Skabelsen af et Nyt Præsidentskab:
Lanceringen af The Hamiltonian.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast,
12. august 2016

"I stedet for at krybe ved jorden som et dyr, svinger menneskets ånd sig op til højere regioner. Og fra dette nye udsigtspunkt ser det på det umulige med forstærket mod og drømmer om endnu mere vidunderlige initiativer."  – Helen Keller ved et besøg i Empire State Building.

Engelsk udskrift. 

"Instead of crouching close to Earth like a beast, the spirit of man soars to higher regions.  And from this new point of vantage, he looks upon the impossible with fortified courage, and dreams yet more magnificent enterprises."

Helen Keller, upon visiting the Empire State Building.

Creating the New Presdency: The Launch of the Hamiltonian
International LaRouche PAC Webcast August 12, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! My name is Matthew Ogden. You're joining us for our weekly broadcast here on Friday evening for the LaRouche PAC webcast. It's August 12th, 2016. I'm joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review; and via video, by Diane Sare and Michael Steger, both
members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.
        In the past week, as you heard in our discussion on Monday, here, LaRouche PAC has initiated a very significant escalation in terms of our intervention into crafting the new Presidency. This is vectored around the publication of a new LaRouche PAC publication, The Hamiltonian, which is a broadsheet which is
being distributed en masse in Manhattan, in the streets of New York City. Ten thousand copies of this have been printed and they are currently, as we speak, being distributed around New York. This is intended to be an escalation, one, right into the heart of the two nominal Presidential campaigns, both of which are headquartered in New York City; and number two, this has the express purpose of breaking open the controlled propaganda environment that the American people are being subjected to each and every day, and rather, providing a leadership voice for the sane and responsible citizens of this republic to rally around.
        As Mr. LaRouche stated a couple of weeks ago, "I am not running for President, but I am certainly intending to affect the shaping of the government of the United States in the coming period." This initiative around the publication of The
Hamiltonian is certainly intended to do just that — to affect the shaping of the government of the United States in the coming period.
        Joining us tonight we have Diane Sare and Michael Steger, both of whom authored articles in the new copy of The Hamiltonian. Diane Sare is, obviously, responsible for coordinating the distribution and deployment of this broadsheet,
and Michael Steger authored one of the main articles, which was titled "The New Presidency: It Begins with LaRouche's Four Laws." Jeffrey Steinberg authored the other of those main articles, this one called "Hillary is Obama's stooge for War and Wall Street."
        I want to ask Jeff to begin the discussion, with some of the content of what you wrote in that article, to kind of frame what we're going to discuss, and then we can have Michael and Diane join the discussion after that.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG: Well, I think it's essential to discuss the content of that article from the standpoint of another {major} development that has taken place this week, namely, a series of meetings involving Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and now, today, Armenia. These represent major political interventions and initiatives by Russian President Putin. The most significant, clearly, was the meeting midweek in St. Petersburg between President Putin and President Erdogan of Turkey, in which Turkey has very clearly realigned itself with Russia on the issue of finally bringing an end to the five-and-a-half year Syria war.
        But, more broadly, Turkey is now positioning itself to be part of the whole Eurasian development framework which has been led by Putin and, of course, also by China's President, Xi Jinping. India's Prime Minister Modi is playing a major role in
this, and now we even see the Japanese Prime Minister Abe seeking to bring himself into this arrangement.
        The meeting that Putin had in Baku, just a day prior to his meeting with Erdogan, involved the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Iran. They resolved to rapidly accelerate the completion of the North-South Economic and Transportation Corridor, which is actually a new dimension, an added element within the overall
Chinese-initiated One Belt One Road program — what Lyndon and Helga LaRouche called for the last 20 years, the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
        The fact of the matter is, that this is the new emerging reality, that is dominating the global policy options. Anyone in their right mind will understand that the trans-Atlantic system is dead, and that this new system, which Putin has played a major
strategic role in engineering, in conjunction with China, is the future; it's the future of Eurasia, it's the future of Europe, it's really the future of the world as a whole. The big
policy issue for the United States in this Presidential election, is will the U.S. continue as it's been under Obama, and George Bush before that, to be a pawn of the British Empire — in which case the U.S. will pursue a policy of war, against Russia,
against China, and against the larger developments associated with the BRICS New Development Bank, the Chinese One Belt One Road policy, the AIIB, and all of that.
        The article that appears prominently in the first edition of The Hamiltonian warns about the fact that since the very day that she finalized her nomination by the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton has been sending out clear signals, through a
number of well-known leading policy surrogate voices, that she's aligned with the war party. That's the party of Bush, it's the party of Obama. Hillary, of course, in her position inside the Obama administration, made herself a pawn of that whole process,
as we saw in Libya, as we saw in the Benghazi cover-up, as we've seen in this horrific five-and-a-half year Syria war.
        Basically, since that time, since just a little over a week ago, you've had Leon Panetta, who was CIA Director and Defense Secretary under Obama — close, close ally, strong endorser of Hillary — coming out, basically calling for a major military
escalation to "regime change" the Assad government in Syria.
Michele Flournoy, who is widely believed to be Hillary's choice as Secretary of Defense, if she's elected, has come out with a series of reports. The institute that she [co-]founded and [serves on the Board of Directors], which is called the Center
for a New American Security, is the kind of follow-on to the PNAC, the Project for a New American Century. In fact, the same person who authored PNAC's plan for unipolar American world empire, Robert Kegan, was the principle author of the Center for a New American Security's study, drafted for either the Clinton or Trump campaigns just a few months back. It's all the same thing. It's empire, it's war, it's confrontation with Russia and China.

        OGDEN: Not to mention, Kegan's wife is Victoria Nuland.

        STEINBERG: Exactly, who is one of the people on the short list for Secretary of State, or some other very high position, if Hillary is elected.  The problem is that you can't avoid the fact that an intervention around steering the United States in a sane
policy direction, demands that you put enormous pressure on both candidates; that they're going to have to abandon the policy direction — in this case, Hillary's clear embrace of the neo-con unipolar world agenda — and change drastically. Otherwise,
before or after the November elections, we're facing an immediate, urgent, prospect of war with Russia, war with China; and that war would go thermonuclear and very quickly become a war of extinction for mankind.

OGDEN: The other aspect of the broadsheet was an article by Michael Steger. I think this goes hand-in-hand with what you were saying, Jeff; also from the standpoint of what I think we'll get into with the institutional question. The other reality, besides
the proximity of war, is the fact that we are right on the verge of a total meltdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system. The numbers are clear, with the situation of Deutsche Bank, the counter-party exposure of every single major bank in the world;
the fact that you have now unprecedented calls for the nationalization of Deutsche Bank coming from inside of Germany, which has never happened before; the initiative that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have taken around Deutsche Bank, per se; but also the entire Four Laws — Glass-Steagall, where you've seen a resurgence of mobilization around this from inside the United States, layers that had been dormant for quite a while; and then the entire rest of the LaRouche program.
        I think, as you said, Michael, this is the beginning; this is how you craft a new Presidency. Maybe you can say a little bit more about the other subject of the broadsheet.

MICHAEL STEGER: Sure! I think it's worth stating, as Jeff laid out, in terms of the international picture, that over these last 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, which I think is pertinent to the discussion here today as well — every major political institution, whether it be a political party, a branch of government, or a grass-roots organization, has largely been discredited by the inability to either stand up to the Bush and Obama regimes, or to not be bought out and compromised by them; besides what our organization has largely done.
        That creates a real political vacuum in the United States. As we've seen with both of these candidates, they're despised by a majority of their parties, and an increasing majority of the American people. And so when you look at the new Presidency, the way Lyn's laid it out — he laid this out, this paper, "The Four New Laws to Save the United States Now," this was two years ago. The perspective was clear from Lyn's vantage point, that we're at a point where there is no institution in the United States — political body, think tank — that has any clue at all of how to
deal with the current unfolding crisis. On one side, there's the immediate war danger, and the political breakdown of the European Union, NATO trans-Atlantic system. At the same time, there's the breakdown of the financial system. But they're not separate. They are the same fundamental system that is now facing a kind of moral bankruptcy, a collapse of any real value to human society.
        That doesn't mean that those nations don't. Clearly, nations like Germany, Italy, the United States have a real role to play in the overall development perspectives. But you have to see things in the context of this breakdown. What Lyn put forward, we've see it, we've seen the resurgence of Glass-Steagall. Both parties' platforms now have it. There's a clear recognition, broadly, among the American people, for what would seem an arcane banking regulation policy. But, as many people have grown to recognize, it's really the major tool to dismantle this Wall Street apparatus, this kind of criminal financial fraud that's been perpetrated, recklessly, without any real control, for the last 15 years, and really much longer.
        The question, that Lyn raised, was what is a competent government at this point, especially in the United States – a real, competent form of policy? And there has to be a commitment towards the future of mankind, long term. He said this repeatedly
in the recent period. We cannot base these steps we're going to take, on the past. We have to base our solution on the future. This is where you see what Jeff laid out — what Russia, under Putin, and China are now doing, is consolidating a very bright
future for the majority of mankind, with the collaboration of nations which have huge geo-strategic past problems, but recognize now the economic question of collaboration between China and India, India and Pakistan, Iran with other nations in
the Caucuses, with Russia.
        This kind of collaboration and integration of Eurasia is really a remarkable question. And in that, you have a driving policy led by China regarding space exploration and fusion research. China is one of the world leaders today in fusion
research capabilities, as is South Korea. You have a capability there for the United States to orient, around the Four Laws, which is (1) Glass-Steagall. The second is a National Banking system. That means you have a banking system which now has the
capability regulated by the office of the Treasury under a kind of Greenback-like Lincoln policy. The Third Law is that we define what a federal credit system is for. It's not just a federal credit system. You don't just allow the federal government now to just print credit. We define it from a physical-economic standpoint of the future, what is necessary for mankind's long-term survival. And that's where the collaboration of nations like Russia, China, and India become so essential, because these questions of space exploration and fusion power really define that. And that really is the Fourth Law, which is collaboration with these nations, around this kind of scientific advancement of mankind.
        From our perspective, and I think what should be an increasing perspective of the American people, who tend to find themselves distraught by this Presidential election, is not to cower in fear, or hide somewhere in a hole, waiting for it to all
end; but to recognize there's a political vacuum, where our leadership is essential, and that these policies are the immediate steps that any President has to take.  If not, we're
not going to regain or reconstitute a Constitutional American Presidency.  But they're actually going to secure the physical livelihood of the United States for the generations to come; and that really is the intervention that has to be made on the new
Presidency.  There will be a series of articles.  Kesha Rogers' second article was released in EIR magazine yesterday; and there will be a follow-up article next week by Dave Christie, and there will be more to come.

        OGDEN:  Well, absolutely filling that political vacuum is what The Hamiltonian is serving to do; and I think it's already having a radiating effect.  Diane, if you want to just jump in and discuss a little bit of the effect in New York.

SARE:  Well, first I'll just start by saying that Manhattan is the political center of the United States; and it's certainly the political center of these two campaigns.  Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are based in this area.  And I will also say the
population is clearly anguished.  We talked last week about Hillary's campaign, as Jeff just said, is providing cover for Obama to run his war and provocation policy.  And I think the weakness that we're filling in, which I experienced a bit on the call last night, is that Americans have been so bereft of a future, or thinking of a future, that they're not able to think strategically.  So, many people had questions about "Why is Putin working with Erdogan; isn't Erdogan horrible?  Didn't he do these horrible things?"  Well, he did do horrible things, but there is a strategic shift where it's become very clear that the interest of Turkey is tied up in the new BRICS dynamic.  That a New Paradigm has been created; and in a sense, that's what we are
creating here.
        I actually was sent something from one of our collaborators on the West Coast, which I think is really delightful in terms of an approach to how to think properly.  It's comments from Helen Keller when she got an opportunity to go up in the Empire State Building and "look" out at Manhattan.  I think everyone knows —
hopefully — that Helen Keller was both blind and deaf; but her insights into these matters are more striking and more profound. In fact, she speculates that she and her friend who was blind, had a much better view of Manhattan from the top of the Empire State Building than the people who had two good eyes.  Her description is somewhat delightful; she says that "It was a thrilling experience to be whizzed in a lift a quarter of a mile heavenward, and to see New York spread out like a marvelous
tapestry beneath us.  There was the Hudson, more like the flash of a sword blade than a noble river; the little island of Manhattan, set like a jewel in its nest of rainbow waters, stared up into my face.  And the Solar System circled about my head. Why, I thought, the Sun and the stars are suburbs of New York and I never knew it."  I think that makes her a New Yorker for sure. She said, "I have this sort of wild desire to invest in a bit of real estate on one of the planets.  All sense of depression and hard times vanished; I felt like being frivolous with the stars." Then, she talks about the construction of the Empire State Building as being poetical.  She says, "From everyone except my blind friend, I had received an impression of sordid materialism.
The piling up of one steel honeycomb upon another with no real purpose but to satisfy the American craving for the superlative in everything.  Well, I see in the Empire Building something else — passionate skill, arduous and fearless idealism.  The tallest building is a victory of imagination.  Instead of crouching close
to Earth like a beast, the spirit of man soars to higher regions. And from this new point of vantage, he looks upon the impossible with fortified courage, and dreams yet more magnificent enterprises."
        This reminds me so much of what President Kennedy about why we go to the Moon; or Krafft Ehricke's sense of the extraterrestrial imperative for mankind.  It's our job here — particularly in Manhattan, where I think people may be most
susceptible to it; because in Manhattan we are blessed with an extraordinarily diverse population from all over the world.  It's not simply that you have the headquarters of the United Nations; but if you think of what the population is in Queens and Brooklyn and New Jersey where I am and the surrounding areas, the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island had something to do with this many years ago.  You have a population which actually is in touch with the rest of the world.  So, there are people in this area that have a sense that the whole world is not going to Hell; that in some places, having a pothole that could swallow up a double-decker bus is actually considered a sign of poverty, and you're supposed to repair it and do something about it – as opposed to what people have begun to take for granted here.  So, the idea is to rekindle a spark of a certain quality of American identity which is a love of the future; a love of the potential for what mankind can contribute to the future.  Which I think Helen Keller expresses so magnificently in that piece.
        I would just say — Mike alluded to this — the question of September 11th; one person who was on the call last night said her uncle had just passed away two days ago.  He was someone who had worked there and suffered from various kinds of lung disease and finally died.  The death toll from these attacks has not ended; and it's not only people in New York who were first responders.  It's people who were killed in these wars which I think we're going to take up a bit more; these wars that were
totally unjustified, that were based on lies and cover-ups from the Bush administration through the Obama administration.  If we can address that, at this 15 years, that we end this period of injustice and of criminal wars of aggression, I think you could see a real shift.  It's as if the American people have had a heavy manhole cover on top of their brains and on top of their identities, and they haven't even allowed themselves to think of what the potential is.  In those circumstances, I think all bets are off, even in terms of this ridiculous scenario that we're calling a Presidential election.  There's nothing to say that these two mentally unstable characters going for Presidential candidates, have to be the candidates by the time we get to November.  Or, as Jeff was saying, [it] would be caused to shift by a shift in the population.  So, it's a very, very rich moment; and it's just urgent that everybody who hears what we are saying and what the LaRouche Movement is doing, who gets our literature, moves to circulate it and mobilize as many people as you can.

        OGDEN:  I think both you, Diane and Michael, stated about how you have to understand, how did we get to this point from looking at the last 15 years?  We never would have had a situation like this in terms of two Presidential candidates such as what we have, if the injustices of Obama administration had not gone on unpunished; if the crimes of the Bush and Cheney administration had not gone unpunished.  If Bush and Cheney had been impeached, I guarantee you, we would not be at the point,
where we are right now.  I think this is a question which has been re-opened in a very dramatic way, with the victory that we've won in the last month; which was the declassification of the 28 pages.  Just this week — Jeff, I know you have a little bit of insight into this — but Larry Wilkerson, who was the former chief of staff of Colin Powell, gave a series of interviews in which he said effectively, that what Cheney did was not only convincing Colin Powell to put the lies about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda into his testimony; which were obvious lies, but they were the pretext for the war against Iraq.  But also, Cheney played the central role in making the decision to keep anything having to do with the role of Saudi Arabia in funding and financing 9/11 out of the public eye.
        So, Jeff, I know you were saying yesterday, this actually opens up Cheney to criminal prosecution, if the implications of that are followed through.

        STEINBERG:  I think that there's another dimension as well to this, and I'll say something about the Cheney issue in just a moment.  Who would have imagined that President Obama would be boxed into such a corner that he would have to release the 28 pages?  I can tell you that since he lied to the 9/11 families for 7.5 years, and was very much under the sway of John Brennan who adamantly opposed the release of those 28 pages because of his own extremely close relationship with the Saudis; it's a very important object lesson that Obama was forced to do it.  It took a continuing battle; LaRouche Political Action Committee is widely known on Capitol Hill and around the country to have played a pivotal role.  Senator Bob Graham, the 9/11 Families — the leading activists — both the survivors of 9/11 and those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks, did not give up; they persisted.  This was a fight for 15 years.  I think there's a very important lesson to be drawn in the context of what we're
discussing about a critical policy moment, when neither party has been able to produce a Presidential candidate who's worth anything.  We've got to make sure that the fight over these issues is continuously put forward, continuously escalated.
We've forced the issue of the 28 pages.  I think that the July 6th press conference by Walter Jones, Steven Lynch, and Thomas Massie along with members of the 9/11 Families and Survivors was crucial; because they came out and said what we had been urging to be said.  These 28 pages must come out; it's in the vital interest of the American people and the world that they come out. They made clear that they will be made public; and they invoked the Mike Gravel heroic action of releasing the Pentagon Papers, which altered the whole course of the Vietnam War during Nixon.
        So, I think there's a very important lesson to be drawn: Persistently leading a fight; the commitment of the American people to the kind of change that they clearly demanded in the way that the primary votes happened.  The majority of voters were
voting for a revolutionary change in policy, not for a candidate. You had Bernie Sanders voters who abandoned him the instant he endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.  Trump was always seen as a kind of a loud mouth voice for something different.  People want that change; they've got to be organized around a policy
agenda.  LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws define that better than anything else in terms of the economic crisis and how to address insolvency.
        Now you do have Colonel Wilkerson, who was with Colin Powell throughout the four years that Powell was Secretary of State; was with him in the preparation of that UN disastrous testimony leading to the vote for the Iraq War.  He has basically said that he is an eyewitness to severe crimes; fraudulent representations of vital intelligence and covering up the role of the Saudis in order to launch an illegal war against Iraq.  We see the consequences of that right now.  There are many options on the table.
        Just in terms of follow-up on the 28 pages:  You have the JASTA bill that should come up and be voted almost unanimously out of the House of Representatives, so Obama can't veto it, the very first days that Congress comes back in September.  There should be a series of public forums walking people through the
content of the 28 pages.  There are probably millions of documents that are still suppressed, that are still classified; that lead to other leads that we don't even yet imagine.  We know the British, we know the Saudis in principle were the architects
on behalf of Bush and Cheney; but there's a great deal of work to be done on that issue.  We're coming up in early September on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks; LPAC and the Schiller Institute have a series of major events taking place in New York, including three memorial concerts — performances of Mozart's Requiem — all over the New York area around that critical weekend.  So, I think that we've got to maintain a commitment to maintaining and building and escalating on the momentum.  If there's a lesson to be learned from the 28 pages, it's that
Glass-Steagall comes next; and it comes right away.

OGDEN:  Right; absolutely.  I thought one point you made which was just remarkable in the interview yesterday that you conducted with Virginia State Senator Dick Black, you said what Cheney did after 9/11 would be as if Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor said "We're not going to attack the Japanese; we're going to blame the
Chinese for Pearl Harbor."  It was so outrageous to say the Saudis didn't do it; it was Iraq, it was Saddam Hussein.  I think, when that sinks in for the American people, you're going to see even more of a response.  The fact that this has broken open in
the last few weeks with the victory around the 28 pages; and as you said, 28 pages means the next victory comes next — Glass-Steagall.
        But one thing that's the subject of this The Hamiltonian broadsheet this week, is the petition that Diane wrote and is now being circulated en masse in Manhattan. 

Point one is complete; but points two, three, and four still have to go.  We need to
open a Chilcot Commission-type of investigation into Bush, Cheney, the entire rest of that apparatus — Obama included. What was Obama's interest in keeping these covered up for 7.5 years?  The key, I think — and it ties into the discussion from
earlier — is you need to accept the offer that was made one year ago at the United Nations General Assembly by Russian President Vladimir Putin for an alliance of the type that we had in World War II to defeat fascism.  An alliance with Russia, with China, with other interested parties in the world, to defeat what this terrorist apparatus actually represents.  So, I think as we're on the verge of the opening of this year's UN General Assembly meeting, and also the series of concerts that Jeff mentioned, this petition needs to continue to have a widespread and radiating impact.
        Diane, maybe you want to say a little bit more about that.

        SARE:  I can just say that it's being circulated by our activists here in the streets; and they're reporting getting a very intense response to it — more intense than anything that we've circulated recently.  I think it's important, when the vote on JASTA was first in the press a couple of months ago, before the release of the 28 pages, there was finally an appropriate, fearless anger, or righteous indignation of people saying, "How dare you tell us not to pursue the Saudis? That's outrageous!  We don't care if they're going to sell their Treasury bonds; we are
going to demand justice in this case."  I think it's really important that we keep that sense alive; which is what the petition will do.  I would also say, just because you mentioned the United Nations here; it happened that we got not only the release of The Hamiltonian this past week, but we received off the press the proceedings of this extraordinary Berlin conference that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche convened at the end of June.  Which had an incredible array of speakers, including Ambassador Chas
Freeman, including a woman from the Presidency of Assad in Syria, and many others; retired military from France, Germany, NATO, etc.  The thing taken as a whole, unfortunately there's not a way to put that incredible concert at the end of the program into a printed report; but nonetheless, we are also getting this out to each of the governments represented by their UN missions in this period going into the General Assembly in September.  So we are in a position to shape that discussion and to perhaps augment the kinds of things that surely are already being discussed; as we
see in the latest meeting, that Putin and Xi Jinping and others have been holding.

