
that you take over the coming days, in order to set the agenda
for the future of the United States.
        Thank you for tuning in today.  Please sign up to the
LaRouche PAC email list if you haven't already.  Over the next
two weeks, you will receive daily emails which will be essential
in terms of marching orders in this mobilization.  And subscribe
to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel if you haven't already.
Thank you for joining us, and thank you to Ben, Kesha, and
Rachel.  Happy New Year to you.  Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

 




Glass-Steagall skal ligge klar til underskrift på Trumps
skrivebord, når han overtager embedet!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 30. december, 2016

Vi befinder os i nedtællingen til afslutningen af Obama-administrationen og begyndelsen af den tiltrædende Trump-administration. Om præcis tre uger finder indsættelsesceremonien for den tiltrædende administration sted. Der er stadig meget, der er uafklaret og usikkert; men verdenssituationen ændrer sig meget hurtigt. Som hr. LaRouche advarede om for mindre end 48 timer siden, så må vi stadig holde øje med Obama; så længe, han beklæder embedet, kan han lave en forfærdelig masse ulykker. Blot i dag forsøgte han, fra sin ferie på Hawaii, at optrappe og fremprovokere en konflikt med Rusland. Han meddelte, at 35 russere vil blive erklæret persona non grata og ville blive udvist af USA under anklage om angivelig spionage; og at der ikke alene ville blive pålagt Rusland flere sanktioner som gengældelse for den såkaldte »russiske hacking«, men at to russiske ejendomsområder, der angiveligt bliver brugt til spionage – et område på Marylands østkyst og et på Long Island, steder, hvor russiske diplomater til USA og Washington D.C. kan bringe deres familier til en hårdt tiltrængt ferie og afslapning – han meddelte, at føderale styrker ville rykke ind og lukke disse områder ned. Jeg er sikker på, at Obama regnede med, at dette ville provokere hans ærke-Nemesis Vladimir Putin til at gøre gengældelse, men Obama blev sørgeligt skuffet. Til trods for, at Sergei Lavrov, Ruslands udenrigsminister, sagde, at de var i deres gode ret til at gøre gengæld, øje for øje, og udvise 35 såkaldte amerikanske diplomater af Rusland som persona non grata og lukke amerikanske feriesteder i Moskva og omegn ned; men i stedet foretog Putin, på klassisk Putin-vis, et judo-træk og gjorde ingenting. Et træk fra Putin side, som generelt erkendes som at udmanøvrere Obama – f.eks. i overskriften i Daily Beast, »Putin udmanøvrerer Obama i spionkrig; Moskva griner ad Obama-administrationens sanktioner og udvisninger som de sidste handlinger af svaghed«. Putin afslørede Obama for det, han er, en ’lam and’; og han nægtede at respondere. I en erklæring offentliggjort på Kremls webside i dag sagde Putin følgende: »Alt imens vi forbeholder os ret til at tage forholdsregler til gengældelse, så vil vi ikke degradere os selv til et niveau af ’køkkendiplomati’. I vore fremtidige skridt på vej imod en genoprettelse af de russisk-amerikanske relationer, vil vi gå frem fra den politik, som Donald Trumps administration forfølger.«

Så dette er en perfekt afslutning og diplomatisk sejr for Putin; og det er på linje med et tweet, der blev udsendt af det Russiske Udenrigsministerium, og som var et billede af en gul and med ordet »lam« skrevet over billedet. Obama og hans hold, selv om de kan skabe en masse ulykker i de resterende tre uger, anses ikke for at være særlig magtfulde mere, af Putin og andre i verden.

Samtidig kan russerne hævde en sand diplomatisk sejr i Syrien. Oven i befrielsen af Aleppo og genoprettelsen af regeringskontrol over en stor del af landet imod ISIS og andre oprørsstyrker, så forhandlede russerne en våbenhvile igennem sammen med Tyrkiet; men uden USA. Foreløbig holder denne våbenhvile. Dette er en meget håbefuld situation og demonstrerer endnu engang, at Obama definitivt har mistet lederskabsrollen i verden¸ og Rusland er en formidabel strategisk leder på verdensscenen, mens denne administration træder tilbage og den nye administration går om bord.

Samtidig har vi en nedsmeltning af det finansielle system; Monte dei Paschi banksituationen kører fortsat videre. Vi har en eksponering til derivater fra hver eneste bank på hele planeten. Enhver af disse – Deutsche Bank, Monte dei Paschi – hvad som helst kunne udløse en nedsmeltning af hele finanssystemet. Hr. LaRouches Fire Love er fortsat de afgørende og særdeles presserende forholdsregler, der må tages i USA. Som jeg sagde, så er intet afgjort, men der er meget, der er muligt. Som I har set i vore diverse udsendelser de seneste dage – Fireside Chat i går, en LPAC e-mail, der blev udsendt i dag, hovedoverskrifter på larouchepac.com hjemmesiden – så er vi engageret i en absolut presserende og afgørende mobilisering for at tvinge Glass-Steagall på dagsordenen, endnu før den tiltrædende administration indsættes. Dette må være det absolutte top-lovforslag, der lægges på den nye præsidents skrivebord til underskrift. Kongressen kan handle på det, når de træder sammen i næste uge; i modsætning til [senator] McCains meddelelse om, at han vil have høringer om russisk hacking, eller sådan noget. Dette er den afgørende forholdsregel; og vi vil have aktivister, der kommer til Washington, D.C. Vi har allerede afleveret marchordrerne; og vi vil diskutere dette yderligere i aftenens udsendelse.