        OGDEN:  One thing I want to say in the context of the upcoming UN General Assembly; there is a war that is already happening against everything that the BRICS represents.  If you think back one year, two years, the Fortaleza Agreement was made
in the context really of this war that Cristina Fernando de Kirchner was leading in Argentina against the vulture funds. These nations came together in solidarity with Argentina and said we will not allow you to kill the Argentine people to get the
money for the vulture funds.  Since that time, you've had a coalescing around the leadership of Putin and Xi Jinping and Modi of the BRICS structure; this is the emerging New Paradigm.  Over the course of that time, you have had a concerted deployment to break the BRICS apart; and we're in the middle of one of those
major attacks right now.  We saw what happened to Cristina Kirchner in Argentina; now the same thing is happening to Dilma Rousseff in Brazil.  Just this week, you had the vote by the majority of the Brazilian Senate to open indictment hearings
against Rousseff; which means impeachment against the President of Brazil.  You do have the eruption of a certain response against that coup from inside the United States; and it's actually the subject of our institutional question we got for this week.
        I know Mr. LaRouche had some detailed remarks to say about
that.  I want to read this question, and then maybe Jeff, you can fill in a little bit about that.  It says: 

"Mr. LaRouche: US Representative John Conyers, Democrat from Michigan; Marcy
Kaptur, Democrat from Ohio; Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota; and more than 30 other members from the House of Representatives, sent a letter this week to Secretary of State John Kerry; urging him to refrain from gestures that could be
interpreted as supportive of Brazil's interim government.  And to instead "express strong concern regarding the impeachment process a targeting of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff; and to "call for the protection of constitutional democracy and the rule of law in Brazil."  The letter is the first Congressional letter expressing
concern over Brazil's democracy in over two decades.  In your view, with the impending impeachment trial, what actions should the United States government take to promote fairness and protect democratic institutions in Brazil at this time?" 

So, I know Lyn had some things to say about this.

        STEINBERG:  The first thing he emphasized is that you're not dealing with a "Brazil situation" in the same way that you're not dealing with a "Syria situation". 

We're in the midst of a major, global, strategic re-alignment.  As you said, at the Fortaleza meeting two years ago of the BRICS countries, you had the launching of the New Development Bank; followed by the launching of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank by China.  Clearly, there is a move centered among the major Eurasian powers, but also including Brazil and South America, South Africa, and
Africa, to re-align the world around a completely different approach; an approach that's oriented towards the future, that's centered on great projects of economic development that are truly win-win projects.  There's no geopolitical, zero-sum game.  And you've got a dead system, which is the British Empire system, which has been represented for the last 15 years by the fact that the British have controlled the US Presidency; under first George W Bush, and then after that, under Barack Obama.
        So, the first thing, the United States should do, is abandon its own direct role in promoting this coup.  This is not something that occurs because a bunch of figures inside Brazil have decided to go after Dilma Rousseff.  You've got the international apparatus of hedge funds; you've got the Adam Smith Institute networks in Britain; you've got the Chicago School apparatus here in the United States; that are all instrumental in this drive — not to damage Brazil — but to destroy Brazil because it's part of this BRICS new alignment.  I guarantee that if the United States were to publicly come out — if Kerry were to make a statement and say that the United States believes that this is a coup d'état; not necessarily using guns, but using actions by bought-and-paid-for corrupt officials to overthrow a legitimately elected government that is attempting to align South America with this new paradigm of development centered around Eurasia; this thing would go away.  The votes in the Senate are
absolutely shameless; the people who are behind this coup are themselves all legitimately under criminal investigation for massive financial fraud.  If you want to look at the Brazil element of the Panama Papers scandal, then you're going to find
the top officials — the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the current President, the current Foreign Minister; all of the people who have been aligned against Dilma, are part of the most corrupt apparatus.  But they're protected because
they're part of the British Empire and the Obama administration protected apparatus; and their objective is to try to destroy the BRICS.
        So, this is a global play; this is not a Brazil story.  It's not something that is narrowly associated with events in South America, or corruption, or anything like that.  This is a much bigger, worse, and far more dangerous thing; and it's part of the
general picture.  Is the world going to go in the direction of defending a system that's already dead?  Major economists this week described Deutsche Bank as a "dead bank walking"; and it's an apt description.  So, it's the question of whether a dead British Empire, largely controlling the US Presidency for the last 15-16 years, is going to basically bring the rest of the world down with it — because it can never survive.  Or, whether or not it's going to be cast aside and defeated and replaced by a new system that's already well underway.        

The critical question in this Presidential election is, will the American people tolerate candidates that want to align the United States with an already dead system?  Or, are we going to go in the direction of aligning the United States with this new
future-oriented alternative?  Historically, America has always been on the side of this future orientation; at least from its founding principles — the Hamiltonian ideas are really, what's underlying this Eurasian development.  So, we've got to win the fight to transform the United States back into what it historically represented as the city on the hill.

OGDEN:  I do think it's significant that the members of Congress who signed this letter, directly overlaps with the core group of the leadership around Glass-Steagall.

        STEINBERG:  That's right.

        OGDEN:  One more thing you just brought up:  What is the Hamiltonian idea?  What's at the core as the coherent unifying principle of this Four New Laws of Mr. LaRouche is the idea, that he expresses at the end of that document.  That there are no measuring rods for economics, which can be found within the domain of money; money is not a representative of value when it comes to economics.  It's the willingness to reject monetarism, which is what is making the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank — these are completely different species.  This is not just a different version of the IMF/World Bank system. You have a dedication to increasing the productivity of massive amounts of the population of the planet; billions of people will be affected by the New Silk Road, by these development projects which have been on the books for 40-50-60 years.  They are now actually being built, because of the investments, that are coming from the BRICS bank and China and so forth.  But it's an understanding of economics which I think has been the unique contribution that Mr. LaRouche has given to world history over the last 40-50 years; which is his unique understanding of what the true measuring rod of economics really is.  You have the constantly increasing of the accumulation of the ability of mankind to deploy new physical principles that have been discovered by man to increase our power over the Universe.
        In two very specific ways, I think the example of Albert Einstein is very important in this sense. Number one, just in the form of an analogy: The understanding of Albert Einstein, that you cannot have a measuring rod from inside of a system; but that there needs to be a measuring rod, which is external, which is a
principle.  Just as absolute time and absolute space did not exist for Albert Einstein, this is the kind of understanding that you need to bring to physical economics. And number two: Albert Einstein, perhaps more than anybody else, is paradigmatic of the
type of human creative thinking, which allows mankind to advance itself; which, as Helen Keller so beautifully described, brings us up from the ground like beasts crawling on our bellies and reacting to the circumstances around us, to becoming co-creators of this Universe.
        So, Michael, I thought you elaborated that in a very beautiful way at the end of your item in this week's Hamiltonian; and I wouldn't mind, if you had a little bit more
to say on that subject.

        STEGER:  I think you've said it well right now.  What I think is worth maybe coming back to, given the role of the creative personality, Kesha raised this on the show on Monday. Einstein also recognized that it is the unique role of the individual to shape and create essentially the new laws by which society then agrees to.  That, the discovery of those higher principles or natural law, then allows society itself to advance. Really, what you see today, many people are on vacation; too many
people, I think, are watching the Olympics.  I think the real doping scandal is inside the White House.  But what Putin has done with this diplomatic effort, is, that we are looking at the possible resolution of the Syrian crisis in Aleppo.  There is a kind of
process taking place that can resolve these things in the coming months.
        But then you have, in the course of just September, you have the Presidents of South Korea, Japan and China meeting Putin in Vladivostok.  Then they will all be going together down to the G-20 summit in China — where Putin will be the guest of honor — with the 20 largest nations; with Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Turkey, nations from Africa, all over Asia and Europe participating.  Then you have many of those heads of state coming to New York City right around the time of our concerts; but for
the UN General Assembly.  Of course, then many of those heads of state from the BRICS will be meeting in India in early October.
        Then, at this point in time, as Jeff said earlier this week, this whole financial system – Deutsche Bank, and the rest of the larger banks – can be rapidly unfolding, unravelling.  The bankruptcy can be disembowelment of the banking system,

essentially coming up in the near period.  Then, the Presidential elections come.  As much of a buffoon as Donald Trump is, he's shown himself the ability to slay a lot of other incapable politicians in debates; and I think, Hillary Clinton should be fairly
concerned, that her record with Obama is an absolute and very severe weakness.  An Achilles heel, because of the current climate in the political situation we face in the country.  So we are really at a remarkable [point].  Then, a collapse of the
trans-Atlantic system; an unfolding, consolidated effort in Eurasia led by Putin, and this quality of creative genius, that you're referencing from Einstein.  This is really, what Lyn has brought to bear on the planet; and it's really, what must be brought to bear in the Presidential system now in the United States.  Lyn must be part of shaping Presidential policy now.  We essentially are; but that's got to be the commitment of the American people, and not getting caught up in anything else, because it's a very rare opportunity today.

        OGDEN:  Wonderful.  So, as I said at the beginning of the program, this week has really marked a significant escalation in terms of the LaRouche PAC intervention into New York City in particular and the United States in general, with the publication of The Hamiltonian Volume I, no. 1. There are still several thousand copies of the original printing, which are available and need to be distributed.  I know during the regular Saturday afternoon Manhattan dialogue, which takes place every week in downtown Manhattan, there will be copies available to you, if you are able to help distribute them, and you're able to attend that meeting.  If you've been to the meeting before, and maybe you haven't been going regularly; you should go tomorrow.  If you've never been before, please contact Diane; the contact information
for the New Jersey office is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  We really do have a limited opening or time, but a very rich potential, a very rich opportunity to completely transform the dialogue in the United States.  In very much the same way
that Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers were used to create the United States in the first place around the ratification of the US Constitution and to raise the level of intelligence of the American citizenry, the new broadsheet — The Hamiltonian
can really be used in very much the same fashion.  I would implore everybody, who's watching this, to become involved in helping to distribute this; and make this something, which is widely available to the thinking portion of the American people.
        I'd like to thank both Diane and Michael for joining me here tonight; and thank you to Jeff.  And I'd like to thank all of you for tuning in.  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

Når mennesket konfronteres med et stort
onde, findes der en evne i det, som
kalder et endnu større gode frem
– Leibniz

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: »Jeg mener, at vi må mobilisere befolkningen til at blive aktiv; for tiden er ikke til at sidde på stakittet og blot kigge på, hvad disse såkaldte ’eliter’ foretager sig … befolkningerne har mistet tilliden til disse eliter, der repræsenterer dette globaliseringssystem. Ansvaret for at finde løsninger på situationen må derfor gå over til dem, der har ideer om, hvordan vi kommer ud af situationen. Hvilket er, hvad vi gør i New York med Manhattan-projektet; det, som det Internationale Schiller Institut gør; men jeg mener, at vi har brug for jeres støtte – I, som ser dette lige nu. Jeg vil gerne appellere til jer om at blive aktive sammen med os og være med til at gennemføre disse løsninger.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)


Vi må organisere et Nyt Paradigme omkring menneskets skønhed.
LaRouchePAC Internationale fredags-webcast, 5. august 2016

Zepp-LaRouche: »Men hvorvidt de eksisterende løsninger i tide bliver gennemført, afhænger i realiteten af befolkningens moralske kvalitet; især i USA og Europa. Og da jeg er overbevist om, at der findes en evne til det gode i mennesker, appellerer jeg til jer; påkald dette i jer selv. Sid ikke som tilskuere på sidelinjen og betragt historiens gang. Vi befinder os i en brydningstid af apokalyptiske dimensioner, der formentlig er lige så betydningsfuld, som overgangen fra Middelalderen til Moderne Tid var. Vi må lade denne aktuelle, kollapsende epoke bag os og erstatte den med et Nyt Paradigme, der er mennesket værdigt, og som manifesterer menneskets sande karakter som værende potentielt skønne, kreative; som næstekærlige væsener. Mennesket har potentiale til at blive genial; mennesket er af natur godt, og den blotte kendsgerning, at så mange mennesker ikke er gode, siger intet om menneskets natur. Det siger noget om omstændigheder, der har kaldt det onde frem i mennesket, snarere end at fremme det gode.«   



International LaRouche PAC Webcast, August 5, 2016

        JASON ROSS: Hello! Thank you for joining us. This is our
regular Friday webcast at LaRouchePAC.com. A special welcome to
our new viewers! This is our weekly roundup, where we discuss the
state of the world and our best options for changing it. I'm your
host this week, Jason Ross. We'll be joined in this episode by
two special guests, two leaders of the LaRouche movement. We'll
be hearing from Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the President of the
Schiller Institute, wife of Lyndon LaRouche, joining us from
Germany; and by Diane Sare, who is a leader of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee, joining us from the greater New York area. Mrs.
LaRouche has recently returned from a successful trip to China,
about which we will hear more very soon.
        To situate today's discussion, let me briefly discuss some
of the major developments on the subject of warfare and on
economy. On the war front, Obama is now engaged in a second war
in Libya, again without Congressional authorization or a UN
mandate. He is saying that he's attacking ISIS, which was not a
problem in Libya, prior to his disastrous war there earlier and
his attacks in Syria, creating an unlivable situation in the
entire region.
        Meanwhile, as Russia is collaborating with Syrian Armed
Forces for retaking Aleppo from precisely such types of
terrorists, this is being denounced by the media in the West as
"Russian meddling to prop up," as they always put it, "the Assad
regime," as they say "in Syria." It's part of a broader
orientation towards warfare with Russia, to prevent a new
paradigm from taking the world.
        As we've seen with the recent release of the 28 pages of the
Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, the Bush and Obama
administrations have been covering up for almost a decade and a
half now, Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11, Saudi support for
that attack. In light of this being known now, the wars in Iraq
and other places, seem even more cynical and more oriented
towards geo-politics, since we know what the real situation was,
regarding 9/11.
        And briefly on the economy: As a recent series of "stress
tests," as they call them in Europe, have shown, leading European
banks are ready to collapse. This was not really a secret before
the stress tests, but now it's being discussed more openly,
leading to a growing chorus of economists and others, calling for
precisely the kinds of measures that the LaRouches have been
advocating, namely, an end of the universal banking model, and a
return to a Glass-Steagall type separation between commercial and
investment banking. This is not to be seen as a banking reform in
itself, but to make it possible to use the banking sector for
real economic recovery.
        Briefly on the U.S. election: I can say that Lyndon
LaRouche's assessment, in the past couple of days, is that the
system is finished; that there is no solution in the game that
the American and European elites are trying to play; that the
financial sector has to be cancelled in large part, cleaned up,
as Roosevelt did. Neither of these two candidates are winning in
the United States. At most, the only success they can achieve,
would be to cause doom. Hillary Clinton? A stooge for Obama; is
going to push for increasing warfare, as expressed by her policy
of her campaign team right now. What's needed instead, is a
bulwark of positive ideas of what we ought to do.
        Let's bring in our special guest Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Thank
you for joining us tonight, Helga!

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Hello!

        ROSS: As we can see in some pictures to display for you now,
Helga has just returned from a trip to China, where she was a
participant in this year's G-20 process, specifically with her
participation in the T-20 Summit, the "Think 20" Summit, which
was being held as a prelude to the Heads of State G-20 Summit
coming up in early September. As you can see, Helga was one of
the panelists at this discussion forum.
        In your speech there, Helga, you pointed out that the G-20
is the most powerful combination of nations on the planet, having
a unique and appropriate forum to discuss the existential
challenges facing civilization. You called upon the world "to
take up a new paradigm that can lay the basis for the next 100
years of the human species and beyond," and pointed to the New
Silk Road being led by China, as an "expression of that vision."
You called for that to be coupled with projects "to have the
optimal impact on the cognitive powers of the populations of the
respective countries, to facilitate the best possible increase in
the productivity of the world economy," such as through "crash
programs for the development of thermonuclear fusion power."
        So, Helga, could you please tell us about your participation
in the T-20 forum, about the responses of others to your
initiatives and discussions?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: This coming G-20 meeting, beginning of
September, which will be sponsored by China, will take place in
Hangzhou, is coming at an extremely important moment. That was
also expressed by many of the participants, representatives of
different think-tanks from mainly Asia, Europe, Australia, Japan,
South Africa, other places, India. People were expressing, to
different degrees, an awareness of the fact that you have an
absolute coincidence of many crises, and that therefore the fact
that China is the one which is designing this G-20 meeting, if
there's anybody who can come up with a positive approach, it is
China. At least that's what I would also say was confirmed by the
different speeches.
        One goal the Chinese expressed, for example, was to move the
G-20 process away from crisis-reaction, to a more doable global
governance structure. In other words, bring the world in such a
shape that you're not just running away from one crisis to the
next, like the response to 2008 — the financial crisis — or
other crises. I think that this will be very difficult to
accomplish, because to move away from crisis-reaction, to a more
global governance, a new relation among nations in the world,
would require that the trans-Atlantic countries — the Europeans
and the United States — would be willing to look at why is the
world so much in disorder.
        There was actually quite upsetness [sic] and heated
presentations by some of the participants, pointing to the fact
that you have an unprecedented coincidence of crises. The
Eurozone, after the Brexit, is on the way of disintegration.
Other countries may follow the example of Great Britain, leaving
the EU. There was much awareness of the fact that the 2008
financial crisis was never really remedied, and that we are now
in front of a new crisis, which some participants, more
privately, said they fear would be much, much worse than that of
        Then, terrorism out of control, especially in France, in
Germany, in Belgium; the whole refugee crisis; the coup [attempt]
in Turkey, which had just taken place shortly before. Generally,
there were many people expressing complete outrage, or dismay,
about the fact that there is such a strong
anti-globalist/globalization movement, the rise of populist
movements. They were really upset. They said this is bringing
everything in[to] question, what we've been working for.
        But what I thought was the most striking, is that these same
speakers who were expressing quite an outrage about all of this,
{totally} lacked the ability to make the right analysis and
diagnosis of why is the world order so completely out of whack
and out of order. While people were reacting to all of these
phenomena, there was a complete lack, at least on the side of
most Europeans and most Asians other than, let's say, the
Chinese, to investigate what are the wrong beliefs, what are the
wrong assumptions. If there's not even a question of asking why
we have this accumulation of crises, then, naturally, they can't
come to decisions, and they can't come to the correct perspective
of remedy.
        The Chinese said many things which were very useful. For
example, they put a lot of emphasis on that we have to bring the
world economy on an innovation basis; that everybody must join in
the fruits of innovation, as the only basis for "sustainable"
development. But the Chinese gave this word a new meaning, and
that no one must be left behind; that also the developing
countries should have immediate access to the fruits of
innovation. That is, naturally, a very good approach, which
however I don't think will be shared by all the participants from
Europe, or, potentially, even the United States.
        I think it was a very important meeting. There is some hope,
because I think China has a clear sense that you need a new
paradigm. But everything will really depend on will the
Europeans, in time, be able to reflect on why is the EU
disintegrating; why do [we have] all of these problems, including
the non-performing debt? There was a lot of talk about the
Italian financial crisis. Will the Europeans be willing to
correct their erroneous views? I did not see much [of this]
demonstrated at this meeting, but we will see. It's less than
four weeks until this Summit will take place. One thing is for
sure: the crises will get more acute as the days pass.

        ROSS: It seems that there was, from what you're saying, an
understanding among the people, that there is a serious financial
crisis in the works. Could you say more about the contrast
between the view of China, and the view of other leaders, that
you saw at this Summit? What more does the world need to learn
from China? What are some of the blocks that you're seeing, in
terms of people's abilities to understand things?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the Chinese approach is the
only one on the table to overcome geo-politics. The Chinese new
model of relations among nations, is reflected in many different
aspects. One of them being what they call the "One Road, One
Belt" initiative, which, for Western ears sounds a little bit
funny, but that's how they call the New Silk Road perspective,
domestically in China. That has, very clearly, the idea of a
"win-win" cooperation. They are inviting every country on the
planet to cooperate in these projects. They want to work with the
European nations. They want to work with the United States. They
want to invite all developing countries. And they explicitly do
not have a geo-political confrontation [policy] of "China vs. the
United States," or "China vs. the West," but they want to be
        It's very interesting, that one of the speakers — actually
the professor who gave the final speech — explicitly said that
this is a Confucian idea; that if you want to have benefit, you
have to make sure that the other one has a benefit as well. That
is actually what {can} constitute a harmonious development among
different nations of the world.
        I think that the idea of inclusiveness, of overcoming
geo-politics with a win-win cooperation for the extension of the
New Silk Road to every corner of the world; the idea of having an
innovation-based approach, where everybody can share the
benefits, especially developing countries, so that their
development is not being held off — I think these are all
extremely useful conceptions, which I think are in real stark
contrast to the kind of United States being the only one setting
the rules; sticking to the unipolar world, which, obviously,
means confrontation in many parts of the world.
        I must say that, unfortunately, some of the Europeans,
especially the Germans, were all on this green-economy
perspective, which really is a British policy, because it goes
back to a paper which was published by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber,
who is a leading energy advisor of the Merkel government, who
published in 2011 this paper about the great transformation of
the world economy; requesting the de-carbonization of the world
economy.  And Schellnhuber had said that the carrying capacity of
the world would only be 1 billion.  Now, what to do with the
other 6 billion people living on the planet is obviously a
question he didn't want to answer; but there is such a thing as
the correlation between the energy flux density used in the
production process and the number of people which can be
maintained.  This is one of the key principles of the physical
economy as it was developed by my husband, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.
Therefore, if you want to go to only very low energy flux
densities like solar and wind — renewable energies — but
without nuclear, which is what the German government has decided
to do; that is terrible.  So, I think that the conflict between
ideology and reality clearly was visible in this conference as

        ROSS:  You're mentioning the economic conceptions of your
husband, Lyndon LaRouche, whose ideas are becoming increasingly
well known in China.  You're also quite well known in China, and
I know that while you were at the conference, there were some
interviews that took place; I think we can show on the screen one
of these interviews that was with the {Beijing Review} which was
just published in yesterday's edition.  Could you tell us, what
is the interest in China in your activities, in the LaRouche

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, first of all, the ideas of my husband,
Lyndon LaRouche, have been studied by many scholars since at
least the '90s; maybe even earlier.  There are quite a number of
scholars who have gone in depth into the question of physical
economy, of studying the whole question of physical economy going
back to Leibniz, going back to Friedrich List, Henry C Carey.
Friedrich List is one of, if not the most known economist in
China.  I think these scholars have recognized from a very early
time, the affinity between what they call the Chinese economic
model and the ideas of Mr. LaRouche.  I personally was in China
many times since the '90s; because we had promoted at that time
the question of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, the New Silk Road.
Which at that time was declared to be a long-term strategy of
China until the year 2010; but then the Asia crisis intervened.
George Soros speculated against the currencies of the Asian
nations, bringing them down by 80% in one week in the cases of
Malaysia and Indonesia and so forth.
        So this whole process was interrupted; but now, it's fully
back on the agenda in the form of the New Silk Road/Maritime Silk
Road initiative which was announced by Xi Jinping in 2013.  This
initiative is now the most dynamic policy on the whole planet;
because more than 70 countries have joined already in different
infrastructure projects, high-tech cooperation.  It is expected
that by the end of the year, about 100 nations will cooperate
with this new economic model, which is not only infrastructure,
R&D, high-tech projects; but also has developed an entire
parallel banking system in the form of the AIIB, the Asia
Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank of the
BRICS, the Silk Road Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund.  And all
of these banking institutions obviously function completely
differently; they're not oriented towards a casino economy, but
they're oriented towards infrastructure financing, and therefore
are really the kind of industrial banking, or financing of
agriculture and other projects of the real economy, which
unfortunately the trans-Atlantic sector has completely abandoned
— especially since the repeal of Glass-Steagall.  Therefore,
it's now a very important lifeboat in case of the collapse of the
financial system of the trans-Atlantic sector; which may happen
sooner than most people think is possible.
        The good news is you have this parallel, or as the Chinese
would say, this complementary banking system; so it's not
completely without hope that the Europeans and the United States
could associate with this system, if the non-sustainability of
the present system becomes obvious — which could happen at any

        ROSS:  It's interesting, while the Germans are bringing this
deadly Green ideology to China, at the same time you were in
China there was a conference in Hannover marking the 300th
anniversary of the passing of the great German thinker Gottfried
Leibniz.  And a number of Chinese scholars participated, and some
of their themes were on the relationship between Confucianism and
Leibniz's outlook on world affairs.  The theme of the overall
conference, as stated by one of the Chinese-born main speakers,
was about how concern for others is the necessary outlook to have
in life.
        Let me ask just one more question about the G-20; and then I
want to ask you about Deutsche Bank.  Do you see that this is the
kind of forum that can be effective in making these sorts of
policies a reality?  In other words, is the G-20 a sort of
discussion group that can make headway on getting these policies

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I don't know.  As I said, it is the
present organization of the most powerful nations.  Naturally,
there were also some representatives from some smaller countries
who were expressing that they did not feel totally represented by
this combination of the G-20; and it remains a big question.  I
think the Chinese will have the best intentions to bring in a New
Paradigm; to address the questions from the standpoint of moving
mankind into a new era at a point of utmost peril.  But I don't
know if this format will be suitable to accomplish that, given
the fact that it's one thing to have nice summits and obviously
it is important to have them; but the real questions are decided
in what will happen to the financial crisis.  As I said, to turn
the G-20 process from crisis reaction to a more stable
perspective for the entire human species would require that the
Europeans and the Americans are willing to address the fact that
their financial system is bankrupt; and implement Glass-Steagall.
Get rid of the non-performing debt; stop the casino economy —
what we have proposed.  Fortunately, there is some motion for
Glass-Steagall in the United States and also in some European
countries; but presently the G-7 governments are not expressing a
willingness to do so, so that will create a real conflict.
Naturally, on other issues which you mentioned in your
introduction, the conflict between the United States and Russia
in Syria and over the question of who is a terrorist and who not;
these are question which will be decided outside of the framework
of the G-20 summit, which only deals with economics and financial
matters.  Even if these other issues naturally impact the
financial system.
        I think it will be very important to mobilize the
populations of Europe and the United States to recognize that we
have to move into a New Paradigm of international cooperation.
Because the problems which are facing mankind right now are so
big, that I don't think — if you don't come to a solution which
is inclusive — we have to move from geopolitical confrontation
to the common aims of mankind; such as fighting  I think the G-20
probably will say something useful in terms of addressing
overcoming hunger and poverty.  From various discussions I had, I
think there will be such an agenda; but will it be realized?
Because it means to get rid of $2 quadrillion in outstanding
derivatives.  So, will these nice words be accompanied by the
actions which will make it possible?  Which is ending this
present system of globalization based on high-risk speculation;
that is the crucial question.  So, therefore, I think we should
not sit there and wait to see what happens, but we have to
mobilize the populations in the respective countries in the
United States and European nations to make sure that the existing
solutions are being implemented.  Such as the Four Laws defined
by Mr. LaRouche.
        Immediately, Glass-Steagall is the first step; then move to
a credit system in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton; then go
to a science driver based on space cooperation and colonization;
and create a new international credit system to facilitate the
kinds of projects defined in the New Silk Road.  I think we have
to mobilize the population to get active; because this is not a
moment to sit on the fence and just watch what these so-called
"elites" do, because this was another thing that came up in
various forms.  That the populations have lost trust in these
elites representing this globalization system.  Therefore, the
responsibility to remedy the situation must shift to those who
have concepts of how to get out of the situation.  Which is what
we are doing in New York with the Manhattan Project, what the
international Schiller Institute is doing; but I think we need
your support — you, who are watching us right now.  I want to
appeal to you, to get active with us to help to implement these

        ROSS:  Good!  Thank you very much for joining us, Helga. I
really appreciate your time.
        Now, we're going to be hearing from Diane Sare, a leader of
the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee and the founding director of
the Schiller Institute New York City Community Chorus.  So,
thanks for being with us, Diane.  Hello.
        Let me start by asking you to help our viewers understand
how to approach the context of the election; how we can shape
what the United States does, which in many ways, many people
think that the election is the most important way to shape that.
But in reflecting on what Helga had discussed about the potential
for the G-20 to have ideas about eliminating hunger, poverty; but
where will the ability to take on the derivatives bubble come
from?  And where will the ability to stop the push of geopolitics
and war come from?  The US is really essential to change that.
Let me ask you if you could share with us what is your
assessment, what is Mr. LaRouche's assessment about the
selection, about Hillary Clinton, about the threat of war in

        DIANE SARE:  Well, the so-called election is really a fraud.
I think what Helga Zepp-LaRouche has just outlined is the major
"game in town" to put it in American lingo; and the truth of the
matter is that the major player in world politics today is
Vladimir Putin.  It is not Obama; it is not the United States,
although we are, I'm afraid, a deadly menace because we have the
wrong policies.  What we've been discussing recently here in
Manhattan, because Manhattan in a sense is the center of this
electoral process; both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are
based in this area.  Both of them are highly destructive
individuals; and Americans should simply not fall into the trap
that they somehow have to choose between one or the other.  In
fact, we heard recently that only 9% of the American population
have indeed voted for one of them; so you have 91% of the
population whose "vote" is for neither.  That in and of itself is
not sufficient; we have to actually identify the root of this
evil, and we have to put the solutions on the table.

        ROSS:  Well, the Four Laws is something we've been
discussing in this broadcast today; that history isn't made only
through opposing things.  In mid-2014, LaRouche had issued this
policy document on "The Four Laws to Save the USA Now".  Let me
read a concluding section of this, and then ask you to comment on
this.  LaRouche ends:  "Mankind's progress, as measured rather
simply as a species, is expressed typically in the rising power
of the principle of human life over the abilities of animal life
generally; and relatively absolute superiority over the powers of
non-living processes to achieve within mankind's willful
intervention that intended effect."  He says, "Progress exists so
only under a continuing progressive increase of the productive
and related powers of the human species.  That progress defines
the absolute distinction of the human species from all others
presently known to us.  A government of people based on a policy
of zero population growth and per capita standard of human life,
is a moral and practical abomination."  He concludes saying a
fusion economy is "the presently urgent next step and standard
for man's gains of power within the Solar System and later,
beyond."  That's how he concludes this document that opens with
some of the necessary steps:  Glass-Steagall; national banking;
Federal credit; a commitment to a fusion driver.  And he puts
this all in the context of what economic value means to the human
        So, I was wondering, Diane, could you say more?  How do you
see the purpose, the nature of the human individual and the
relation of that to economy?

        SARE:  Well, I think the key is as Alexander Hamilton, his
understanding; and Lyndon LaRouche — I do think our viewers
should really be aware — is a great scientific thinker and has
made great unique contributions in this field.  Specifically, the
relationship of human creativity to generating the conditions
where a growing population can have a higher standard of living
from one generation to the next.  What they understood is that
the source of wealth is not money; it's not property; it's not
even labor — we are not animals.  The source of wealth is the
potential to make a creative discovery which exists in the mind
of each human individual; which transforms our relationship to
the Universe and our power over the Universe.  For any society to
be just — and that I think is the importance of Leibniz and the
relationship of Leibniz to the framers of our Constitution; for a
nation to be just, it has to embody a commitment to that
principle of creativity in the individual citizen.

        ROSS:  You know, maybe Helga might actually like to speak on
this, too.  When these proposals get made, for example the
proposal by Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche on having an emergency
recapitalization of Deutsche Bank on condition that the role of
that bank would change in a different context of economic
activity.  Sometimes, some of our supporters have a very
difficult time believing Mr. LaRouche would ever call for the
helping of a bank as it seems.  Would either of you like to say
more about that proposal and about what is the true role of the
banking sector in a productive economy?  Why would we need say,
for example, Deutsche Bank?  What role can banking play usefully?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think we were all very surprised at the
waves of almost hatred came out when we made this proposal.
People reacted in the strongest terms, saying "Let them go
bankrupt!  Why should we save this bank?  Or, why should we save
any bank, for that matter?"  Which naturally has to do with the
fact that the populations who have been victimized by these
policies for the last really decades, but especially after the
2008 crisis; experience that the rich becomes more rich, and that
the middle class vanishes — becomes poor; and that the number of
poor becomes bigger and bigger, and their livelihood is being
eaten away.  People just have a sense to just get rid of these
banks.  But naturally, the question is, what happens if you have
an uncontrolled collapse?  That is what we are looking at right
now; where it's staring at us that you could have right now a
collapse of the system which would create instant chaos.  And
that chaos is probably as dangerous as the danger of
thermonuclear war; because once you have a collapse of
production, supply, there is no food anymore in the store.  Which
could happen if one of the "too big to fail" banks would go
bankrupt.  You have now so many mines, it's like a minefield with
a thousand possibilities to blow up.
        The idea to have an orderly process of unwinding these very
complicated instruments — the derivatives have so many
counterparties that you need an approach.  You need to have an
approach to bring some kind of orderly reorganization in this to
prevent a chaotic collapse.  We are not proposing to save
Deutsche Bank or any other bank for that matter, as they are; but
the idea is to put a control commission or insolvency commission
or some kind of administration in there which does an orderly
unwinding of these outstanding debts and their complicated
involvements with many international contracts.  Nobody has an
overview anymore about these matters, not even the central banks
have an overview.  Then put a different business plan in such a
bank; the reason why we were referring to Alfred Herrhausen, who
was the last decent industrial banker of Deutsche Bank, is
because you need to get people an idea of what we are talking
about.  There was once a different kind of banking philosophy,
namely that banks are not a thing in themselves, but they should
be the servants of industry, and agriculture and trade.  Right
now what you have is, the bankers think they are the kings of
Olympus; that they should have bonuses of two to three digit
million sums every year.  For what?  I cannot see that they do
any work which is productive; but they somehow have developed
that they should have all of this wealth and bonuses and
millions.  And that the effects of their policies should be
discounted.  But there was once an idea of banking — in Germany
it was such bankers as Herman Abs; the postwar reconstruction
period which contributed to the economic miracle of Germany in
the postwar period.  Or Alfred Herrhausen, who had the idea that
banking must provide for the well being of the people; that the
idea of giving credit is to promote the productive part of the
economy and to further productive relations among different
nations.  That is what we have to get back to; but people have
such a short memory that nowadays people have no memory of how it
was.  How was the Franklin D Roosevelt Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, which was exactly such a mechanism, that you have a
certain state role in providing for the productive capacities of
        That was also the philosophy in the reconstruction of
Germany after the Second World War; and Herman Abs and Alfred
Herrhausen are the kinds of bankers who should be a role model,
because banking is necessary.  You have to have some kind of
distribution of credit lines, because we have to reconstruct the
real economy; so the idea to just close down the banks is an
impulse which is understandable, but it does not address the
problem.  Because we have to rebuild the economy, we have to have
a banking system where credit lines are given for those kinds of
things for which you would invest if the economy would be in good
shape.  You have to have physical principles, you have to have
the idea that these credit lines should increase the productivity
of the industrial capacities and the labor power.
        We have a gigantic job of education to do, because the
dumbing down of the labor force as part of the general population
has become such a crucial factor.  That you have many people, who
maybe they can write and read comics, but they are functionally
illiterate from the standpoint of comprehending difficult texts
or difficult physical conceptions of the economy.  There are many
people in the youth age who, from the standpoint of industry, are
completely unemployable.  What you need is a kind of approach
like the CCC program of FDR; where you have training programs.
You have to increase that creativity in the population which
makes them want to know new things; to be part of an
innovation-based economy.  Which is why I was emphasizing the
Chinese; fortunately, they have this idea.  They put an enormous
amount on the best qualification of their youth, their students.
They have the idea of not using up old industries from the
so-called West; but they want to leap frog always to most
advanced technology.  They have an enormous emphasis on the
development of thermonuclear fusion power of other advanced
scientists.  And among the scientist community, there is a
general understanding; if you want to get something done in
science, go to China.  It's no longer go the United States or go
to Europe; and that has everything to do with the Green policies
and these ideological policies, which have more to do with
control rather than promoting excellence or scientific progress.
        So, I think that the idea of going back to the paradigm of
Alfred Herrhausen is much more a pedagogical device; because you
have to get people to understand that banking is necessary, but
it must be based on completely different principles.

        SARE:  I'd just like to follow up with what Helga said in
terms of the US elections and people's hatred for Hillary
Clinton; which is similar to their hatred for bailing out banks,
although in the case of Hillary, they're more correct than they
might realize.  We just had here, as people know, the Democratic
Party convention; where even in the somewhat scrubbed coverage
that you saw, you could see huge numbers of people who were
frowning, scowling, who had signs up about not having a war —
"Walk the Walk".  There's a great deal of anger at Hillary
Clinton.  People perceive her correctly as a stooge of Wall
Street; as she identified herself last year, when one of my
associates — Daniel Burke — asked her at a meeting whether she
would support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.  She refused
to answer.  Mr. LaRouche said that was the beginning of her
disintegration; although it was not the beginning of her becoming
a stooge, of selling her soul to the Devil, so to speak, and her
decision to work with Obama.  I just want to fill this out,
because there's not a difference between someone who would
support these criminal bail-outs and bonuses that Helga was
talking about for these bankers, these speculators who have
destroyed the entire trans-Atlantic economy and the living
standards of all the people here; but also those who are pushing
war.  In the recent days, several of Hillary's spokespeople have
come out calling for the overthrow of Assad explicitly.  She
herself has commented that she knows for a fact that Vladimir
Putin is somehow behind the hacking of the emails among the
Democratic National Committee.  How she knows that, what her
evidence is, I have no idea.  She has not been forthcoming on it.
        There's an op-ed in the {New York Times} today titled
"Spooks for Hillary", written by Michael Morell, who describes
himself as a 33-year career CIA operative.  In fact, he was the
Deputy Director during the September 11th attacks.  First of all,
that in and of itself I would say, is a complete indictment of
his own powers of morality and judgment; because as we know from
the 28 pages that were just recently released, both the CIA and
FBI had quite intimate knowledge of the activities of the people
who became the hijackers on that day.  They were tracking many of
them two and three years before the September 11th attacks; and
they decided not to pursue these leads, because Saudi Arabia was
an ally of the United States.  So, first of all, who would want
to be publicly associated with such criminal agencies and brag
about that as if that gives them any kind of authority?  Then, he
goes on to say that the reason he's endorsing Hillary is because
"Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought bin
Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important
colleagues on the National Security Council.  During the early
debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she
was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach.  When some
wanted to delay the bin Laden raid by one day because of the
White House Correspondents' Dinner, she said 'Screw the White
House Correspondents' Dinner!'|"
        So according to this CIA careerist, who presumably was
involved in the cover-up of the Saudi role in 9/11 and the
activities of the hijackers going into this, Hillary Clinton is
the qualified candidate.  Then he goes on to attack Vladimir
Putin and says Putin is manipulating Donald Trump.  It's
outrageous.  Seymour Hersh has exposed the Osama bin Laden
[inaud; 47:36] as a complete media-video-public relations stunt
done by Barack Obama; where the location of Osama bin Laden was
revealed by a Pakistani physician who wanted to get the reward
that was being offered by the US State Department.  So, they had
all of the details of his whereabouts; the security was taken
down so we could march in and film the capture and killing of
Osama bin Laden.  And Barack Obama could take credit for it.
        So, you have Hillary Clinton on record as backing that
premeditated assassination of Osama bin Laden; you have her on
record giggling after Qaddafi was killed, saying "We came; we
saw; he died" or whatever it was.  This is a form of pure evil;
it's a terrible sell-out of the American people.  And it is
actually a cover for Obama continuing his war policy now; which
you referenced at the beginning of this discussion — the new war
in Libya.  Where apparently, Obama gave a speech yesterday,
claiming that the United States is conducting the most precise
air campaign ever waged.  We're invited by a Libyan government
that has not even been officially confirmed by its own
parliamentary rules.  This is a war that has not been approved by
Congress; and Obama is engaging in this against our Constitution.
You then had the questions of who we're supporting in Syria; the
alleged "moderate" Syrian rebels, one group of which that we are
claiming to be an ally — this al-Zenki group, who just
decapitated a 12-year old and filmed it.  And now it's been found
that they used poison gas in an area; and when our State
Department spokesman, Mark Toner was asked about this and whether
we would continue to provide funds to what I would class a
terrorist organization, he said well, one incident here and there
doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist group.  So, if you're
using chemicals to exterminate groups of people, or beheading
children, don't worry; you most like will not lose your funding
from the US State Department.
        This is what Hillary Clinton actually represents.  What Mr.
LaRouche further stressed — which I think is the important
question for Americans and the viewers — is we have to look at
what action created Obama.  How do we get the Obama Presidency?
What was the role of the British monarchy, through certain of Her
Majesty's creatures like George Soros; the Jew who claimed that
the high point of his life was working for the Nazis in Hungary,
taking all of people's possessions as they got herded off to the
boxcars for the concentration camps?  People know that Soros
played a major role in funding the Obama campaign; he has given
Hillary Clinton's campaign millions of dollars, and that would
imply ownership of this.
        I would just say that it is really high time for the
American people to stop going along with these kinds of criminal
policies.  There is an entirely New Paradigm out there which is
largely the creation, the work of Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche has been
the inspiration of this.  The United States could choose to leave
the insanity of — frankly, the way the United States is
functioning, it's almost like we're in a real live Pokemon Go
game, which they're calling an election.  We could actually step
out of that and into reality.  I would say that people should
know that within the next couple of days, we're going to be
launching a campaign here in Manhattan, producing several
thousand copies of a broadsheet which will have the documentation
on Hillary Clinton's criminal background and her commitment to a
war drive against Russia and China; which I think will have quite
an impact here.  The material in that will be available on the
LaRouche PAC website very soon.

        ROSS:  I'd like to just ask Helga if you have any other
remarks you'd like to add?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think most people have a sense that
things are really getting out of control.  That the coincidence
of all these things happening at the same time gives many people
the feeling that there's nothing one can do; that there's an
unbelievable process of disintegration going on.  Naturally, if
you look at the two candidates of the United States, there is a
rather perplexed reaction in the rest of the world that the
United States should not have come up with some better
candidates.  The rest of the world looks at the European Union
and says the European Union is no longer a model; it used to be a
model of integration for ASEAN, for Latin America, for the
African Union.  But no longer; the elites obviously can't handle
the situation that is credited by the people and so forth.  So,
while I could describe these symptoms more, I would like actually
to say that we are in a moment which is really an extraordinary
moment in history.  At this T-20 conference, one Chinese speaker
said this is moment like 1989; referring to the point when the
Berlin Wall came down, which was the prelude to the German
reunification and the collapse of the Soviet Union.  So, it's one
of these monumental, apocryphal moments in history, where it is
impossible to make a prediction.  We cannot responsibly tell you
this will be the outcome of this period of history.  All I can
say is — and Jason, since you mentioned Leibniz, who was an
important influence in the American Revolution, the Declaration
of Independence, the whole idea of the pursuit of happiness goes
back to Leibniz.  He said something which I think we should think
about, and that is that the nature of human beings is such, and
the nature of creation is such, that when man is confronted with
a great evil, there is a capacity in him that brings forth an
even greater good.  I think it is very important that each of
becomes conscious about that; and you consciously actualize that
greater sense of good in yourself, each of us in ourselves.
        Because I am absolutely certain that the solutions are at
hand; it's not a reason to be desperate.  Because it would be
relatively easy to implement Glass-Steagall; you just have to
move it from the Glass-Steagall formulation in the platforms of
the Democratic and Republican Parties, to move it into actuality.
And do a similar reform in Europe and then have the United States
and Europe join with this parallel economic system which I
described before with the AIIB, the New Development Bank, and so
forth.  Then move to a New Paradigm; do what Franklin D Roosevelt
did with the New Deal, with the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, with the rebuilding of the economy in the '30s.
This can all be done today.  So, it's not that we are without
solutions; we have a clear perspective, because you have all of
these nations working together already in different degrees on
this "win-win" perspective for a New Silk Road.
        So, a lot depends upon the subjective; because it's not that
we have an objective breakdown crisis, we have that.  But if the
solutions which exist can be implemented in time, really depends
upon the moral quality of the population; especially in the
United States and in Europe.  And since I believe there is this
capacity for the good in human beings, I appeal to you; invoke
that inside yourself.  Don't sit on the fence and watch history.
We are in an apocryphal change, which is probably at least as big
as the transformation from the Middle Ages period to the new
modern times.  We have to leave this present collapsing epoch
behind us and replace it with a New Paradigm which is worthy of
the dignity of man and is the true character of human beings as
being beautiful potentially, as being creative, as being loving.
The human being is potentially a genius; human beings are good by
nature, and just the fact that today so many people are not good
doesn't say anything about the nature of man.  It says something
about conditions which have evoked the evil in people rather than
promoting the good.  I think history is not determined by
objective factors; we don't have what the Communists used to call
a "histo-mat" — historical materialism — or "dia-mat" —
dialectical materialism.  I think that the subjective factor in
history is much more important, and many times really decides it.
I want to say that both to give you confidence about the nature
of man; but also to appeal to you to get active with us.  So,
contact us and we will move mountains.

        ROSS:  Many opportunities to do good right now.  Thank you
both for joining us; and thank you, viewers.  To find out more
about these things, "The Four Laws to Save the USA Now" — the
document by LaRouche as displayed during this webcast — is
available through a link in the video description, and at
lpac.co/four-laws.  Please subscribe to this channel if you
haven't already; "like" this video.  If you have questions or
comments, leave them; and {donate} to LaRouche PAC.  We rely
entirely on the support of individuals like you to finance our
operations and to achieve this victory.  So, help; let's win this
one.  Thank you for joining us.

»Dette gamle system er dødt, og det er
vores ansvar at bringe menneskeheden
over tærsklen til en helt ny æra«

Lyndon LaRouche:

»… Det er os, der skal få dette til at ske. Der findes intet andet alternativ. Hvorvidt Kongressen vil handle eller ej er højst usikkert, for der er intet forudsigeligt i dette politiske system. Det, der må ske, er, at der må være en massiv bevægelse, der må have et lederskab, og som må gennemtvinge denne forholdsregel (Glass-Steagall, -red.), og som vil medføre, at visse kendsgerninger kommer for dagens lys – dvs., systemets totale bankerot.«

Glass-Steagall er imidlertid kun det første skridt. Jeg mener, at vi har sagt dette gentagne gange, men det vil blive aftenens store debatemne: Den form for initiativ, som hr. LaRouche har taget mht. Deutsche Bank, med et krav om en tilbagevenden til arven efter Alfred Herrhausen, den sidste, fornuftige bankier i Deutsche Bank, og som blev myrdet i koldt blod den 30. november 1989, netop på det tidspunkt, hvor den fremtidige verdenshistorie stod over for en kæmpe chance.