Men dette er fortsat blot det første skridt i Lyndon LaRouches Fire Hastelove til at redde USA, nu. Det bedste eksempel, vi stadig har, den bedste præcedens, er Franklin Roosevelts første 100 dage; hvad FDR var i stand til at opnå i sine første 100 dage i embedet. Kongressen trådte sammen; han vedtog omgående Bankloven af 1933, erklærede banklukkedag, reorganiserede hele det bankerotte finanssystem og satte Amerika i arbejde igen. Kongressen holdt ikke pause før nøjagtig 100 dage senere; og 100 milepæle i lovgivning blev debatteret, vedtaget og sendt over til Det Hvide Hus til Franklin Roosevelts underskrift, hvilket ændrede historien. Dette er fortsat præcedensen; det er fortsat modellen, og indholdet af disse første 100 dage bør være Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love til USA’s redning.

Jeg giver nu ordet til Jason [Ross], for der er nogle specifikke måder, hvorpå vi kan gå i gang med disse presserende forholdsregler.  

   

WE NEED GLASS STEAGALL SITTING ON TRUMPS DESK
AWAITING HIS SIGNATURE WHEN HE TAKES OFFICE!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast, Dec. 30, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It's December 30, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're watching our final Friday
evening broadcast for 2016 for this year on larouchepac.com.  I'm
joined in the studio today by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC
Science Team; and via video by two members of our Policy
Committee — Bill Roberts from Detroit, Michigan (Hi, Bill); and
Michael Steger from San Francisco, California.
Now, obviously we are in a countdown to the end of the Obama
administration and the beginning of the incoming Trump
administration.  Exactly three weeks from today is the
inauguration of the incoming administration.  There are still
many things that are undetermined and up in the air; but the
world situation is moving very fast.  As Mr. LaRouche warned less
than 48 hours ago, you still have to keep your eye on Obama; as
long as he remains in office, he can cause an awful of mischief.
And we saw that just yesterday, in an announcement that came from
Obama while he was vacationing in Hawaii; he attempted to
escalate and provoke a conflict with Russia.   He announced that
35 Russian nationals would be declared {persona non grata} and
would be expelled from the United States under supposed spying
charges; and he announced that not only would there be more
sanctions imposed against Russia in retaliation for the so-called
"Russian hacking", but also two Russian estates that are
supposedly being used for espionage purposes — one on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland and one on Long Island, places where
Russian diplomats to the United Nations and to Washington DC can
bring their families for much-needed vacation and rest and
relaxation — he announced that Federal forces would be moving in
to close down those estates.  Now, I'm sure that Obama expected
that this was going to provoke his arch-nemesis Vladimir Putin
into retaliatory measures, but Obama was severely disappointed.
Despite the fact that Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of
Russia, said that they would be fully justified in retaliating
tit-for-tat and expelling 35 so-called US diplomats from Russia
as {persona non grata} and closing down US vacation homes in
Moscow and the Moscow suburbs; Putin instead, in classic Putin
fashion, judoed Barack Obama and did nothing.  Vladimir Putin, in
a move which is being universally recognized as outfoxing Obama
— for example, in a headline in the {Daily Beast} "Putin
Outfoxes Obama in Spy War ⦠Moscow Laughs Off the Obama
Administration's Sanctions and Expulsions as Feeble Last
Gestures".  Putin called out Obama for what he is, a lame duck;
and he refused to respond.  In a statement that was put out on
the Kremlin website today, Putin said the following:
"While we reserve the right to take reciprocal measures, we
are not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of
irresponsible 'kitchen' diplomacy.  In our future steps on our
way towards the restoration of Russian-United States relations,
we will proceed from the policy pursued by the administration of
Donald Trump."
So, this is a perfect ending and diplomatic victory for
Putin; and I think this goes along with a tweet that was sent out
by the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is a big picture of a
yellow duck with the word "lame" written over top of it.  Obama
and his crew, although they are in the position to cause an awful
amount of mischief in the remaining three weeks, are not being
recognized as all that powerful anymore by Putin and others
around the world.
Now, at the same time, there is a true diplomatic victory
that the Russians can claim in Syria.  On top of the liberation
of Aleppo and really restoring government control over a vast
part of the country against the ISIS and other rebel forces,
yesterday the Russians brokered a ceasefire with Turkey; but
without the United States.  This ceasefire has, up to this point,
been holding.  This is a very hopeful situation, and yet again,
demonstrates that Obama has definitely lost the leadership role
in the world; and Russia is a very formidable strategic leader on
the world stage as this administration exits and as the new
administration comes on board.
At the same time, you've got a meltdown of the financial
system; the Monte dei Paschi banking situation continues to
unravel.  We have the exposure of derivatives from every single
bank in the entire planet.  Any one of these — Deutsche Bank,
Monte dei Paschi Bank — anything could be the trigger to blow
out the entire financial system.  Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws remain
the essential and most urgent measures that need to be taken in
the United States.  As I said, nothing is determined, but there
is a lot that is possible.  As you've seen on various channels of
our communications over the last few days — the Fireside Chat
yesterday, an LPAC email that went out today, headlines on the
larouchepac.com website — we are engaged in an absolutely urgent
and critical mobilization to force Glass-Steagall onto the agenda
even before the inauguration of the incoming administration.
This should be the number one bill that is delivered to the new
President's desk for his signature.  It could be acted on by
Congress as they come into session next week; as opposed to
McCain's announcement that he's going to have hearings on Russian
hacking, or something like that.  This is the critical measure;
and we will have activists that will be coming into Washington,
DC.  We've already delivered the marching orders; and we can
discuss that more on the broadcast today.
But of course, that remains just the first step in Lyndon
LaRouche's Four Urgent Laws to Save the United States Now.  The
best example that we still have, the best precedent, is the first
100 days of Franklin Roosevelt; what FDR was able to accomplish
in his first 100 days in office.  The Congress came into session;
he immediately passed the Emergency Banking Act, declared a bank
holiday, reorganized the entire bankrupt financial system, put
Americans back to work.  Congress did not leave session until
exactly 100 days later; and 10 landmark pieces of legislation
were debated, passed, and sent over to the White House for
Franklin Roosevelt's signature, which changed the course of
history.  So of course, that remains the precedent; that remains
the model, and the contents of that first 100 days should be
Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws to Save the United States.
So, with that said, I'd like to hand it over to Jason,
because there are some very specific examples of means by which
we can undertake those urgent measures.