Uddrag af LaRouchePAC Internationale fredags-webcast, 29. juli 2016:

Virkelighed er, om folk i dag har modet til at indrømme, at LaRouche har ret!

Matthew Ogden: Jeg mener, at vi bestemt kan sige, at vi står ved afslutningen af en gammel æra. Vi har et helt, paradigmatisk system, der er i færd med at kollapse totalt omkring os, og vi kan forhåbentlig sige, at vi står på tærsklen til en ny æra. Vi stirrer direkte ind i ansigtet på det transatlantiske finansielle systems totale opløsning. Dette ses ikke tydeligere end gennem den kendsgerning, at man har disse såkaldte ’stresstests’, som finder sted i dag i alle de større europæiske banker. Resultatet af disse stresstests skal efter planen offentliggøres senere i aften; men, som hr. LaRouche har sagt, »Man behøver ikke at teste disse banker. Man ved, at hele banksystemet er totalt bankerot«.

Især to af disse banker har fået meget udstrakt mediedækning. Den ene er Monte dei Paschi-banken, der er verdens største og ældste, uafbrudt fungerende bank, og den største bank i Italien, og de vil næsten med sikkerhed dumpe til stresstesten, sammen med praktisk talt alle andre banker i Italien, som samlet set rapporteres at sidde på gæld, der ikke betales på, for mellem 210 – 360 milliarder euro, som umuligt kan reddes gennem bailout (statslig redning; ’bankpakke’ med skatteborgermidler, -red.) af Italiens bankerotte økonomi, eller af EU’s ditto, for den sags skyld.

På den anden side har vi Tysklands største bank, Deutsche Bank, der af IMF er blevet beskrevet som den mest risikobelagte, mest sårbare bank i hele systemet. Vi har på det seneste dækket Deutsche Banks bankerot med den forbløffende statistik, at Deutsche Banks nettoprofit nu vitterligt er nede på næsten nul, med et af Deutsche Bank rapporteret 97 % ’s kollaps i nettoprofitten blot det seneste år. Deutsche Banks eksponering til derivater er massiv. Hver eneste større bank i verden er indviklet i Deutsche Bank som en modpart (i derivatkontrakter, -red.). Hvis Deutsche Bank går ned, vil man få en smitteeffekt, der er langt, langt større end i september 2008. Bare fra i onsdags er Deutsche Banks aktier faldet med 8 %. Merrill Lynch har nu nedgraderet banken, og det samme har Frankfurts aktiebørs.

Som det ses, så kan både den ene og den anden af disse banker dumpe til stresstesten. Stresstest eller ej, så kan hele dette system gå op i røg, hvornår, det skal være, og alene dét kan udløse en massiv panik i hele den transatlantiske verden. Det kan ikke understreges tydeligere. Det her er langt, langt værre end den situation, vi befandt os i, i dagene før krakket i 2008.

Det må siges højt og tydeligt, at dette er den drivkraft, der ligger bag truslen om en verdenskrig på dette tidspunkt. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gentagne gange har understreget i de seneste uger, så findes der ingen garanteret strategi for at afværge en sådan krig, med undtagelse af at tage roden til denne krigstrussel under behandling, hvilket vil sige en total, systemisk reorganisering af hele det transatlantiske finanssystem. Dette betyder en reorganisering fra øverst til nederst sådan, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde det i sit embedes allerførste dage, som præsident for USA.

Det afgørende, første skridt i denne totale reorganisering er selvfølgelig en genindførelse af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov, i sin helhed, fra 1933, ikke blot i USA, men i hele den transatlantiske verden. Dette er faktisk emnet for det spørgsmål, vi har fået fra institutionelt hold i aften, og som hr. LaRouche kort kommenterede. Spørgsmålet lød:

»Kære hr. LaRouche, kravet om en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall er nu inkluderet i både det Republikanske og Demokratiske partis valgprogram. Hvor sandsynligt er det, efter Deres mening, at Kongressen vil vedtage Glass-Steagall?«

Lyndon LaRouche:

»Ja, vi satser selvfølgelig ikke alt på denne sandsynlighed. Det er os, der skal få dette til at ske. Der findes intet andet alternativ. Hvorvidt Kongressen vil handle eller ej er højst usikkert, for der er intet forudsigeligt i dette politiske system. Det, der må ske, er, at der må være en massiv bevægelse, der må have et lederskab, og som må gennemtvinge denne forholdsregel (Glass-Steagall, -red.), og som vil medføre, at visse kendsgerninger kommer for dagens lys – dvs., systemets totale bankerot.«

Glass-Steagall er imidlertid kun det første skridt. Jeg mener, at vi har sagt dette gentagne gange, men det vil blive aftenens store debatemne: Den form for initiativ, som hr. LaRouche har taget mht. Deutsche Bank, med et krav om en tilbagevenden til arven efter Alfred Herrhausen, den sidste, fornuftige bankier i Deutsche Bank, og som blev myrdet i koldt blod den 30. november 1989, netop på det tidspunkt, hvor den fremtidige verdenshistorie stod over for en kæmpe chance.

Denne form for aktion, som hr. LaRouche har krævet – interventionen i Deutsche Bank – er paradigmatisk for den absolut nødvendige tankegang. Hvad betyder det for os her, i dag? Det er, mener jeg, den form for diskussion, som er blevet genoplivet med ideen om De Fire Love [til USA’s (og verdens!) omgående redning] for en reorganisering af finanssystemet. Dette er ikke blot en samling opskrifter, eller en vasketøjsliste over skridt, der må tages, men, som folk også har erkendt, så udgør De Fire Love sådan, som hr. LaRouche har udtænkt det, en enkelt, sammenhængende principerklæring, der bygger på en enkel, fundamental sandhed om den virkelige videnskab om fysisk økonomi. Denne enkelte, fundamentale forudsætning er den, at mennesket er en art ulig nogen anden. Mennesket er fuldstædigt unikt blandt alle andre levende væsener deri, at udelukkende kun mennesket er i stand til at skabe fuldstændigt nye måder for eksistens, der ikke har nogen forudgående manifestation, ingen afledningseffekt, der stammer fra tidligere erfaringer, men som er en fuldstændig ny, menneskelig adfærdsform. Udelukkende kun mennesket har evnen til viljemæssigt at skabe fremtiden.

Denne, menneskets absolut unikke egenskab, eksemplificeres i en meget destilleret og dybtgående form gennem nogle meget betydningsfulde personligheder, der stadig findes i mands minde hos mange nulevende personer: Albert Einstein er én af dem; og den store, visionære rumforsker, raketingeniøren Krafft Ehricke, er en anden. Jeg tror, dette vil være optakten til, og ligesom skabe en ramme for, aftenens fortsatte diskussion. Men lad mig blot gentage: Jeg tror, vi med sindsro kan sige,

»Dette gamle system er dødt, og det er vores ansvar at bringe menneskeheden over tærsklen til en helt ny æra.«

(Se det engelske udskrift af hele diskussionen her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=13902)



»Vi står på tærsklen til en ny æra«
LaRouchePAC Internationale fredags-webcast, 29. juli 2016.

Virkelighed er, om folk i dag har modet til at indrømme, at LaRouche har ret!

Jeg mener, at vi bestemt kan sige, at vi står ved afslutningen af en gammel æra. Vi har et helt, paradigmatisk system, der er i færd med at kollapse totalt omkring os, og vi kan forhåbentlig sige, at vi står på tærsklen til en ny æra. Vi stirrer direkte ind i ansigtet på det transatlantiske finansielle systems totale opløsning. Dette ses ikke tydeligere end gennem den kendsgerning, at man har disse såkaldte ’stresstests’, som finder sted i dag i alle de større europæiske banker. Resultatet af disse stresstests skal efter planen offentliggøres senere i aften; men, som hr. LaRouche har sagt, »Man behøver ikke at teste disse banker. Man ved, at hele banksystemet er totalt bankerot«.

Engelsk udskrift:

»Standing at the Threshold of a New Era« 

International LaRouche PAC Webcast July 29, 2016
        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's July 29th, 2016. You're joining us for our weekly webcast here from LaRouchePAC.com on Friday night. I'm joined in the studio today by Megan Beets; and joined via video by two members of our Policy Committee: Kesha Rogers, who's joining us from Houston, Texas; as well as Rachel
Brinkley, who's joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
        I think we can certainly say that we are standing at the end of an old era. We have an entire paradigmatic system which is completely collapsing around us, and hopefully we can say that we are standing at the threshold of a new era. We're staring in the face of a complete disintegration of the trans-Atlantic financial system. This could not be seen more clearly [than] by the fact that you have these so-called bank “stress tests” that are taking place today in all of the major European banks. The results of these stress tests are due out later this evening; however, as Mr. LaRouche [has] said, "You don't need to test these banks. You know that the entire banking system is completely bankrupt."
        Two of these banks, most notably, have been receiving very wide coverage. One of them is Monte dei Paschi Bank, which is the largest and the oldest continually-functioning bank in the world, the largest bank in Italy, will almost certainly fail their
stress test, along with virtually every other bank in Italy, which [all together] are reported to be holding between EU210-360 billion in non-performing debt, which could not possibly be bailed out by the bankrupt economy of Italy, or the EU for that
        On the other hand, you have the largest German bank, Deutsche Bank, which has been described by the IMF as the riskiest, most vulnerable bank in the entire system. We've been covering the bankruptcy of Deutsche Bank recently with the
stunning statistics that the net profits of Deutsche Bank are now virtually down to almost zero, with a 97 % collapse in just the last year of net profits being reported by Deutsche Bank. The derivatives exposure by Deutsche Bank is massive. Every single
major bank in the world is tied in to Deutsche Bank as a counterparty. Were Deutsche Bank to go under, you would have a contagion far, far wider than September 2008. Just since Wednesday, Deutsche Bank shares have fallen by 8%. Merrill Lynch has now downgraded it, along with the Frankfurt [Stock] Exchange.

        As can be seen, either one of these banks could fail the stress test. Stress test, or no stress test, this entire system could go up in smoke at any given moment, and that alone could trigger a mass panic across the entire trans-Atlantic. It can't be emphasized more. This is far, far worse than the situation we found ourselves in, on the eve of the Crash of 2008.
        What has to be said is that this is the major driver behind the threat of world war at this time. As Helga LaRouche has emphasized repeatedly in the recent weeks, there is no guaranteed strategy to avoid such a war, other than addressing the root
causes of this threat of world war, which is a complete systemic reorganization of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system. This is a top-down reorganization, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did it in his first days in office as President of the United States.
        The critical first step to this is, obviously, the restoration of the full Franklin Roosevelt [1933] Glass-Steagall Act, not just in the United States, but throughout the entire trans-Atlantic region. This is actually the subject of the institutional question that we received for this broadcast tonight, which Mr. LaRouche had a short comment on. The question was: "Dear Mr. LaRouche, The call to reinstate Glass-Steagall is now included in the platforms of both the Republican and Democratic parties. In your view, how likely is it that Glass-Steagall will be enacted by Congress?" Mr. LaRouche said, "Obviously, we're not banking on the likelihood. We have to make this happen. There is no other alternative. Whether or not Congress will act, is highly debatable, because there's nothing predictable in this political system. What has to happen is a major movement, which we must lead, to force this measure
through, which will induce certain realities to come to light — that is, the total bankruptcy of the system."
        Glass-Steagall, however, is only the first step. I think this is something which we have repeatedly said, but will be the subject of much of the discussion of our broadcast tonight. The type of initiative that Mr. LaRouche has taken, in the case of
Deutsche Bank, the call for the return to the Alfred Herrhausen legacy, the last sane banker at Deutsche Bank, who was assassinated in cold blood on November 30, 1989, right at the critical moment of opportunity for the future of world history.
        This type of action that Mr. LaRouche has called for – the intervention into Deutsche Bank — is paradigmatic of the type of thinking necessary. How does this apply today? This is the type of discussion which, I think, has become revived, with the concept of the Four Laws, Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws for the reorganization of the financial system. This is not just a series of recipes, or a laundry-list of steps that must be taken, but rather, as people have recognized, the Four Laws, as conceived by
Mr. LaRouche, is a single, coherent statement of principle which is premised on a single, fundamental truth of the real science of physical economics. That single, fundamental premise is that mankind is a species like no other. Mankind is completely unique among all other living things, in that only mankind has the
ability to create entirely new modes of existence that had no antecedent, no derivative effect from past experience, but an entirely new mode of behavior. Only man has the ability to willfully create the future.
        This absolutely unique character of mankind is typified in a very distilled and profound form by some very significant personalities within the living memory of many people who are living today: Albert Einstein, for one; and the great visionary
space scientist, Krafft Ehricke, as another. I think that will carry us into the remainder of our discussion here and sort of set a framework. But I'll just reiterate: I think that with confidence that we can say, "This old system is dead, and our responsibility is to bring mankind onto the threshold of an entirely new era."

KESHA ROGERS: I think that is absolutely the starting point of what is the new paradigm that we must bring into existence at this present moment. The discussions we've had with Mr. LaRouche on the conceptions presented by his "Four Laws to Save the United States", are absolutely pertinent, because these Four Laws represent a move away from monetarism and probabilities of what is acceptable or presentable for the future based on numbers and statistics.
        We're not waiting on the numbers and statistics and on the horoscopes to tell us what that future is going to be. We actually must live in that future and create that future. That has been the unique role of Mr. LaRouche and his uniqueness in
forecasting economics. He's not just talking about something that can be brought into existence based on figures that are already presented to you, but that the numbers have to be thrown out.
We're not waiting on the figures of the IMF or the stress tests or anything like this. The Four Laws represent a new direction for mankind that we now have to act to bring the future into existence. If you're going to do that, that means you have to
live in the future.
        I was thinking and very struck by Mr. LaRouche's works going back to his Presidential campaign in 1988. At that time, it's very pertinent to what is necessary for thinking about the future existence which we have to create, now, once and for all, that during that time, he presented in a TV broadcast called The Woman on Mars a vision for thirty-nine years from then, looking at the future in 2027 AD. [It opens with] the voice of a woman from Mars saying, "I have the announcement for which you have been waiting. As of five minutes ago, our environmental systems were fully stabilized. Man's first permanent colony on Mars is now completely operational." Mr. LaRouche comes on and he says, "Many of you are shocked. Some of you are saying, 'Why is this old geezer taking about a permanent colony on Mars, 39 years from
now, with the major budget problems in Washington today?'|"
        At that point in time, what he was actually presenting, was the greatest economic recovery plan for the nation and the world.
That is what these Four Laws today represent. They're not just Glass-Steagall, or something based on the current trends of monetary policy; they go outside of the current trends of thinking, into a new domain of human existence that has not yet
been created. I think that that is very important, because that's what we've lost sight of. In this day and age, too many people are living their lives based on their current state of existence — what they think is possible. You know, "Am I going to survive,
day to day? Where am I going to get my food from? How am I going to pay my next light bill?" And so forth.

        That is not the new paradigm that you want to live in. You want to actually be thinking about creating that future. This is the unique role that Mr. LaRouche's life and his contributions to true human economy have played, and the very critical role that great visionary scientists such as Krafft Ehricke, have really brought into existence.
        The fact of the matter is that, as you said, Matt, the current era of this British Empire, of this anti-growth system, is coming to an end. This monetary policy is not going to be the determining factor of the future. What is, is going to be the creative mind of man, unlike any other [species] to actually determine and act to bring about that future. Right now, none of the current existing trends, election process, candidates, or monetary policy mean one thing whatsoever in terms of the real
universe that we live in.
        I think that that's what we really have to get across to people; that people don't need to live discouraged about "Oh, what is life going to bring me? Am I going to be dealt a bad hand or a good hand?" Well, you better figure out what that hand is going to be, and determine it for yourself!

        OGDEN: One thing I wanted to just pick up on, what you said, Kesha. The idea of "willful action" is something which is inherent in the concept of the American republic. Citizens are not subjects. Just as we are not subjects of a king or a queen,
which was the consequence of the American Revolution, we're also not subjects of some hidden hand, "invisible hand" of fate or economics or statistics. This has been a problem in our population, where people have given up hope that their actions
can actually have a meaning. So, it's the decision to willfully create a future, and say "Despite the fact that the entire system — politically, socially, economically, financially – is crumbling around you, you have the presence of an entirely
different system which has already come into existence; has already materialized on this planet."  The most populous nations in the world are now leading that New Paradigm.
        We have news that Helga Zepp-LaRouche, president of the international Schiller Institute, has been a featured guest at a very important conference that happened in China just this week. This is the T-20 conference, or so-called "Think 20", which is
happening in the context of the G-20; it's a sort of think tank of private sector representatives from around the world.  And it was co-sponsored by the Chinese Academy for Social Sciences — actually a representative of that think tank spoke at the recent Schiller Institute conference that happened in Berlin; Ren Lin, on the subject of the One Belt, One Road policy.  But Helga LaRouche's presentation was to say that we need to now take the concept of the One Belt, One Road — the New Silk Road idea — and expand this to the entire planet.  This is the foundation for a New Paradigm of thinking, a New Paradigm of international relations, and a new idea of mankind's role in the Universe. It's founded on the win-win concept which is fundamentally different than what has reigned over the last 100 years virtually, as British imperial, winner-take-all kind of thinking.
So, the fact that this now exists as an option for mankind, is not an accident; this is the result of willful action that was taken by Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche at the time that the Soviet Union collapsed, to put this option on the table.  This is
the direct outgrowth of what was proposed at that time when Alfred Herrhausen was picking up on this idea of the Productive Triangle; using the reindustrialization of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet space, as the driver, as the engine for a revival
of the great economic powerhouse of the German economy and the rest of Western Europe.  This was expanded to the Eurasian Land-Bridge; and now exists in actuality — not just as future potential, but as actuality — in the form of this New Silk Road
        And the American people could so easily say, "We reject this system which is being forced upon us with both of these failed parties; and we are now going to say, 'We insist that our nation is going to become a member of this New Paradigm of relations among nations.'  And we will build the New Silk Road across the Bering Strait into the United States, and down into the entirety of the Western Hemisphere."

BRINKLEY:  Just to follow up on this discussion, Mr. LaRouche was discussing with us yesterday the question of the development of mankind; as Kesha was really emphasizing.  As we come right to the end of this system, what is missing?  A lot of people will say there's a problem; [but] it's beyond a problem, this is a total systemic breakdown.  So what is missing?  LaRouche really pointed to Einstein in particular and said, "For Einstein, he didn't use numbers to measure the Universe."  He said, "The creative powers of mankind are located in the same kind of thing Einstein used to measure the Universe."  If he didn't use numbers, what did he use?  This is a question where the same question is, where does a new idea come from?  What Einstein generated, no one had thought before him; so where did he come up with the means to make that hypothesis?  Something that, based on all human sense perception in previous human existence, no one had ever perceived anything that would tell them this concept, this new idea that Einstein generated.  Where did he come up with it from?  It's really the idea of getting rid of the standards of
measurement that were used generally by empiricism, by sense perception, by describing the Universe via senses.  Einstein said, I want to get beyond this and see what unifies these things; he used a principle of the Universe itself to measure. In so doing, he created a whole new level of power for mankind.
        So, this came from his mind; there wasn't even the ability to perceive what he hypothesized.  To test it experimentally did not even exist at the time; it's now being proven true 100 years later.  But this shows that the power of a human economy really doesn't come from the external sources people would think about it.  It obviously doesn't come from money; it doesn't come from petroleum; it doesn't come from helium-3; it doesn't come from nuclear fuel.  The power of an economy doesn't come from these objects; it comes from the new discovery generated in a mind to
utilize this new power.  This obviously is what has been attacked.  It was also the idea of Nicholas of Cusa, who generated the Renaissance; that is the quality of thinking we need now.
        Not business as usual, as you see at the Democratic or Republican conventions; we don't need to debate minimum wage or something like that.  We've discussed what the problem is with this discussion of minimum wage.  Even if you pay people more, do they have the ability to purchase the goods they need to survive?
Are the goods even there, available to be purchased?  Healthcare — it's not there; transportation — no, it's completely falling apart.  Our nation is really a disgrace compared to what's happening in Asia right now.  I think China's building over 100
nuclear plants in the next 10 years; while we've just shut down about 4. There's more that could be said, but maybe for now we should just open up the discussion; but I just also want to bring up again a Krafft Ehricke quote.  He also recognized the moment of change that mankind was in, even back in the 1970s, when we began to really adopt this environmentalist empiricism, lack of science, lack of intention towards growth.  He said, "To cease growing means to make the grim past the future's only option."
That's what we're living today; we're living the grim past. What he also said is that no growth goes with tension, it goes with conflict, and it goes with war. I think if people look around at the state of conflict on the planet, it's pervasive; this is a result of this lack of a sense of progress, and lack of a sense of mission.
        So, I'll just leave it at that; we can discuss it more.

        MEGAN BEETS:  Well, just to pick up, Rachel, on what you were just discussing, and also Kesha was pointing to in the fundamental principle underlying Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws; which is the fundamental distinction of the human mind from all other forms of existence.  I think it can be seen in the personality of Einstein, as you were saying Rachel; I think it can also be seen in the insights and the actions of Kepler.  Kepler said, in a very provocative letter to a patron of his, he said, "Not every hunch is wrong.  For man is in the image of the Creator, and it's very possible that in matters which pertain to the organization of the Universe, man thinks like the Creator."  And I think that really does get to what Einstein was able to do, and Kepler
himself did this with that principle as a foundation, generating from his mind a notion unique to his mind, of the principle which was organizing and governing our Solar System.  It was a completely new idea; he had never observed anything that clued
him into this.  This was a completely new notion; he discovered the principle of universal gravitation and completely revolutionized the powers of a kind. Mankind now lived in a new Universe.  That's the basis of economics.
        And I think it does get exactly to what Mr. LaRouche has been saying in the face of the collapse of this financial system. Nothing that would be attempted now to save the system – no bail-out measures, no bail-in measures, none of this will work; you cannot save an inherently valueless system.  You have to reorganize it upon the true principle of the source of value, which is the human mind's ability to discover new principles which create a new species.  And that's why you, Kesha, obviously know this first-hand; that's the importance of the space program. That's the importance of declaring that the space program is the number one commitment of the nation; to actually put this challenge to man's mind to go right up to the new frontier to
discover what we have not yet discovered in the forefront.  That then as the boundary, then reorganizes all the other relationships within your economy.  We saw a hint of that in the 1960s, under the influence of people like Krafft Ehricke with our space program here; although that was shut down.  Now, with the crumbling of this British Empire system, we have the opportunity — but also a very real responsibility with people who are around Mr. LaRouche and get this principle — to insure that this is the
direction humanity goes in now; this is not a foregone conclusion.

        OGDEN:  I liked this quote that was featured in what we have as the lead to the LaRouche PAC website today; a quote from Krafft Ehricke, I believe from a paper he wrote in 1966 – I might be wrong.  He is discussing the thrill of what it felt like to be standing on the threshold of a new era; recognizing when they first launched the successful launch of the most rudimentary, basic rocket, that this new era of rocket science was carrying mankind off of the planet.  Or had the potential to carry mankind off of the planet Earth and to open up an entirely new evolutionary moment, phase for the human species.  He compared it to Columbus discovering the New World; it actually reminded me of that poem "On First Looking into Chapman's Homer" by Keats, where he describes the awe of Cortez standing on the cliffs of Darien and looking at the Pacific.  The first European who had seen the Pacific Ocean from crossing over the territory of North America.  He also used the comparison of the astronomer who is the first to discover a new planet coming across the sky. So that thrill of discovery, not just the personal act of discovery of something new; but the recognition that this is a transformative moment for the human species, and that this is what makes us human.  It's those discontinuous moments from the
previous state to the future state, which have no logical consequence one from the other; but that moment, that transition, is the moment of humanity.  And that's what separates us from the animals.  Krafft Ehricke's description of that was the roar of
those engines, the recognition that mankind was about to become a space-faring creature; and it was the experience of what it means to be human itself.

        ROGERS:  And yes, once again, living in the future; creating the future.  Remember, Krafft Ehricke writing in 1966, looking back from the year 2000; he died in 1984.  This was a vision that was being brought into existence that had not yet happened; but was in the mind of Krafft Ehricke as a living principle, as a living idea.  Now, as you said earlier, Matt, that vision is now being brought into reality by the New Paradigm that's being created by Russia, by China.  It is the United States that now has no excuses not to join aboard and join with that New Paradigm that is already at our fingertips.  It's very fascinating to see.
This is the economic recovery; this is the largest economic recovery program — the space program.  It's much greater than anything that even John F Kennedy thought about; Kennedy wasn't the be all and end all with the Apollo missions, and he wasn't
going to stop there.  He had a greater vision; just as Krafft Ehricke, just as LaRouche, based on a human economy.  And this idea of the imagination and what was created in the mind of Krafft Ehricke with the colonies [on the Moon], the nuclear power
systems, the development of fusion economies and helium-3 systems on Mars and Venus and other places.  This is the basis of a real economy; a human economy from that standpoint.  It's very much what our conception and idea has to be based on. And that's the Four Laws; that's the principle of the Four Laws that we really have to get across to people.
        It's good that Glass-Steagall is being implemented in both parties' platforms; but now what are people willing to do?  Are you still going to accept the policy economically of zero growth? Are you still going to accept the policy of fascism, of war? What does Glass-Steagall mean when you actually are going along with this insane policy; when you're not thinking about your children's and your grandchildren's futures?

OGDEN:  One thing that came out of the Schiller Institute Berlin conference that we've been discussing — it was about a month ago if not more now — Helga LaRouche keynoted it, obviously, and said, Look, we're at a time in history where an entirely new principle of action is operating; it's a principle of history which is not understood by most people.  She characterized it as the Erinyes, or the principle of nemesis; where all of the failed axioms that have been enforced over the last decades in a system which is now crumbling in on itself, are taking down the very people who enforced those failed axioms.  This was seen with Tony Blair with the release of the Chilcot Report; the major victory with the release of the 28 pages, which is something which goes back even before 9/11 to Mr. LaRouche's broadcast in 1999 of the "Storm Over Asia" broadcast.  This made very clear that there was a very high-level nefarious apparatus that was being run by the Anglo-Saudi nexus, using these mercenary forces for irregular warfare against countries around the world.
        Now, you see that playing out; and I think it's very significant that there's been a drastic shift in the situation on the ground in Syria.  Aleppo, which was actually the subject of a video presentation which was shown at that Schiller Institute, it's one of the most ancient cities; a UNESCO World Heritage site.  It was the crossroads of the old Silk Road; it's situated right in between the three continents.  Aleppo had obviously been held by these terrorists for years; and the action in just the last days by the Syrian government with the back-up of the Russian air force, stationed at Latakia, to be able to come in and begin liberating that city of Aleppo in the same way that Palmyra was liberated, is a real turning point in the war on the ground against the outgrowth of this very mercenary Army-type of irregular force that Mr. LaRouche was warning about all the way back in 1998-99.
        Again, the role that Vladimir Putin is playing in this regard, is a critical role.  I kind of want to link these two things together a little bit.  Mr. LaRouche's prescription for how Europe could possibly survive this entire blow-out of these
completely over-leveraged banks and the disintegration of the political situation itself with the aftermath of the Brexit, was that there needs to be a close collaboration between Germany and Putin in Russia.  What Putin is doing in Russia is the pathway
forward for Europe.  An entire integration of the Asian Economic Union, the New Silk Road, and what remains of the mittelstand, or the industrial sector of Germany, which is viable.
        As you're looking at this complete meltdown, this complete disintegration which could come within days or hours, of Deutsche Bank — the biggest bank in Germany; Monte dei Paschi, the oldest bank in Italy; action must be taken in the very short term.  Not just from the standpoint of stabilizing a collapsing financial system and transforming it into an entirely new system of economics; but also as a critical war avoidance measure.  If these steps are not taken, and Germany is allowed to disintegrate under the weight of a collapsing Deutsche Bank, for example; there will be no pathway forward for the kind of collaboration between sane factors in Germany for example, and what Putin is doing in Russia.  And the force for stability and peace that Russia has represented will not — the access will not be there. So, I think you have to take all of this strategic picture together, and not separate any element of it; and be able to see it from the top down as Mr. LaRouche sees it, and say "Necessary
actions must be taken to resolve the root crises, the root causes of the crises that we now face."
        I'll stress again, this factor of what has been occurring inside of Syria, as these series of regime-change wars, this is the evidence of the breakdown of a system which is evil; a system which is creating the possibility for failed states across that
region.  This is driving millions of refugees out of their homelands into Europe; it cannot be sustained.  An entirely New Paradigm — it can't be resolved piecemeal, which is the point. You can't just say we're going to address this situation here and
address that situation there; but new axiomatic approaches to the entire concept of the system must be in place, and it must be premised on this central feature of what the Four Laws are a derivative of — which is this unique character of man to willfully create new modes of existence for the human species.
        BRINKLEY:  Any type of practical discussion as opposed to that, just needs to be gotten rid of.  We really do need a quality of courage.  It's obvious out there right now what Obama has been doing in promoting and protecting terrorism.  We now
have the 28 pages out, and the Democrats are still kissing Obama's butt; and the Republicans are going over to Trump.  This is crazy, given the truth which has come out that one of our so-called allies, including the British Empire, attacked our
nation in an act of war; and the President who covered that up is still being allowed to be President.  So, this is the question of practicality; which is another symptom of this higher question involved in the discussion of the creation of new states.  You have to be bold; you have to be able to take bold actions as well.  One thing LaRouche said that was insightful about the practical man, he said, "The practical man created nothing but his own noise and fools who believed in his noise."  I think people can think of a few examples of that today; but definitely Wall Street for one.  Anyone protecting Wall Street and anyone saying you've got to go along to get along with party politics or something like this; that's all dead, that's all obsolete at this moment.
        OGDEN:  Just returning to what Mr. LaRouche said about the actions that must be taken around Glass-Steagall, this is the result; the very fact that this is in both party platforms is the result of the leadership that I think both of you have represented over the course of the last almost decade.  Both you, Rachel, and Kesha have run very prominent campaigns for Federal office; and the fact that Rachel, you took on Barney Frank and really refuted all of his arguments against Glass-Steagall on live television; this is what made this a household word.  And then Kesha, your campaign around NASA in Texas was a transformative campaign; it was national in scope and
international in its effects.  The reason why we have the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, which both Kesha and Rachel are representatives of, is that you do have the deliberative body existing in this country — represented not exclusively by
members of the Policy Committee — but represented by the type of thinking that this Policy Committee has been able to achieve over the course of the last several years as public figures in your own right.
        People must not despair; the belief in the kind of party politics and go along to get along pragmatism is what demoralizes people in this country.  But every time the kind of leadership which Rachel and Kesha represented in their campaigns is
exhibited, you see the American people wake up, just light up. Because that's reminiscent of the kind of leadership that used to be quintessentially American:  John F Kennedy; Robert Kennedy; what Franklin Roosevelt was able to do to draw people from the depths of not just an economic depression, but a widespread emotional depression that had taken hold of the American people in the aftermath of the '29 stock market crash.  And to pull those people up and to turn that generation into the most productive generation that this country had ever seen, that should be enough to give us confidence that through the bold and assertive implementation of the principles behind these Four Laws, not just the words in the effect, but the principles which these are hinged upon; rooted deep within the American System ideas of Alexander Hamilton.  Through the application of this, we could see — this generation of Americans could actually see themselves as becoming once again the most productive, most optimistic, most creative generation that this country has ever seen; in collaboration with what's coming out of China in that regard and all of the other countries that have been touched by this vision.
        So, it's not abstract that we're discussing the figures of Krafft Ehricke or Albert Einstein; who themselves were critical personalities in the context of what Franklin Roosevelt was accomplishing or what John F Kennedy was accomplishing.  It was
that spark of creative optimism which, coming from a few individual geniuses such as that, actually lit the fires of optimism and creativity throughout the entirety of the American people.  That can be done again.
        ROGERS: Yes, and all these figures who you just named, who at a very young age, dedicated their lives to a mission, just as LaRouche did. And right now, we're recruiting people to our team; we need the young people to actually take responsibility and dedicate their lives to this very mission of acting to shape the future.  Because the reality is, the people who are being strongly affected by this destructive policy under Obama and Bush that we've been seeing for far too long, are particularly the young people.  They have to not accept this; and they have to make the determination that they're going to be a part – as others throughout the nation and the world — of shaping and bringing about the future that they want to see.

OGDEN:  Megan mentioned the person of Johannes Kepler. This was Einstein's inspiration; he wrote this paper on the 400th anniversary of the death of Johannes Kepler.  It was exactly Kepler's ability that nobody else had seen; or to see the
Universe from an angle which nobody else had even attempted to see it from, was the type of thinking that Albert Einstein practiced as almost a religious devotion.  It's the ability to say, "No; mankind does have the ability not to look up at the world from the standpoint of the animals that crawl on the ground, but to look down at the Universe through the eyes of the Creator." To be seeing the world through the eyes of the Creator means to see the infinite potential; there is no limit in terms of what's possible in terms of growth and potential in a creative Universe. You can guarantee that a Creator of that Universe, who does not live in time but lives outside of and above time – as Einstein himself was enabled to do; sees, that that infinite potential is there.  But it hinges on the willful ability of a species such as man to act to unlock that creative potential; to unlock the future.  So, the vision and the faith that comes with that kind of way of thinking is what carries great geniuses such as Einstein, Kepler, Krafft Ehricke, others to be able to see the world from the standpoint of not the extrapolated future; but a future which nobody else have ever dreamed of existing.
        Kesha, you might want to bring this up. You have mentioned earlier that there was this conference that took place in Germany, celebrating the legacy of Gottfried Leibniz and some of the remarks that were made there.  Maybe that would be important.
        ROGERS:  Unfortunately, I don't have those remarks right in front of me; maybe Megan does.  This was a conference on the 370th birthday anniversary of Leibniz, that was being discussed today from developments that we heard of today.  One of the representatives was a Chinese Leibniz scholar, and he was
actually expressing the idea of Leibniz's conception of happiness.  Megan, do you have that there?  Because I though it really encapsulates what we've been speaking of here.
        BEETS:  So this was a gentleman named Wenchao Li, who is from the University; he's a China-born Leibniz specialist at the University of Hannover. He said, "For our own happiness, or the happiness of others, we can only be happy if others are happy, too. What it is about is human beings; other cultures. It is about the common good of all." That was actually how they opened this conference commemorating Leibniz.  I think it's significant, because often times these conferences can be sort of insular and limited to a certain academic community.  But this clearly reflects the principle of humanity that Leibniz represented; and it's also clearly resonating with the potential of the New Paradigm today.
        ROGERS:  Over 400 scientists from around the world, and this is an expression of what the space program truly exemplifies; it is the expression of happiness, of an end to conflict, an end to wars, and a true expression of what it is to be truly human.
Right now, if we're going to put an end to the hostilities and war drive and so forth, the greatest basis that we have to do that is through cooperation in space exploration.  That is the means of happiness that we can bring about to the existence of all mankind. I thought that that was clearly expressed in that quote and in the theme that was brought up in that conference.
        BEETS: I think this really is the challenge to the American people. Everything we've been discussing is couched in how you opened, Matt, with the financial meltdown. What was brought up about the very real danger of the war being driven by the British Empire as their system comes apart. I think the challenge to the
American people is the issue of courage; of realizing that what we've been discussing here today as the true nature of the human mind. That is reality; the Presidential election is not reality. Voting is not reality; it's whether people have the guts today to
admit LaRouche is right. And to stand and organize with us. And I think the call is put out to everyone to stand and organize with us now; now is the moment to bring this New Paradigm into existence in the United States, which is really the lynchpin in
the entire global picture right now.
        OGDEN: OK. That's a conclusion that we can take as the final word here. I would like to ask everybody to please subscribe to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; there are actually two channels. This is the LaRouche PAC Live; there's also a channel [called] LaRouche PAC videos, which has a lot more of the substantial, lengthy presentations that we've put together. So, if you haven't subscribed to either one of those yet, please subscribe to both. This is really central to our ability to build the kind of mass movement of intellectual courage which will continue to place LaRouche PAC in the center of creating the vision for the future of the United States.
        So, I'd like to thank you both, Kesha and Rachel, for joining us via video here today; and thanks to Megan for joining me in the studio. Thank you for tuning in. 

Please stay tuned, and we'll see you next Monday. 

Good night.

Hvordan skaber man fremtiden?
Hvordan griber vi ind for at ændre denne kurs mod overhængende kaos?

Uddrag af LPAC Fredags-webcast, 22. juli 2016:

Ben Deniston: … for det er, hvad det drejer sig om: Hvordan skaber man fremtiden? Vi har sagt, at, da vi første gang lancerede dette (LaRouche-planen for redning af Deutsche Bank, -red.), så var der stor folkelig vrede over det. »Hvorfor prøver I at forsvare bankerne? Til helvede med bankerne! Lad hele skidtet brase sammen!« Men vi vil ikke have, at det hele skal brase sammen. Vi ønsker ikke en tilbagevenden til det 14. århundredes Mørke Tidsalder. Vi har brug for forstandigt, kvalificeret lederskab; det er, hvad vi diskuterer her, mht., hvordan vi kommer ud af den aktuelle situation og ind i en stabil position, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde. Hvordan reflekterer og genskaber vi atter denne form for organiseringsproces, i dag, i en situation, der, for at sige det ligeud, er langt værre.

Det, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har påpeget mht. situationen omkring Deutsche Bank, mener jeg, er nøglen og angiver en model, og udgør en afgørende og nødvendig indgriben, men også en model for den form for reorganisering, som vi har behov for. Systemet er bankerot; vi har brug for et fornuftigt lederskab, der kommer ind og siger, »Lad os reorganisere det her. Lad os sørge for, at institutionerne fungerer, sådan, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde. Lad os finde ud af, hvilke af disse forlorne, fiktive værdipapirer, vi må skubbe til side og glemme alt om; hele denne sindssyge derivatboble.« Men lad os bruge institutionerne sådan, som de var udtænkt at skulle bruges; sådan, som Herrhausen forstod det. En af de sidste bankierer, hvis ikke den sidste, på højt niveau, der rent faktisk forstod dette. [Alexander] Hamilton forstod det, Franklin Roosevelt forstod, at vi behøver disse institutioner til at muliggøre fysisk, økonomisk vækst; til forøgelse af samfundets produktive evne; til forøgelse af arbejdskraftens produktive evne. Det er absolut nødvendigt, at vi reorganiserer det finansielle system således, at det kan gøre dette, og at vi ikke lader det brase sammen i et kaotisk, katastrofalt sammenbrud; hvilket er den trussel, der nu er overhængende.

Jeg mener, at vi må se dette som en del af et samlet perspektiv, for vi diskuterer også alle disse udbrud, der finder sted mht. disse aggressionskrige og terrorisme. Det er i realiteten en del af denne samme sammenbrudsproces. Da Lyndon LaRouche i 2000 kom med den unikke udtalelse, at vi, med Bushregeringens overtagelse af præsidentskabet, havde kurs mod en ’Branden i Reichstag’-begivenhed, og som blev til virkelighed gennem 11. september [angrebet på World Trade Center i New York i 2001], så var ét af hovedspørgsmålene hans vurdering af, at det finansielle system ville bryde sammen. Dette er ikke separate spørgsmål, men del af ét og samme spørgsmål. Det, vi nu ser, som en potentiel eliminering af dette anglo-saudiske, geopolitiske apparat til irregulær krigsterrorisme, er en del af den samme ting, som at gen-overtage det transatlantiske finansielle system og at gen-orientere det mod en sand patriotisk kurs, i ånden fra Hamilton og Franklin Roosevelt. Vi kan, som vi også fremlagde det ved vores seneste Berlinkonference, alliere os med Kina og med Rusland, i skabelsen af dette win-win-perspektiv; dette samarbejdsparadigme. Men sammenfaldet af disse spørgsmål er afgørende; for det drejer sig ikke om terror her og finanssystemet der, om dette eller hint spørgsmål. Det drejer sig om, hvordan vi anskuer situationen som en helhed og griber ind for at tage de nødvendige skridt til at komme ud af situationen.

Se/hør hele webcastet, med engelsk udskrift, her (anbefales)

Titelbillede: Fragment af vægmalerierne i Coit Tower i San Francisco, opført 1933; vægmalerierne udførtes under regi af Projektet for Offentlige Arbejder, det første program for arbejde til kunstnere under Franklin D. Roosevelts statslige beskæftigelsesprogrammer under hans New Deal.  


Den rette handling, der kræves i USA lige nu!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 22. juli 2016

For fire uger siden afholdt Schiller Instituttets en historisk konference i Berlin. Læs Helga Zepp-LaRouches åbningstale ved denne internationale konference, med deltagere fra mange lande og alle verdens kontinenter. Helga indledte denne tale med en meget præcis erklæring: nemlig, at princippet om erinyerne nu dominerer historien. Denne konference fandt sted umiddelbart i hælene på Brexit-valget. Siden denne Brexit-afstemning fandt sted, har historien bevæget sig i et tempo, en rytme, der i stadigt hurtigere tempo har haft kurs mod det transatlantiske systems totale sammenbrud. Og ikke kun det transatlantiske finanssystem, selv om det udgør en afgørende del af det; men også det transatlantiske politiske system og samfundssystem.  

Engelsk udskrift:


        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's July 22nd, 2106. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're watching our weekly broadcast here
on Friday evenings from LaRouchePAC.com. I'm joined in the studio
by Ben Deniston, from the LaRouche PAC science team; and then I'm
joined via video by two members of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee. We have Diane Sare, joining us from New York City; and
we have Michael Steger, normally from San Francisco, California,
but joining us today from Seattle, Washington, where he's
preparing for a major conference which is coming up this weekend.
We can discuss that further.
        We all had a discussion a little bit earlier today which was
informed by the discussion we had with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche
yesterday. I think one thing that's very clear, is that there's
no other way to describe this current period of history, than the
one that Helga LaRouche has termed it, the Erinyes Principle. The
Erinyes have begun their dreadful dance.
        Four weeks ago was the historic conference sponsored by the
Schiller Institute in Berlin. Go back and look at the keynote
speech with which Mrs. LaRouche opened that entire conference —
an international conference; participants from multiple
countries, multiple continents, all over the world. Helga began
that speech with a very prescient statement: that the Erinyes
Principle is what is now dominating history. That conference
happened right on the heels of the Brexit vote. Since that Brexit
vote happened — which was a shock to everybody; nobody saw this
coming — history has taken on a tempo, a rhythm, which has moved
increasingly rapidly since that time, very clearly in the
direction of a total breakdown of the trans-Atlantic system. Not
just the trans-Atlantic financial system, although that's a major
part of it, but the trans-Atlantic political system, and the
trans-Atlantic social system.
        What Helga Zepp-LaRouche termed the Erinyes Principle —
which is a reference to a very beautiful but very chilling poem,
[The Cranes of Ibykus], by Friedrich Schiller, is also what you
can term the Nemesis Principle. If you look over the last four
weeks, I think that Nemesis is now the principle which is now
dominating the course of history: the Chilcot Report has been
released — an indictment of Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Dick
Cheney for "aggressive war", a real crime under international
law; the 28 pages of the original Joint Congressional
Investigation into 9/11 have been released after years of a
struggle to force their release. Everything that the 28 pages
say is an indictment of this entire Anglo-Saudi-Bush-Cheney-Blair system.
        I think it's worth remembering that the Chilcot Report and
the 28 pages are addressing exactly the same moment in history,
when Bush and Cheney and Tony Blair were lying about weapons of
mass destruction, to so-called "justify" an aggressive war in
Iraq. It's the same time they were suppressing the truth about
their friend, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, channeling tens of
thousands of dollars into a support apparatus made up of Saudi
Intelligence agents inside the United States, to wage the worst
terrorist attack that has ever occurred on U.S. soil.
        Also, the HSBC Report. Right on the heels of the release of
this report by the House Financial Services Committee, top HSBC
executives have been arrested and thrown in jail in New York
City. And you have the fact that Glass-Steagall — which will
bring down the entire Wall Street phony money apparatus — has
now made its way into both of the major party platforms.
        If you look at the directionality of the complete collapse
of this trans-Atlantic system as it is conceived of today, this
is not something which can be controlled by those who sowed the
seeds of this collapse. It's not something that's being
controlled by George Bush, or Barack Obama, or Tony Blair. It is
coming down on their heads as well. I think, maybe, another term
that you can conceive of the Nemesis Principle, is the colloquial
American proverb, "They reap what they sow." That is what is
coming to bear right now. The issue is: they will bring down the
entire system along with them.
        The critical intervention of the recent two weeks by Mr. and
Mrs. LaRouche, to act on the Herrhausen Principle, [is] yet one
more expression of Nemesis or the Erinyes, the still un-solved
assassination of [former Deutsche Bank Chairman Alfred]
Herrhausen: to invoke that principle and to say: We're going to
use the leverage of an intervention with Deutsche Bank as the
vector, to completely reorganize this entire financial system
back towards the productive powers of labor, the identity of
human kind as a creative species, and to use the Hamiltonian
principles of credit as Herrhausen was explicitly discussing them
at the time that he was assassinated; and to transform —
axiomatically — the entire foundations of this collapsing
trans-Atlantic system, to bring the United States, to bring
continental Europe into the New Paradigm that's being expressed
by the win-win New Silk Road program of China, of Russia; and to
act on the solutions that were put on the table at that historic
and very prescient conference in Berlin four weeks ago.
        With the release of the 28 pages, with the political
hegemony now that Glass-Steagall has, with both party platforms
now containing this officially, and the vindication of the fact
that Mr. LaRouche was absolutely right in his indictment of
Blair, Bush, and Cheney at the time, as war criminals, with the
release of this Chicot Report, the authority of the LaRouche
movement and the hegemony of our leadership could not be any more
clear, and I think now is the time, as perhaps, agents of the
Erinyes Principle, to say, "Now the time has come for a complete
reorganization of this system." And to use the fact that the
leadership was very clearly expressed at this conference four
weeks ago, to say, "The solution is very easy. It could occur
overnight. The only thing that is required is the decisive
political action here in the United States, to have a clean break
with the policies of the last 15 years, of the
Bush-Cheney-Obama-Blair regime." And to say, "This is no more.
This is going to be explicitly and publically denounced for what
it is, and we are now going to adopt an entirely new axiomatic
set of principles in order to bring the trans-Atlantic world into
this New Paradigm."
        This is very clearly made, I think, in the lead statement
that is on the website for today at LaRouchePAC.com: "Their Day
Has Come, — And Gone!" Diane, you recorded a statement yesterday
during your big rally at Columbus Circle in Manhattan, which I
think also directly gets at this point — the petition that you
have written that's being circulated. Where do we go from here?
What are the next steps, following the release of the 28 pages?
And also this critical intervention around the reorganization of
Deutsche Bank.
        I'd like to say that, just to start off the discussion.