JASON ROSS:  Let's also put it in the context of the world.  The
US desperately needs an economic recovery, a change in direction.
Think about the world as a whole; there's so much to be done.
Two and a half billion people on the planet don't have access to
continuous electricity; 800 million don't have access to fresh
water; 1.5 billion people don't have access to basic sanitation;
and over 1 billion people don't have access to telephone
capabilities.  There's much work to be done, and the United
States is definitely for a large shift.
President-elect Donald Trump has said that he's got big
plans to make America great again; that he wants to spend $1
trillion on infrastructure in the United States over the coming
period.  There's a lot that we could learn from China on this.
China, over just the past decade, has built the largest
high-speed rail network in the world.  In one decade, it went
from basically nothing, to now being the world's leader.  That
network is slated to double its size in the next 1.5 decades to a
level of 40-50,000 kms; about 30,000 miles of high-speed rail.
They're working, through their Belt and Road initiative, with 65
other nations in the region and beyond on cooperative projects;
on rail, energy, transportation, logistics, water, information,
training, expertise, education, a whole slew of projects for
economic cooperation and development that itself will entail
beyond China's borders tens of thousands more kilometers of
high-speed rail.  So, how are they financing this?  How are they
doing it?  China's been spending $1 trillion a year for the past
decade; so the idea of spending $1 trillion in the US to get
everything up to some great standard is far too low.
The other aspect is, how is this going to be financed and
how is it going to be built?  How is a $1 trillion going to be
brought to bear for the US economy?  Let me read the concluding
paragraph of an op-ed that was published in the {People's Daily}
online of China; an op-ed by Curtis Stone.  He wrote:
"Trump wants to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure upgrades
in America to rebuild the nation and put people back to work. The
problem is how to pay for it and how to do it. China knows how to
fund and carry out serious infrastructure building, and
deep-pocketed Chinese investors want to invest billions more in
America. One way for Trump to realize his plan would be to use
Chinese funds and technology. This would help return some of
Americaâs investment in China back to America for the benefit of
America, and strengthen the bilateral relationship. Trumpâs plan
to rebuild America is bold, but it remains to be seen if he will
be bold enough to do what is best for America."
So, on that, let's think about how China can be involved
here.  The need for financing in the US is very great; there is
not a lot of credit available in the way that people think.  The
very low interest rates that currently exist, as Paul Gallagher
has explained well in the "Economics Frequently Asked Questions"
section on our website, we can't just sell a bunch of bonds at
low interest rates; the rates will go up.  Where is that money
going to come from?  Private investors?  What's the return?  What
this really requires is a totally different way of thinking about
economics.  So, let's look at the LaRouche approach — very
briefly — to economics.  In his policy document for the US,
called "Four New Laws to Save the USA Now", LaRouche gave four
very primary steps.  First, Glass-Steagall, to end the connection
to the outrageously decrepit and collapsing financial system that
we have; it's almost totally divorced from the physical aspect of
economy.
Second, that we need a national banking approach.  Now, what
does that mean?  Let's think of some examples in US history as to
how a national approach to economy has occurred.&nb