DIANE SARE: We're at a really amazing moment. I think it's
important for Americans in particular to reflect. This is a very
hard time for Americans, because our nation is at the moment on
the wrong side. We have a killer, still, for President. We have
not yet brought all these characters to justice — Bush, Cheney,
Obama, and some of the others — although we're definitely moving
in the right direction with the 28 pages released, and with
Glass-Steagall being in both party's platform, regardless of
where the candidates may stand on it.
        I was just reflecting on something Mr. LaRouche was
describing many years ago, about a moment of change, a
revolution, when things don't exactly go as expected. You turn
the light switch, and the water starts running; or, you think
you're turning on the faucet and the heat comes on. If you're
thinking about what's happened in the last weeks, for example,
the Brexit vote, which came as a great shock to many people, and
many other people were very cynical, who would say, "Well, if
they can control the vote on everything, how come they couldn't
control the vote on this?" Because the institutions themselves
are so deeply divided and in such an uproar. Or, "Why couldn't
they keep the lid on the 28 pages any longer?" Or, "Why did the
truth come out about Tony Blair?"
        Or, take events like this attempted coup in Turkey, where
every kind of wild conspiracy theory was being bandied around.
LaRouche has pointed to Putin and Putin's role, who really seems
to have had a very level head through all of this.
        I think the way to remain sane, and to also ensure that one
is taking a correct course of action, is to really think about
the future. Mr. LaRouche had said this to us on the Policy
Committee a couple of weeks ago, that it's time for Americans to
assemble themselves, and re-consider their destiny. Perhaps we're
not going to understand every detail of why certain things are
occurring, or what's behind everything that occurs in the moment,
but it is a time when we should consider where we really want our
nation to go. What was the intent of the founding fathers of this
republic? What was the intent of Alexander Hamilton? What are we
prepared to commit, to ensure that our nation actually gets off
of a trajectory of self-destruction, and perhaps annihilation of
the planet, and moves in a direction which would be in keeping
with what Alexander Hamilton or John Quincy Adams or President
Kennedy would have intended?
        I think this is very personal. I also think it's very
important, because you had another one of these mass shootings
today in Munich, Germany. People tend to get unnerved, or they
say things that are criminally insane, like "This is the new
normal. We just have to get used to it, and expect that any time
you go to a public place, someone might have a bomb or start
shooting people." I don't think that's really how mankind should
        The conception of the future, and the conception of a
certain faith that there's a principle of Justice in the Universe
— these things are going to be absolutely key for us to navigate
this period and to successfully maneuver ourselves into the New
Paradigm which is emerging so dramatically in China and in the
nations China's collaborating with.

        MICHAEL STEGER: In that context, both the 28 pages and the
Glass-Steagall fight that we've been waging out, in some cases
over a decade, really in both cases a mobilization of the
political process in the United States, it reminds me of a
similar intervention we made in 2004-5, specifically on the
question of Franklin Roosevelt's legacy. What you see in this
process, both with the Glass-Steagall and the 28 pages, is a
resurgence of what is the last truly defined sense of higher
justice within the United States from a government, which really
was comprehensive, from Franklin Roosevelt's standpoint. It was
not just the foreign concerns of security or the financial
crisis; it was clearly the actual well-being and
future-orientation of the population as a whole.
        With both these campaigns that we have waged, you now see a
coalesced grouping of people who don't necessarily associate
themselves with the higher mission at stake, but yet are clearly
participants in that higher mission: if this nation and the
western civilization can actually find itself capable of joining
in the development and collaboration of Eurasia.
        I think that's kind of a very clear point. That's something
that's coalesced. There is a momentum, there is a morale of
potential victory. This "perp-walk" of this HSBC executive: now
here's a London banker, British subject, grabbed by the police at
the gate of trans-Atlantic flight, and marched into a Brooklyn
jail cell for the evening. I hope we have some pictures of that,
because the American people should get a sense of what this was.
        There's a certain retribution that should be handed down,
but I think most importantly — and what Franklin Roosevelt
really truly grasped, and perhaps both John and Robert Kennedy
had a sense of, as they became leading figures — was this future
orientation over the society. What this conference made very
clear, is that [we’re] moving now into a complete transformative
moment in history, [where] the capability and potentials for
mankind's development are more clear than ever. This process, the
discussion we're leading, is essential, both in the United States
with those campaigns, but also internationally.

        BENJAMIN DENISTON: Well, I think this puts the whole
Deutsche Bank flank that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have defined, in
its proper and important context, because that is the issue: How
do you create the future? We've said that when this was first
launched, there was a lot of populist rage against it.  "Why are
you trying to defend the banks?  Screw the banks!  Let it all
come down."  We don't want to let it all come down.  We don't
want a return of the 14th Century Dark Age.  We need sane,
qualified leadership; and I think that what we're discussing
here, in terms of how do we move out of the present situation
into a stable position as Franklin Roosevelt did.  How do we
mirror and recreate that type of an organization process again
now, in a far worse situation, quite frankly.
        What Lyndon and Helga Zepp LaRouche have pointed to around
the Deutsche Bank situation, I think is key and indicative as a
model, but a critical and necessary intervention, but also a
model for the type of reorganization we need.  The system is
bankrupt; you need sane leadership to come in to say, "Let's
reorganize this thing.  Let's keep the institutions functioning,
as Franklin Roosevelt did.  Let's figure out what of these phony
fictitious assets need to be set aside and forgotten about; this
entire insane derivatives bubble."  But let's use the
institutions as they were created to be used; as Herrhausen
understood.  One of the last, if not the last, high-level banker
who actually understood that.  Hamilton understood it; Franklin
Roosevelt understood that we need these institutions to
facilitate physical economic growth; increases in the productive
capabilities of society, increases in the productive powers of
labor.  It's absolutely necessary that we reorganize the
financial system to be able to do this, and not let it come down
in some chaotic, catastrophic breakdown; which is the threat
looming now.
        I think this needs to be seen as part of a unified
perspective, because we're also discussing all these break-outs
around the issue of these wars of aggression, the terrorism.
Really this is part of the same breakdown process.  When Lyndon
LaRouche {uniquely} said in 2000 that we're heading towards a
Reichstag Fire event with the incoming Bush administration,
forecasting what became 9/11; one of the major issues in his
assessment was the breakdown of the financial system.  These are
not separate issues, these are part of one and the same issue.
What we're seeing now as the potential to really eliminate this
Anglo-Saudi geopolitical irregular warfare terrorism apparatus,
is part of the same thing as retaking over the financial system
of the trans-Atlantic system and re-orienting it to a true
Hamiltonian, Franklin Roosevelt, patriotic orientation.  So, we
can actually ally, what was presented at this Berlin conference,
ally with China, with Russia, in the creation of this win-win
perspective; this collaborative paradigm.  But the convergence of
these issues, I think is critical; because this is not terrorism
here and financial system there, this issue, that issue.  It is
how do we look at the situation as a totality and intervene to
take the necessary steps to move out of the situation.

OGDEN:  Absolutely.  One of the things Viktor Ivanov, who was the
anti-narcotics czar of Russia, said very clearly [was] if you
want to shut down drugs and terrorism, you need to have a global
Glass-Steagall.  What Glass-Steagall is going after is exactly
what HSBC has been engaged in for decades.  LaRouche knew that
originally when he wrote {Dope, Inc.}; saying don't give these
guys a charter in the United States.  Don't let them operate in
the United States; this is a drug and terror money-laundering
bank.  That's exactly what their DNA is.  I think realizing that
these are not all separate issues, but these are one and the
same: what the Chilcot Report is implying; what the 28 pages are
just the tip of the iceberg about; what Glass-Steagall is
intended to shut down.  This {is} the failed system, and you need
to have then a solution that you replace it with.  Diane, that's
what I think was so important about — I mean, you just said
this.  The reaction which the American people could easily fall
into in the present circumstance, would be mass demoralization;
fear of random acts of terror, just sheer emotional exhaustion
because of the struggle to survive on a daily basis economically,
the heroin epidemic that is touching so many families.  Just
disbelief about the place that we've come to as a nation in terms
of political candidates and the political process.

        DENISTON:  I don't know if they deserve that term, even.

        OGDEN:  You could face widespread demoralization.  On the
other hand, you need to have leadership; and that leadership
includes a certain faith in humanity, faith in mankind and faith
in a higher principle of natural law.  This was very much what
was probably on Friedrich Schiller's mind when he wrote that
original "Cranes of Ibykus" poem; realizing that you had a
demoralized population in France which failed in the face of a
great opportunity of that moment.  This was the circumstances in
which Helga LaRouche has raised this continually over the years.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989; the great opportunity
that was presented there.  The great opportunity that we have in
front of us now.  So, that element of a faith or a sense of
higher justice absolutely is the critical element.  Why do we
have these beautiful concerts that accompany every great
international conference that the LaRouche Movement sponsors
around the world?  The Berlin conference ended with an absolutely
unbelievable Classical music concert which included a dialogue of
great cultures; from China, from Russia, from Europe.  We're
building toward a series of very significant concerts in New York
City.  All of those are critical to have a taste of the beauty of
what the New Paradigm represents, in order to re-moralize a
people to have a sense of that faith in the goodness of mankind.

        SARE:  Well, not exactly on the music question, but I think
it's also really important to be concrete with people; because
Americans — like many people in the West — have gotten very
brainwashed about the idea of money.  They think that money per
se has an intrinsic value.  And when you talk about Deutsche
Bank, for example, or you talk about what it would look like to
reinstate Glass-Steagall here, because what we're saying is
emphatically that we don't have a scheme to bail out the
derivatives obligations of Deutsche Bank; that's not what we're
talking about.  We're talking about capital, so the bank is put
in a position to be able to issue credit to be stable and to
create an opportunity for the future; for collaboration with
Russia and China, for great projects and infrastructure and
science, and to be an institution that people have faith in.
Similarly here, if we were to reinstate Glass-Steagall, the first
thing that you would discover is that everything that people
thought had so much value with all this money, really didn't
amount to anything.  What people might think they have in their
pensions, or the stock market, would all be greatly diminished.
That's why the immediate next step is this question of national
banking and Hamiltonian credit; because what you would have to
do, is be able to put credit into those things that would
generate growth, that would actually generate an increase in
productivity of the population.
        So, you take something like the legacy of Krafft-Ehricke,
the question of the space program — man's mission in space; we
said we actually have to have a banking system that supports us
figuring out whether it's feasible in the not-too-distant future
to have a manned mission to Mars, or something else.  What would
be involved in that?  And what you would discover is, unless you
did something about the transportation grid in the United States,
there's no way you could get the bits and pieces and dialogue
between the scientists to come together.  In other words, it
would force an up-shifting of the entire means of society's
        If we wanted to develop fusion rockets — we took a trip
here to the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; and they're on the
PSE&G power grid like all of the residential power.  But when
they're conducting an experiment, I think they by themselves are
using about as much electricity as the entire rest of the state
combined.  It's a massive amount of power to do these things.
So, if we were actually try and do this with our power grid right
now, we'd just blow out the grid.  We just would not have the
electricity to continue to let people have air conditioning or
run their blow dryer or their dishwasher, and figure out how
we're going to launch advanced technology to outer space.
        So, what you're talking about very concretely, are the means
by which you increase the productivity of the population.  And
that in turn inspires a real quality of optimism, because when
one knows that you're going to produce, or you're going to create
something that will live on after you, or you're discovering a
principle which will mean something to future generations, then
you have a real sense of the value in your having lived.  And
today, I think people have been very much robbed of that; in
fact, in a sense — and probably this is why there are so many
suicides — what people see is that in the United States, the
standard of living is collapsing, the ability of people to be
productive is collapsing.  So, you say the sum total of my
existence is that we're worse off than we were before; and that
idea frankly is Satanic.  It's anti-human.  So, we have to
reverse it.
        I think we can; I think we're at a moment where we can.  I
think part of the reason we're getting a phenomenal response on
the music, with people joining the chorus.  People joining the
chorus recently, there is absolutely no standard type of person
who is joining the chorus.  It is people who have never sung in
their life, who cannot read music, who cannot match pitch even;
to people who have professional training, conservatory training.
And they all come together and have a certain quality of
inspiration to work on this mission.  So, I think this is what we
actually can do.  And what I was saying in the statement
yesterday is that my sense — especially after being out at
Columbus Circle in Manhattan — is somehow people are missing
this.  They've become so pessimistic that they're not actually
seeing the enormous potential that exists.  We've all heard the
fable about the goldfish that's swimming in this little teensy
bowl.  You get rid of the bowl, and you put the goldfish in the
ocean; and the goldfish keeps swimming around in this little tiny
circle.  In a sense, a lot of our friends in the American
population are behaving as if they're stuck in this little teensy
world; when the reality of that world has shattered and there's
something much bigger that we can be a part of.  There are
certain concrete steps that have to be taken, but with proper
leadership we are in a position to actually do them.

        OGDEN:  I just wanted to respond to one thing that you
brought up right in the beginning there about how there needs to
be a concrete approach to changing people's concept of economics.
This is absolutely the Franklin Roosevelt element, but he was
explicit; he said, "No longer is it the effervescent pursuit of
profits, but it's the thrill of creative effort."  The paradigm
shift between what came before Roosevelt and what he ushered in
on the day of his inauguration, was driven by that principle; the
Hamiltonian principle.  Driven by the idea that there's a concept
of the productive powers of the human species which is a
completely different measurement than what you think of when you
talk about money.  This gets at the root of what we've been
discussing over the last few weeks with this Herrhausen legacy.
It's not coincidental that at the same time that Mr. LaRouche was
making his 1988 speech at the Kempinski Hotel, forecasting the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the reuniting of Germany; which
frankly came as as much of a surprise as the Brexit vote.  Who
ever thought that Europe would just be completely disintegrated
the day before that happened?  Even as the vote tallies were
coming in, it was the same kind of "nobody saw it coming" moment.
        But it's not a coincidence that at the same time that was
occurring, you had Alfred Herrhausen — who was experiencing
himself a sort of transformational change in his understanding of
what really drives economics in the first place.  I was reading
some of the writings that were published in English; and one
speech that he delivered just shortly before his assassination,
begins in a fascinating way.  Showing you that he uniquely was
ready to reconsider the entire axiomatic foundation of what the
postwar Bretton Woods system was based on; understanding that it
was driving itself towards a breakdown crisis.  This is just the
beginning of what he said.  The speech was called "The Time Is
Ripe"; so he began by saying:  "The time is ripe; ripe for a new
and broader approach to resolving the international debt crisis,
with which major parts of the world have been concerned since
1982.  And this new approach must take into account the meanwhile
changed nature of the problem, and be based upon the structure of
the realities now confronting the several participants in their
various roles.  This applies to creditors, debtors, governments,
and to the Bretton Woods institutions — the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund."
        Then he goes to discuss his proposal for either a moratorium
or a complete writing-off of the debt of the Third World and a
new idea of directed credit towards the industrialization of
Poland and Eastern Europe.  This is the kind of Damascus Road
conversion or you could say "Herrhausen Moment" that we need to
inspire among similar leading layers in our society today; to
realize this thing is gone.  There is no saving the system in its
current form; you can no longer put band-aids and piecemeal
solutions.  You need to reconsider the time is ripe for
reconsidering the entire idea of what we had previously
considered the axioms of this sytem.
        So, in the same way that the 28 pages, the Glass-Steagall
fight, the Chilcot Inquiry, these similar threads; we also need
to have a victory moment on this idea of the Hamilton principle
and the creativity of mankind as the true measurement of economic

DENISTON:  I would just again reference people to Mr. LaRouche's
Four Laws document, which he had issued I think two years ago
now.  We re-featured it in the context of these developments of
recent weeks.  It's a very concise, but very dense presentation
of exactly this issue.  I think for our situation in the United
States, that still stands as the essential policy document to
complement what needs to happen in Europe around Deutsche Bank,
around the breakdown over there and the intervention needed.  To
complement with that with actions in the United States;
Glass-Steagall being part of the party platforms is a good step.
But as you're saying, it's just stopping the bleeding; and if we
don't actually move with the full credit system and the
reorganization of the banking system as a whole and actual
knowledge of where to invest this credit.  It's going to take
serious work after decades of a post-industrial, post-productive,
increasingly insane economy, to actually begin to rebuild a
productive base again.  This is going to be a serious program
that's going to be required; and Mr. LaRouche's document there is
the reference point that people should be looking to.  Obviously,
we have it linked here in the description of this video; that
should be circulated, read and studied, and understood in detail.
That is our roadmap at this point for this full recovery program;
centered around a unified conception unique to Mr. LaRouche about
the real science of human growth, human progress, human
creativity.  His work is essential at this point to overcome the
deep depths of the crisis we face in the United States.  We need
an even better insight into the science of human economic
progress that he's provided with his work.

        SARE:  I met a woman yesterday in the organizing who said,
"Well what do you mean Glass-Steagall?  We can just do work on
Deutsche Bank; we can just do more quantitative easing, that's
what they've been doing.  You just issue the money to cover their
obligations."  And she was serious, so it does show the kind of
job we have to do.

        DENISTON:  Yeah, it worked great for Germany in the 1920s,

        STEGER:  Well, that's the thing, too.  The Americans have
such a small view of history; so much of the here and now.  Helga
has raised this as a subjective factor; but so few Americans
actually have a broader scope of what we're confronting.  What's
brought to mind is Lyn's often-made reference to the Bertrand
Russell dominance of this last century.  I think most Americans
don't really conceive — and I think Alfred Herrhausen understood
this problem — is that Germany never really ever had a chance to
fully embrace itself as a unified oriented towards this level of
scientific advancement.  Apparently, at the major event after the
Napoleonic Wars, it was decided Germany would not be able to
become a nation; as Italy would not be able to.  There was an
attempt to not let these nations or these people become
sovereign, unified countries.  It was only unified in the late
19th Century; and what follows then is Germany is basically
manipulated into a perpetual state of war.  World War I, World
War II, and obviously the dominance of the Cold War; all of which
was a cultural outlook governed by the Bertrand Russell outlook
of a Satanic view of man.  Herrhausen saw with a sense of
optimism, a chance to break from that.  I think that's what's
really missing in the American people today.  The striking nature
of the moment we're in.
        Diane, you raised this question of how do you mobilize the
population.  For too many people, they're waiting; they're
waiting for someone — "I'll know it when I see it" kind of
quality.  Just a lack of real understanding.  But probably the
best expression of this in history, in thinking of the various
moments when there have been major upheavals, is really the
American Revolution.  The unique action by George Washington at
that point, to clearly define a perspective of commitment of his
own identity, his own fortune, his own honor, his own life; but
really to shape an historical period.  That really brought into
bear Hamilton's policies and the whole orientation of the United
States in terms of development.  But the best way to move people
is not to see when they're going to move; but to begin to move
with a very clear campaign of what we intend to build and
construct on the basis of Franklin Roosevelt, but really a much
more advanced conception today because of the space program,
because of what's developed.  We're really at a moment of history
where action of a quality of leadership is required; and to the
extent we can make that clear, the greater chance we have of
being successful.

        OGDEN:  Absolutely.  That's the lesson to be gleaned from
the developments in the recent period; that when we act as true
leaders — in other words, not responding to events as they
unfold over time — but setting the agenda for the future,
history is shaped by that kind of leadership.  That's very clear
from the 28 pages.  If it had not been for the decision by the
LaRouche Movement in collaboration with others, to make this
happen; it never would have happened.  This is not history just
sort of happening on its own; this is a mobilization of the
system of government that we have, that was given to us.  And it
was a decision to force this into being.  If we had not decided
that we were going to force Glass-Steagall onto the agenda and
say this is the defining issue, that never would have happened.
I think you can go back even further and realize that what's
happening now in China and the allied countries of China, with
the adoption by the most populous country on the planet of the
New Silk Road, the Maritime Silk Road; this entire New Paradigm
of Eurasian development, directly came out of a decision that was
made in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union by
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche to say: We are going to use this
opportunity to put on the agenda what the future must become.
The Productive Triangle; the alliance between Russia, India, and
China as the three great powers of Eurasia; and the campaign to
bring Germany and the rest of Europe into that.  That is now
reality; that was the future; that is now the present.
        I think it's that kind of way of thinking that the role of
real leaders is not to say what are the "objective circumstances"
in the present to which you have to respond, and to stake some
sort of political position on, yea or nay.  The real question is,
who has the vision to say this is what the future must become;
and how do we set the agenda according to which history is then
forced to unfold?

        SARE:  I think one thing that Michael and I were discussing
earlier, that would shift things dramatically, is if Americans
would stop pretending that President Obama has any legitimacy in
the White House and doesn't actually belong behind bars for the
crimes that he's committed.

        OGDEN:  Jacques Cheminade said it well in the statement he
issued after the Nice terror attacks.  He said, maybe the Chilcot
Report should send shivers up and down some people's spines to
realize they're not safe.  What are the Chilcot Reports of the
future going to say about you, the people who have been defending
the terrorist networks in Syria — al-Nusra — to overthrow the
Assad regime?  Those who worked with Prince Bandar and the rest
of the Saudi regime?  The people who set up Al Yamamah in the
first place?  When Nemesis comes to judge you, where will you
stand?  I think it's that kind of principle of natural law and
justice which Obama and the rest of that retinue — as Jacques
Cheminade said very clearly — these are the questions which must
be asked.

STEGER:  Then there's a certain lady in France who's facing a
certain threat of that at this moment.  The director of the IMF
now faces prosecution for corruption.  This process is unfolding
and I think the reality of it is, most Americans know Obama is
probably one of the most evil and Satanic people on the planet
today.  The question is, not is he that; but is justice actually
possible.  I think we've entered into a period of time where
things that people thought were impossible have now become
possible.  The question is, are they up to the task of acting
upon that?  That really seems to be the characteristic.  We could
have a major break on Obama; and some people may say, based on
Presidential election timeframes, what difference would it make.
Clearly, at this kind of moment in history, a very clear and
decisive act against the President to expose his crimes; this is
the President, by the way, who lauded himself on returning the
United States to international law.  It's just been made very
clear by a massacre in Syria by US bombing; bombing which
violates international law and Syrian sovereignty.  The case is
building to bring down Obama; and I think there's probably a
little bit of concern in the White House that things might by
changing.  The question is, is there the guts and courage to act
upon it.  Like our friends on the 28 pages, are we willing to
pull a Gravel and really take on the real moment in history?

        OGDEN:  Precisely.  I think that's a very apropos parallel.
Not only was it the fact in very large measure that Steven Lynch
publicly threatened that they were going to have their Gravel
moment; and come to the floor of the House and just read these
into the public record that probably precipitated the decision
that they had no choice but to release the 28 pages in one form
or another.  But also, it's a very apropos parallel, because look
at what effect Senator Gravel had when he took the action to read
the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.  That
precipitated the events that led to the impeachment and disgrace
of the entire Nixon policy, the Vietnam War policy.  What has now
been revealed by the 28 pages goes far deeper than anything that
was contained in the Pentagon Papers at that time.  What this
represents is the tip of the iceberg; and the fact that the
people who have been involved in this are not satisfied.  People
like Congressman Walter Jones, Congressman Steven Lynch, former
Senator Bob Graham, are not satisfied to just sit back and say,
"Well, we just won a victory on the 28 pages."  They all have
been very clear; this is only the beginning.  We know what this
represents; this is the cork that has now come out of the end of
the bottle.  There is far, far more that needs to come out; this
is the tip of the iceberg.
        As we've said repeatedly, if you just follow the money trail
from Bandar to the Al Yamamah deal, you'll see where these
policies were originally born.  It's very ugly; very bad news for
the British monarchy and for the entire Bush/Cheney apparatus.

        STEGER:  Well, there's no envy of Obama here.

        OGDEN:  Michael, maybe you want to say a little bit about
this event that you are going to be involved in this weekend in

        STEGER:  It's indicative.  We've got an event tomorrow in
Lynnwood, near the Seattle area at the convention center there;
and then another event in Belleview on Sunday.  What we're seeing
is an increase in integration between our activity and
institutions who are looking to collaborate on Russia's and
China's intervention today; specifically on this economic
perspective.  What's driving this entire process, this higher
question of justice beyond retribution, is really mankind's great
potential for development.  The space exploration question
probably best qualifies the real nature of mankind's potential
and orientation.  You see that orientation coming from China
probably most and best of all; and of course, the collaboration
with Russia.  So, there are Russian and Chinese networks
throughout the West Coast, both in Seattle and San Francisco and
in Los Angeles, who we find increasingly working with us.  So,
there's going to be a collaboration on Saturday, hosted by Dave
Christie here from Seattle, along with people like Mike
Billington of the EIR staff, a number of speakers from the
Chinese-American community, nuclear engineers, aerospace
engineers from Boeing, people involved in US-China investment
capabilities, the Russian perspective.  And then something
similar in Belleview, with the Belleview Chinese Chamber of
Commerce on Sunday.  So, you see a real potential.  You're
beginning to see the New Paradigm, the win-win orientation of the
New Silk Road; it's creeping in.  There are numbers of
universities now holding events on the One Belt, One Road policy.
I think the leadership of Japan has realized, as perhaps Erdogan
has had a certain Damascus Road conversion; it is clear that with
nearly 5 billion people and the largest growth potential mankind
has ever seen, there's no way any nation can {not} participate in
this orientation.  I think these conferences this weekend will be
a significant part of that.

        OGDEN:  Great.  I think we'll definitely have some coverage
of that, if not some actual video that people can watch.  So, I
think that is a very comprehensive discussion; it sort of touched
all the bases.  I would emphasize that Mr. LaRouche's initiative
and Helga LaRouche's initiative on this Deutsche Bank remains a
forefront item of mobilization.  I think people need to take what
has been said here and develop that in terms of communicating the
credit principle as the foundation for an entirely new paradigm.
We will continue to provide material on that.  I think what comes
out of this conference in Seattle this weekend will also make
that increasingly clear.  I'd like to thank all of you for
watching; again, ask everybody who is viewing this, to please
subscribe to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel.  This is LaRouche
PAC Live; and we have live broadcasts many times a week, so
you'll be sure never to miss one of these live broadcasts.
Please also subscribe to the daily email, if you haven't already.
You can get the LaRouche PAC lead directly to your inbox every
day.  Thanks a lot for watching, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.  Good night.

Red Deutsche Bank for at finde en løsning, der vil redde menneskeheden!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 15. juli 2016

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg tror, det er almindelig kendt blandt absolut alle i det internationale finansielle samfund, og i alle regeringer og blandt alle relevante personer i politiske stillinger i den transatlantiske sektor, at det, jeg nu siger her, er absolut sandt. Med andre ord: bankiererne og de ansvarlige personer i det internationale finansielle system alle er klar over, at dette system er absolut bankerot; håbløst bankerot. Det står umiddelbart foran en nedsmeltning, i langt større skala end den, der fandt sted i 2008, af den meget simple grund, at alle de indikatorer, der var til stede, før Lehman Brothers og AIG gik ned, er til stede nu, men i langt større skala.

[Vi arbejder på en dansk oversættelse af hele webcastet. Bliv på kanalen!]  

Engelsk udskrift:


LaRouche PAC International Webcast Friday, July 15, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's July 15th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast on
larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Benjamin
Deniston; and we're joined by a very special guest, via video,
Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the founder of
the Schiller Institute, and also Chairwoman of the German BüSo
(Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidaritä¤t, Civil Rights Movement
Solidarity) political party.
        Helga LaRouche is joining us tonight to discuss the
initiative that she and Mr. Lyndon LaRouche have taken this week
to act in a very decisive manner to avert World War III and a
global economic blow-out. This concerns the situation that
Deutsche Bank now finds itself in.
        I would like to begin by reading a Statement that Mrs.
LaRouche issued a few days ago, on July 12th of this week. We
will then follow that Statement by a discussion with Mrs.
LaRouche herself. In the Statement that Mrs. LaRouche issued,
titled "Deutsche Bank Must be Rescued, for the Sake of World
Peace," Helga wrote the following:
        "The imminent threat of the bankruptcy of Deutsche Bank is
certainly not the only potential trigger for a new systemic
crisis of the trans-Atlantic banking system, which would be
orders of magnitude more deadly than the 2008 crisis, but it does
offer a unique lever to prevent a collapse into chaos.
        "Behind the SOS launched by the chief economist of Deutsche
Bank, David Folkerts-Landau, for an EU program of EU¬150 billion
to recapitalize the banks, lurks the danger openly discussed in
international financial media, that the entire European banking
system is {de facto} insolvent, and is sitting on a mountain of
at least EU¬2 trillion of non-performing loans. Deutsche Bank is
the international bank, with a total of EU¬55 trillions of
outstanding derivative contracts and a leverage factor of 40:1,
even outdoes Lehman Brothers at the time of its collapse, and
therefore represents the most dangerous Achilles heel of the
system. Half of Deutsche Bank's balance sheet, which has
plummeted 48% in the past 12 months and is down to only 8% of its
peak value, is made up of Level-3 derivatives, i.e., derivatives
amounting to circa EU¬800 billion without a market valuation.
        "It probably came as a surprise to many that Lyndon LaRouche
called today for Deutsche Bank to be saved through a one-time
increase in its capital base, because of the systemic
implications of its threatened bankruptcy. Neither the German
government with its GDP of EU¬4 trillion, nor the EU with a GDP
of EU¬18 trillion, would be able to control the domino effect of
a disorderly bankruptcy.
        "The one-time capital injection, LaRouche explained, is only
an emergency measure which needs to be followed by an immediate
reorientation of the bank, back to its tradition which prevailed
until 1989 under the leadership of Alfred Herrhausen. To actually
oversee such an operation, a management committee must be set up
to verify the legitimacy and the implications of the obligations,
and finalize its work within a given timeframe. That committee
should also draw up a new business plan, based on Herrhausen's
banking philosophy and exclusively oriented to the interests of
the real economy of Germany.
        "Alfred Herrhausen was the last actually creative, moral
industrial banker of Germany. He defended, among other things,
the cancellation of the unpayable debt of developing countries,
as well as the long-term credit financing of well-defined
development projects. In December 1989, he planned to present in
New York a plan for the industrialization of Poland, which was
consistent with the criteria used by the Kreditanstalt für
Wiederaufbau (KfW) for the post-1945 reconstruction of Germany,
and would have offered a completely different perspective than
the so-called 'reform policy,' or 'shock therapy', of Jeffrey
        Helga completes this Statement by saying:
        "Herrhausen's assassination has gone unpunished. However,
there exists 'the dreaded might, that judges what is hid from
sight,' which is the subject of Friedrich Schiller's poem {Die
Kraniche des Ibykus}. The Erinyes have begun their dreadful
        It is now incumbent upon all those who, in addition to the
family, have suffered from the assassination of Herrhausen, upon
the representatives of the Mittelstand, of the German economy and
the institutional representatives of the German population, to
honor his legacy and to seize the tremendous opportunity which is
now offered to save Germany."
        With that said, Helga, would you like to follow up at all
with any opening statements?

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that it is absolutely
known to everybody in the international financial community and
to all governments and all relevant people in political positions
in the trans-Atlantic sector, that what I'm saying there is
absolutely true. In other words: the bankers and [those]
responsible for the international financial system all know that
this system is absolutely bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt. It's
about to blow up in a much, much bigger way than 2008, for the
very simple reason that all indicators which were there before
Lehman Brothers and AIG went under, are there, but much more.
        The famous instrument box which they were using, or
pretending to use, in 2008, has been used up: quantitative
easing, zero interest rate, negative interest rate, helicopter
money. Right now you have the situation — and we have this from
extremely reliable contacts in the banking community who agree
with us — where all the central banks are printing money, paper
money, like crazy, because they know perfectly well that
helicopter money is not just electronic, but if you would have a
banking run right now, the whole thing would evaporate within a
very short period of time, in hours.
        This is a situation where if you have an uncontrolled,
chaotic collapse, which is right now eminently possible, because
you have several [inaud 0:07.39]. Not only Deutsche Bank.
You have the Italian Banking sector about to blow. You have the
British situation after the Brexit. The entire European banking
system is absolutely bankrupt. If you had an uncontrolled
collapse, well, as one banker told us, after he read this
statement of mine, he said, "If this is not remedied in the short
term, we are looking towards a Europe of chaos, disorder, and
        The biggest danger, apart from World War III directly, would
be a plunge of the trans-Atlantic sector into chaos. Therefore,
my husband — who has a unique record of being right, in terms of
forecasting, and being unique, in terms of coming up for
proposals how to remedy the situation — made this very
surprising comment: that Deutsche Bank, of all banks, should be
singled out, they should be saved, one last time, but not without
conditions: They must immediately be put in a sort of
receivership. A management commission should be in charge. And
then they need a new business plan, which must go back to the
philosophy of Alfred Herrhausen, who was the last moral banker in
all of Europe, and who had a completely different philosophy.
        We had all kinds of reactions about that. It turned out the
banks are much more hated than meets the public eye. People said,
"Let these banks go bankrupt! Why don't you just close them down?
Nationalize them! Bankrupt them!" You had an outpouring of anger
coming from people you would not expect it — conservative
industrialists, politicians who normally are not speaking in
radical tones at all — but what came out was an explosion of
        It is very easy to be angry about the situation. If this
thing collapses in an uncontrolled fashion, all the life-savings
of people will be ruined. The majority of the people will have to
pay, and this will be associated with poverty. Millions of people
dying. This is not a joke.
        It's not enough to be "against" something; even if banks
have behaved completely criminal and immoral. Deutsche Bank is
spending right now such enormous amounts of money on legal fines
for illegal activity from LIBOR swindles, all kinds of shady
operations, so that they had to write down their profit warnings.
It's not the question of "doing a favor" to Deutsche Bank. Not at
all! The question is: you must find leverage; how to bring this
thing in order, before the whole thing ends up in a collapse,
causing an absolute uncontrollable situation.
        That is why the reference to Alfred Herrhausen is really
extremely important, because he was the head of Deutsche Bank. He
was a banker. Deutsche Bank had a different policy, and
therefore, when you say, "We have to back to the philosophy of
Alfred Herrhausen," at least the older generation knows exactly
what that means. Therefore, I think we should really spread this
and force people to put pressure on the situation, that this is
being done. You have to "unwind" the outstanding derivatives. You
have to deal with the situation that Deutsche Bank has EU¬55
trillion in outstanding derivatives. Half of their balance sheet
is without market valuation, which means that it's practically
worth nothing, because you can't really sell it.
        If you have an uncontrolled collapse, then that could be
really what brings down the whole thing in a chaotic way. If you
go the way Mr. LaRouche has proposed, then you can have an
orderly resolution of this bankrupt system, and replace it with
one which is in the interest of the people. So, it's not just a
technical proposal. Several people, in response to my statement,
said, "This is probably the very last chance we have to prevent a

        OGDEN: I would like to get a little bit more into the
significance of the role played by Alfred Herrhausen in a moment;
but before we get to that, Helga, maybe you also say a little bit
more about what the strategic context of this intervention is,
especially from the standpoint of the role that [inaud 13:06]
play, not only as the only viable economy in Europe right now,
but also the emphasis that Mr. LaRouche has placed on the
relationship between Germany and Russia, being the only means by
which we can prevent the outbreak of a thermonuclear conflict.

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, people have now all kinds of proposals,
like "Tobin Tax," "tax the speculators" — all these proposals
are floating around. What they don't consider, is that when we're
taking about banking, we're not talking about money or financial
questions; we're taking about the physical pre-condition for a
society to exist. Fortunately, the German economy, despite all of
these paradigm shifts which have occurred in the last 25 years to
the worse, the German economy is still an economic powerhouse.
You still have a very large concentration of very productive
middle-level industry. Middle-level industry is normally where
all the patterns are made, the technological innovation occurs.
That is really the backbone of the productive economy.
        The question is: this German economy, without which all of
Europe would not function, absolutely must be protected, and not
only be protected, because right now, it is already many, many
small firms which are in danger. There are other factors, like
the crazy [nuclear] energy exit of Mrs. Merkel, which has
increased the price of energy tremendously, but the German
economy is sort of weakened; but it is still the absolute crucial
factor because in Germany you have a lot of the industrial
potential which is needed not only for all of Europe, but in
order to get the whole question of Eurasian cooperation on a
sound ground, you need the German economy. The whole question of
the German-Russian cooperation, German-Chinese cooperation in the
development of the Eurasian Silk Road, is absolutely crucial.
        So, the question is the productivity. And what has happened
with the paradigm shift of all the successors of Herrhausen — I
don't want to name all of them — but all of them went into this
high-risk maximization of profit no matter what. Ackermann wanted
25% profit, preferably every month; and they went into these
completely crazy derivative operations, so that Deutsche Bank is
today {the} leading bank in terms of derivative exposure. With
$55 trillion in outstanding derivatives, that's with a GDP of the
German economy of $4 trillion a year; it's more than 10 times
more, even 12 times more the GDP of the German economy. So
Deutsche Bank long has stopped to be Deutsche Bank; it's now
operating from London, from New York. It has become one of the
most aggressive investment banks in the world. But if it goes
bankrupt, which it could at any moment; and that's why the chief
economist Mr. Folkerts-Landau put out every day since Sunday, he
put out an urgent call saying this recapitalization of the
European banks must occur, or else calamity will happen. If
Deutsche Bank would go under, the German economy — and with it,
all European economies — would collapse; and therefore, it's not
a question of choice. Obviously, to just put out more bail-out
packages per se, as the ECB [European Central Bank] and the EU
Commission have done in the past, is completely useless because
it makes the problem worse. Right now, it has reached the limit;
because after helicopter money, what else do you want to do?
        It is not a choice; it is a life and death question, not
only for Germany, but really for the entire trans-Atlantic

        OGDEN: Now, you have emphasized that the circumstances
around the assassination of Alfred Herrhausen continue to be a
crime that the truth has not yet been told fully about. It's
something that in the United States, we can relate to the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, in terms of the magnitude of
what this meant for the turning point in the policy of Germany at
that time. Obviously, it was in the context of the collapse of
the Berlin Wall in the beginning of November 1989, and just less
than one month later, at the very end of November, November 30th,
Herrhausen was assassinated in a very sophisticated attack on his
convoy as he was travelling from his home to the Deutsche Bank
headquarters. You said, Helga, in an article that you wrote in
1992 titled, "New Evidence Emerges in the Herrhausen
Assassination Case," you said, "The key to the motive behind
Herrhausen's assassination lies in 11 pages of a speech he was to
deliver in the United States only four days after he was
ambushed. The speech contained Herrhausen's vision of a new kind
of relationship between eastern and western Europe, which would
have fundamentally altered the world's future course." And then
you have a quotation from the speech, which I think is shocking
when we go back and read that today, in consideration of what Mr.
LaRouche and you were also both advocating for at that time. What
he said, or what he was to say, in that speech that was never
delivered, was the following:
        "There should be assurances that the new credit will flow
into specific, promising projects. It is therefore advisable that
the export guarantees which the German Federal government wants
to expand, be tied primarily to specific projects. In this
connection, at this year's annual meeting of the IMF and World
Bank in Washington, I proposed setting up a development bank on
the spot; i.e., in Warsaw. Its task would be to bundle the aid
and to channel it according to strict efficiency criteria. My
vision is that such an institution could function somewhat like
the Deutsche Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, which traces its
origins back to the Marshall Plan."
        So, when you compare that speech that Herrhausen was about
to give four days after he was assassinated, to what Lyn said in
his speech in West Germany at the Kempinski Hotel in 1988, when
he forecast the reunification of Germany and the collapse of the
Berlin Wall, he said:
        "Let us say that the United States and western Europe will
cooperate to accomplish the successful rebuilding of the economy
of Poland. There will be interference in the political system of
government, but only a kind of Marshall Plan aid to rebuild
Poland's industry and agriculture. If Germany agrees to this, let
a process aimed at the reunification of the economies of Germany
begin; and let this be the {puntum saliens} for western
cooperation in assisting in the rebuilding of the economy of
        So, I think in the context of this speech that Herrhausen
was about to deliver in New York, his cooperation with Helmut
Kohl in terms of the reunification of Germany; and also the fact
that he was on record calling for the debt relief — at least a
partial debt relief, if not a full debt forgiveness of the Third
World countries. He had met with the President of Mexico in 1987;
he had surprised the world by delivering a speech at the World
Bank in 1987 calling for the forgiveness of the debt of the Third
World. All of these are right in parallel with what you and Lyn
were advocating for, going all the way back to 1975, back to the
Operation Juarez and also with this Marshall Plan Productive
Triangle proposal at the fall of the Berlin Wall. So, I think
that certainly puts his assassination in the correct context to
understand {qui bono}. Who benefitted from the fact that he was

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think I would to take it a little bit
back, because this is not just a question of a murder which
occurred 27 years ago. I want to recall what the period was,
because most people have forgotten that Germany was not always
unified; that the Berlin Wall came down. But this was one of the
most traumatic developments in the post-war period. You remember
that you had the peaceful demonstrations in the G.D.R. [East
Germany], the Monday demonstrations; the Warsaw Pact still
existed, and it was not clear what would happen. Would this lead
to another 1956 like in Hungary, or a new Prague Spring, where
Russian or Soviet tanks come? Then the wall came down, and Mr.
LaRouche had this idea about the German unification which you
referenced, which he presented in the Kempinski Hotel in 1988; so
we had a plan. We put out immediately this proposal for the
German unification, to have a mission; to have the Productive
Triangle to take the region from Paris, Berlin, Vienna — the
economic powerhouse of the world at that time — and develop
corridors into eastern Europe to transform Europe. We were the
only ones who had any idea, because we were the only ones who
even had an inkling that the Soviet Union would collapse; which
Mr. LaRouche had already pronosed in 1984. He said, if the Soviet
Union sticks to their military policy of the Ogarkov plan, which
was basically the idea to gain world dominance; then they will
collapse in five years. And I can assure you, not even the German
government had any idea that unification would be real; even if
that was the primary political goal of the entire post-war
period. Then the Wall came down; and in the official documents
which the German government published ten years later, they
admitted they had no contingency plan for the case of German
unification. Can you imagine that? That was the policy goal
number one to have German unification; and they had no plan. But
we did have a plan.
        So, then developments became extremely traumatic. On the
28th of November, Helmut Kohl did probably the most important
step in his entire political career by putting forward the
10-point program. This was not yet a program for German
unification, but it was a medium-term plan for the moving closer
together of the two German states; the West German and East
German states in a federation. But he did that without consulting
the Allies, and he did it without even consulting the liberal
coalition partner, Mr. Genscher; but it was a first baby step in
the direction of two German sovereignties. We know now that
Francois Mitterand put an ultimatum to Kohl and said, either you
give up the German D-mark and its being replaced by a European
common currency — what became the euro — or we will not agree
to German unification.
        Two days after Kohl had put out this 10-point program,
Herrhausen was assassinated. Everybody in the German elite at
that point — and we talked to many people at that time — said
this is not just an assassination, but since Herrhausen was the
closest advisor to Kohl, this was a message to Kohl. Don't stick
your head out; do not dare to pursue and assert sovereignty.
Because Germany in the entire post-war period was an occupied
country; and at that time the saying went, "The best-kept public
secret of NATO is that Germany is an occupied country and will
remain an occupied country." So by Kohl making this tiny baby
step in the direction of sovereignty with the 10-point program,
that obviously was the contributing factor why this assassination
occurred. As you said, if Herrhausen would have made this speech
in New York in the following week, you would have had a proposal
coming from the leading banker which was practically in principle
identical to what Mr. LaRouche and I proposed at the time;
namely, that the unified Germany should take Poland as an example
for the economic transformation of all the other countries of the
        Then naturally, everything went haywire. The following EU
summit in the beginning of December in Strasburg, everybody
started to attack Kohl; and in an interview later, he said these
were the darkest hours of his life. The circumstances were such
that despite the fact that Kohl knew that the euro would not
function, he said this is against German interests; and he knew
absolutely that you cannot have a European common currency
without political union. So, he knew it wouldn't function; he
knew it was against German interests. But he was forced by the
circumstances to accept it, because you had Bush, Sr. who had the
policy of containment of Germany in the EU. It is well
established that originally Bush was against the German
unification; and only because such more experienced political
advisors like Brent Scowcroft told him if you are now against
German unification, then the United States will lose all
influence in Europe, so we have to basically agree to it. But
let's make sure Germany gets contained. And that is what led to
the infamous EU Maastricht agreement, which was the beginning of
turning the EU into an imperial adjunct of the Anglo-American
system. Helmut Schmidt, the late German Chancellor, in an equally
surprising interview recently before he died, said the whole
Ukraine crisis, which is right now what could be the trigger
point for a war with Russia; really started at the Maastricht
agreement, because this is when the EU decided to do exactly what
NATO has been doing ever since. Namely, to go for an eastward
expansion and move the EU and NATO just up to the borders of
        So, the decision which was made in these really traumatic
weeks and month, set the course; and if Herrhausen had been alive
and advised Kohl, these conceptions could have been implemented
and history would not be at the point where we are now. So, the
Herrhausen assassination not only meant the lost chance of 1989;
everybody agreed at that time this was an historic chance that
happens at best once a century. I called the star hour of
Germany, because if you had the unified Germany developing a
peace plan for the 21st Century together with Russia, the whole
world would look completely different. But as I said, all the
successes of Herrhausen went in the direction of high-risk
speculation, globalization, money for money's sake, the rich
become richer, the poor become poorer, and all the problems we
have today. All the problems we have today are not just caused by
this one assassination, but the assassination is symptomatic for
the paradigm shift to the worse.
        It's a murder which is unpunished; the so-called murderers,
the third generation of the Red Army Faction probably never
existed. There was even in the first German TV channel a
documentary which said there has never been any evidence that any
of the persons who supposedly were the murderers, ever really
existed. So, the {qui bono} — well, it's the financial oligarchy
which profited; and it really has the smell of something quite
different — of an intelligence operation — as many of the
leading figures who did not fit the Yalta norm were assassinated.
But with the Herrhausen case, as you said, for Germany this is as
important in terms of paradigm shift as the assassination was of
John F. Kennedy.
        And right now, when the entire banking system is absolutely
at the verge of collapse, it is the last moment to do justice and
really go back to the policies of Herrhausen. Even so, almost
nobody knows anymore what real industrial banking is, because
they are so money-greedy and absolutely suckers for the latest
profit, that it would be a real uphill battle. But that battle
must be fought if Europe and Germany and the rest of the
trans-Atlantic sector are to survive; and probably beyond that,
much of the world.

        BEN DENISTON: Well, I think just looking at this transition
period, I know that you and Mr. LaRouche had both made a warning
that I think is very appropriate just to state in this context.
That around the fall of the Wall, this lost chance of '89, you
had explicitly said to the world, if we attempt this bankrupt,
collapsing Soviet system with an equally bankrupt trans-Atlantic
system, you're going to head to a collapse that's worse than
what's happening now. I'm paraphrasing you; you might know more
exactly how you stated it. But it seems like that really bridges
this whole process from '89 to what we're seeing today as the
culmination, the expression of what you warned of at that time. I
think a challenge we have is to get across the importance of
acting now on the level needed to make this shift we're talking
about. What Lyn has laid out with this reform program for
Deutsche Bank is the beginning out of this new paradigm. I think
it's important to see it as an intervention in this whole
collapse process you both had warned about and forecast this
would be the consequence of failing to act then. That should give
us greater impetus to know how important it is to act now while
we still have the chance.

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I remember that at that time, you had the
problem of the Bush administration, Margaret Thatcher, Francois
Mitterand, who absolutely really ganged up to prevent Germany
from assuming any such role of having an independent policy;
especially in respect to Russia. They were always saying, "Oh,
the West has won over communism." The only other person outside
of us who totally contradicted them was John Paul II, the Pope of
the time; who said, the people who now are triumphant and say the
market economy is winning over communism, are absolutely wrong.
If you don't believe it, look at the condition of the Third
World, to see that the West has not won; because the moral
condition of the developing countries speaks to the contrary.
        Naturally, that is all the more true today; because if you
look at the inhuman treatment of the refugee crisis, for example.
They are still coming by the hundreds, every week by the
thousands, over the Mediterranean; drowning. Even more are
starving and dying of thirst and lack of water trying to cross
the Sahara. That is also the condition of this system. The system
is what causes all of this; and therefore, it is absolutely high
time that we come to the question of how can we — as a human
civilization — give us an economy and a financial system which
is adequate to human beings? And I think it's very important that
we go back to the question of what is actually the creation of
wealth? Is it what Margaret Thatcher said, is it the ability to
buy cheap and sell expensive? The famous speaking of Margaret
Thatcher being the daughter of a grocery trader, or is it the
possession of raw materials? Or is it the control of the
financial system? No; it's not. The only source of wealth is the
creative power of the human being; and when that creative power
is applied, then you have scientific and technological progress.
That is then leading to an increase of productivity in the
        That has been the battle between the American Revolution and
the British Empire; between the free-traders and people like
Alexander Hamilton who insisted that it is the creative power of
labor which causes the well-being and the living standard and the
longevity of the people. That was the philosophy of Friedrich
List, the great German economist, who is now the most famous
economist in China, by the way. That was the policy of Friedrich
List and Henry C. Carey, the advisor of Lincoln; who both advised
and through such people as Wilhelm von Kardoff, who was the
head of the German industrial association in the time of
Bismarck. Who changed the mind of Bismarck from being a
free-trader into being an absolute believer in a protectionist
system and the idea that you have to further the productivity and
creativity of your own population as the only source of wealth.
        So, there is a lot of history involved; and what we are
really talking about is taking Germany back to the ideas of
Bismarck, of Friedrich List, of Henry C. Carey, of Dr. William
Lautenbach, who in 1932 presented a plan to the Friedrich List
Organization in Germany which was identical with what Roosevelt
had proposed with the New Deal and the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, Glass-Steagall, Bretton Woods. That was all in these
proposals by Dr. William Lautenbach, who as history knows,
unfortunately were not taken up; but instead you had Hjalmar
Schacht, you had Hitler, you had before Mussolini, Franco,
Petain, and you are in bed with fascists.
        The question today is, can we, in time, go back to those
conceptions which have proven to be productive and valuable for
the economy; or are we plunging into a catastrophe of new fascism
and new wars? So, on this question of Deutsche Bank, most people
are so in the day-to-day making money, profits, and balance
sheets, and having dollar notes coming out of their eyes, that
they have forgotten that there is something much more important
about human life. And that is the happiness of people; the common
good of people.
        The reason why in this call to honor the memory of
Herrhausen, using this crisis of Deutsche Bank now as a real
paradigm shift to go back to these policies; why I mentioned the
great poem by Friedrich Schiller "The Cranes of Ibykus." And by
the way, I would really urge our audience right now, who probably
are not familiar with that poem, we have at translation which we
can put on the website so it's easily accessible. But this poem
is so powerful; it's written by Friedrich Schiller. It discusses
not only the murder of the beloved poet Ibykus, but more
importantly even, it discusses the power of nemesis; the power of
natural law, which is a power which works in reality. It's not
that God punishes every little thief who steals something
immediately by chopping off his hand; but it is a power which
revenges great injustice. And this poem discusses this in a very
beautiful way by resorting to the Greek nemesis, this idea which
was used in great Greek dramas to demonstrate this principle of
the Erinyes. That there is this power that revenges this murder
and other injustices; that there is a higher power than the
arbitrariness of people's will. The poem is very, very powerful.
As a matter of fact, I would even urge you to learn German, just
to read and understand that poem; because it teaches something
about history. I think right now the Erinyes, those goddesses of
revenge which Friedrich Schiller has in this poem marching in the
amphitheater — in circles — they are bringing forward this
higher power by the prism of the poem. It's a very, very powerful
way of reminding people that there is a higher power than what
people think when they read the daily newspaper. So, please make
the effort. Read it; in English if you have to, but read it in
German because there is another dimension to history than what
people think. And only if you bring this forward this inner
strength, this inner power which people have almost lost in the
trans-Atlantic sector because people small. They feel impotent,
they feel helpless. But what we have to unleash is exactly this
inner strength so that people really become truly human again,
and take the history and the destiny in their own hands. And
that's exactly what the message is of Friedrich Schiller; who
always thought that man is greater than his destiny by resorting
to these kinds of inner powers and higher authorities than the
laws of money.

        OGDEN: Well, you cited the Ibykus principle in your keynote
speech to the conference that you hosted three weeks ago in
Berlin; this extraordinary conference. But I thought in that
context also, you made it very clear that history is working
according to a higher law. That conference came just days after
the Brexit vote which shocked everybody and threw all of Europe
in disarray. But you said, this is the Erinyes principle in
action. Tony Blair lied to get us into the Iraq War. The Iraq War
set off a series of regime-change operations in the Middle East
that have completely destabilized this region. That has, in turn,
created this refugee crisis; and now you have the Brexit and the
disintegration of Europe as the Erinyes beginning their dreadful
dance, as you said in this statement once again.
        I think that's also highly relevant in the context of the
anticipated news today, where people have read in the press that
the 28 pages, which we have fought for years to force the release
of these 28 pages; the reports are in the press that these very
well could be released today. In what form, we don't know; how
heavily redacted, we don't know. But again, this is the Erinyes
acting, and it's our responsibility to understand this as a
principle of history; and to continue to understand that the
moral arc of the Universe may be long, but it does bend toward
justice. I think Martin Luther King also understood what
Friedrich Schiller was getting at in this poem, as you said.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that having said that, I want to
come back to the absolute need to find a handle; because right
now the problem is, nobody has a handle on how to intervene with
this financial crisis. And if the proposal of Mr. LaRouche is
taken seriously, you have a way of dealing with the consequences
of avoiding the dangers of an uncontrollable collapse. You have
to untangle this; you have to shut down this derivative system;
you have to shut down the bubble. You have to do it in an orderly
manner, because there's no point to just say let's just close it
down or tax it or whatever. You have to find a skilled level of
how you take management of a bank — in this case, the Deutsche
Bank; you have to put in a supervisory management commission
which has to evaluate the validity and integrity of the
outstanding obligations. Many of the derivatives have much more
than two parties; they have two, three, four, and more parties.
You have to untangle that. You probably have to write down the
nominal value of these outstanding obligations. That way, you can
put a new basis, a new business plan for the bank which is in
cohesion with the idea of credit policy in general. But you have
to start to do that somewhere. The Herrhausen history and
tradition is exactly what makes it very practical. We are not
proposing something completely outlandish, utopian; this was the
policy of Deutsche Bank at one point.
        So therefore, I want to bring it back to this point; and I
would really urge all the people who are watching to make sure
this proposal is being distributed to all institutions which have
anything to do with the economy, with industry, with people in
political positions who should take care of the common good. And
make sure that we get a serious debate. I know that in both
election platforms of the Democratic Party and the Republican
Party, you have the Glass-Steagall law in the platform. Now that
is very good; we will have the conventions in the next weeks.
This is not necessarily the stated position of the candidates;
but it is in the platform. So there is hope that if we mobilize
in the right way, this change can occur before it's too late. But
it's really one second, or maybe a nanosecond before midnight; so
it's not a time for complacency. It's a time for action.
Therefore, I would really urge you to join us; because we have a
beautiful future ahead of us if we do the right thing. If we miss
this moment, it can be the end of civilization; because the war
danger is very real, not only in respect to NATO against Russia,
but also the escalation around the South China Sea. We are not in
a political void, but we are in one of these moments in history
where a lot depends on the individual courage and the individual
action. Therefore, I really ask you to join us to bring history
in a better direction.

        DENISTON: Absolutely.

        OGDEN: Thank you very much for joining us today, Helga. This
was a special broadcast, and I think a very important and timely
one for the American audience. We're going to make the statement
that you wrote on this subject — which I read from in the
beginning of the broadcast — available in the video description
to this video and also on the website. This is absolutely one of
the key pieces of material that people can use to, as you said,
to do outreach to all the key layers in the United States and
elsewhere to put this proposal very seriously on the table. We
will also make the English translation of "The Cranes of Ibykus"
available to our audience as well.
        Would you like to make any final remarks before we close, or
is that a good place to conclude our broadcast?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just would like to really express my hope
that enough people recognize that we have now a point where
history will be either totally a catastrophe — and most people
are already thinking that; the people who are not completely dead
because of drugs or other problems, they know that we are in a
really unprecedented civilizational crisis. Even worse than any
of the prewar situations of the 20th Century. Just yesterday, one
of the key advisors of the Kremlin said, all the signs are of a
prewar period; and that's true. We are in a prewar period; and
unless we remove the real reason for the dynamic for war, which
is the danger of a collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial
system. Unless we remedy that, I'm almost certain that war will
happen; and if that war would happen, it's the logic of war that
in that case all weapons available will be used. In the case of
thermonuclear weapons, that would be it; there probably would not
anybody to even record what happened, because it would be the
elimination of civilization. And therefore, the remedy of the
financial crisis is not just a banking technical affair; it
really is the question of putting society back on a course where
we all can survive as a human civilization. In a certain sense,
it's what {The Federalist Papers} discussed. Can we give
ourselves a political order which is suitable for man to organize
his own affairs and govern according to the common good? So, it's
a much larger issue; and I'm very optimistic that it can be done.
But it requires an extraordinary effort, and it requires all of

        OGDEN: OK, thank you very much for joining us today, Helga.
Hopefully, we can do this at some point again in the future.
Thank you all for tuning in. Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com; and take this discussion and take what Mrs.
LaRouche just had to say very much to heart. So, thank you very
much and good night.

Tiden er inde til at sætte hårdt ind for at lukke Obamas krig ned.
LaRouchePAC Internationale fredags-webcast, 8. juli 2016

Lyndon LaRouche (lydklip): »Vil Obama bombe verden, eller vil Obama opgive? Eller vil han gøre noget andet, midt imellem? Pointen er, når man ser på kendsgerningerne, på de samme personer, så ville jeg sige, at spørgsmålet her er: Luk det her ned! Luk denne krig ned! Luk krigen, og alt, hvad den repræsenterer, ned, nu! Vi har denne ting fra Storbritannien, vi har andre ting i Europa, og ting i andre dele af verden. Jeg tror, at tiden er kommet til at sætte hårdt ind, og effektivt, for at lukke denne krig ned! Luk denne form for krigsførelse, luk det ned!

Hvilket betyder, at vi må skabe et økonomisk system, der vil bidrage til befolkningens behov, både i USA og andetsteds. Spørgsmålet er derfor ikke krig; spørgsmålet er: Er befolkningen i USA parate til at samle sig og genoverveje deres skæbne? Er de villige til at skabe et system, hvor mennesker skaber rigdom, og sørge for, at dette bliver svaret, alternativet til det, der f.eks. finder sted i USA – alle de mennesker, der er ved at uddø eller lider, osv., som de gør nu?

Derfor, vil vi finde alternativet til denne og lignende former for nonsens? Det er spørgsmålet. Jeg mener, at vi virkelig må være meget hårde med dette og få en virkelig solid fremgangsmåde og sige, at, nu gør vi det her for at redde civilisationen, på basis af, hvad Manhattan (projektet) kan tilbyde.

Vi har USA. USA kan vendes omkring, noget langsomt nu, men vi har evnen til at vende tingene rundt, med vores teknologi, der også er i en forfærdelig forfatning. Men vi har nok til at stille uret tilbage, til at gøre en ende på denne evindelige frygt og ondskab. Vi må forsvare USA, dvs. befolkningen i USA, ved at genoprette den form for system i USA, som behøves omgående, for folk i hele USA, og vi må tilskynde andre nationer til at acceptere det samme valg. Jeg mener, det kan gøres.«     


LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, July 8, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening! It's July 8th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly Friday
evening webcast with larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio
today by Megan Beets, from the LaRouche PAC Science Team; and I'm
joined via video by two members of our Policy Committee, Diane
Sare, from the New York City Manhattan Project; and Kesha Rogers,
from Houston, TX.
        We're going to begin our webcast tonight with a very
hard-hitting and important clip from a discussion that we had
with Mr. LaRouche yesterday. This is an audio recording of some
remarks that Mr. LaRouche had, and I think this is going to
inform the discussion that we'll be having here tonight.

        LYNDON LAROUCHE (audio clip): Is Obama going to bomb the
world, or is Obama going to give up? Or is going to do something
else, in the middle? The point is, I would say that the issue
here, when you look at the facts, the same people, the question
would be: shut this thing down! Shut this war down! Shut down the
war and what it represents, now! You've got the thing from
Britain, you've got things in Europe otherwise, you've got the
things in other parts of the world. I think the time has come to
{push hard}, and effectively, to shut this war down! Shut this
kind of warfare, shut it down!
        Which means there's an obligation to create an economic
system which will contribute to the needs of the population, both
in the United States and elsewhere. Therefore the question is not
war; the question is: Are the people of the United States
prepared to reassemble themselves, and reconsider their destiny?
Are they willing to create a system of creation of wealth by
people, and have that thing become the answer, the alternative,
to what's happening, for instance, in the United States–all the
people who are dying out or suffering, and so forth, as now?
        Therefore, are we going to find the alternative to that kind
of nonsense, and similar kinds of nonsense? That's the question.
I think we've really got to go hard on this thing, and get a real
solid approach to say we are now going to do the thing to save
civilization, on the basis of what Manhattan has to offer.
        We've got the United States. The United States can be turned
around, somewhat slowly now, but we've got the ability to turn,
with our technology, which is also in terrible shape. But we've
got enough to {turn the clock around}, to end this perpetual fear
and evil. We've got to defend the United States, in the sense of
the people of the United States, by restoring the kind of system,
{in the United States}, which is needed for the people
{immediately} throughout the United States, and to encourage
other nations to accept the same option. {I think it can be

        OGDEN:  Wonderful! Thank you very much for playing that
clip. We also have a few other very significant things that
happened this week. Obviously, Mr. LaRouche just responded, in
the remarks that you heard, to the developments that are
occurring in Britain. There's a rejection of the entire status
quo, which can be seen very clearly from the Brexit, and then the
{unpredictable} fallout that's happening around that. But also
you have the release of the Chilcot Inquiry Report, which really
just confirms that [former British Prime Minister] Tony Blair is,
in fact, a war criminal, and everybody else who went to war in
Iraq based on false premises, deserves to be prosecuted along
those lines.
        Elsewhere in that discussion, Mr. LaRouche laid out a very
clear continuity of the process, beginning with the Al-Yamamah
deal, the decision by [Saudi] Prince Bandar and [then British
Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher and George Bush, Sr., at that
time, to initiate this irregular warfare operation. In that case,
it was against Russia, proceeding through to the September 11th
attacks, the cover-up of those attacks, (which is what the 28
pages is concerning), and then the entire process of
"regime-change warfare" that was premised on that lie: Tony
Blair's Iraq War operation; Obama's overthrow of the government
of Libya; and then the attempted overthrow of the government in
Syria. That is the next phase in that process. The Bush/Cheney
phase, the Tony Blair phase, the Obama phase; and now you have
the escalation to the point of the danger of World War III — the
doubling down by Obama this week on his aggressive warfare
operation against Russia, in terms of the build-up of the NATO
troop presence in Europe, and also the confrontations in the
South China Sea, which risk the outbreak of World War III in that
region of the world as well.
        There was another very significant event that occurred in
Washington, DC this week. Very unique, in the "belly of the
beast," which was sponsored by a Chinese organization, the
Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies and the National
Institute of the South China Sea Studies. It also included very
significant, prominent participation, by Bill Jones, the
Washington Bureau Chief for {Executive Intelligence Review}, who
was on the speaking panel. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of
the Schiller Institute, was also present, and made a very crucial
        We would also like to play a very short video clip from that
event, to give you a little bit more of a sense of the context
for our upcoming discussion.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE (video clip):  My name is Helga
Zepp-LaRouche. I'm the President of the Schiller Institute. I
have two questions. One I would like to ask [U.S. Naval Academy]
Professor [Brian] Mulvaney. The United States itself has
recognized the historical rights of China in the past. For
example, there's several State Department memorandums, from 1943
and 1944, which clearly say that the United States and the
Philippines have no claims to the islands, and, basically, that
they were China's historical territory — a position that was
then reversed at the [1951] San Francisco Peace Conference. But
that is clearly the source of all this trouble. Why is the United
States not recognizing the historical rights of China? That's my
first question.
        My second question is more general. There are many military
experts internationally who are warning that the situation today
is more dangerous than during the height of the Cold War.
Furthermore, we are about to experience another financial crash
worse than 2008. I think the terrorist activities, especially of
the last two weeks, in Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, European
countries, clearly shows terrorism is out of control. Actually
with the Brexit, the European Union is in a process of
disintegration, very rapidly.
        My question is: Can mankind not rise to a higher level of
cooperation and go for a new paradigm, where geopolitics is
overcome, and replaced by the common aims of mankind? The world
is in dire need for the United States and China to work together,
because I think without the two countries joining hands, the
world is in trouble. So, the question is: Can the world move to a
new paradigm of peaceful cooperation for the future tasks of all

PROF. BRIAN MULVANEY:  I totally disagree. I don't think we are
anywhere near large-scale conflict. This is not the Cold War.
This is not the Cuban Missile Crisis. China and the United States
are not about to go to war. At the absolute very worst, there may
be some sort of crisis that erupts, and it's contained, in the
South China Sea. It will be small, if at all. I think it will be
completely, it is completely, avoidable, and I personally
believe it will be avoided, and that, hopefully, cooler heads
will prevail. So, I disagree with the premise of the fact that
this is a more dangerous time than we've seen in a long time.
        As far as humanity goes, I am hopeful. Hopefully, Truth,
Liberty, and Democracy can brave throughout the world, and
everyone can come together in great harmony. Unfortunately, the
history of mankind doesn't seem to bear that out, but we do keep
getting better, and, probably not in my lifetime, but perhaps
down the road.

        BILL JONES:  When they talk about the "rule of law," you
have to ask, "Whose law, and who sets it?" The United States
sends the thing, as President Obama said it, with regard to the
TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty], "We've got to make the
rules!" But the world is much different now. There are many
different countries. Other countries also have a say in making
the rules. As long as, I think, the idea is, what is for the good
of the people, this is what should determine the rule of law. I
think China is completely consistent with that in their
attitude, if they reject this arbitration.
        Let me also say something on that. It's very important that
these dialogues occur, because it's the only way that each side
can really understand what the other is talking about. It doesn't
necessarily change people, but over the long term, I think it has
a positive effect. Here in the United States, the mainstream, I
would agree; that is, I would consider it somewhat "hard line."
The mainstream is influenced by the mass-media, by the press. You
read the {New York Times}. Look, I read the {New York Times}
every day. I have not yet found, over the last ten years, an
article in the {New York Times} which was positive towards China.
[laughter] Of course, almost every day, there are articles on
China. [Responding to the audience laughter] I read it pretty
closely. I don't think I have missed any article.
        So, that a lot of what goes on between the discussion of
experts, is not effective, because of what I said, that the media
really distorts China's actual view. But, I'll also say, in the
United States, there has generally, throughout the years, been
positive attitudes towards China, among the general population.
The United States was not a colonial power. We had the
Philippines, and Franklin Roosevelt gave them their independence.
We were an anti-colonial power. This is why we were, over 200
years, very good friends with China. And it's only recently, I
would say in the post-Cold War period in particular, where the
United States remained the major military power; that a new
attitude was adopted, away from Franklin Roosevelt's Dialogue of
Nations, which he tried to create in the last days of his life
and didn't quite succeed because he died so early; and that it
had become more and more like what I call a British Imperial
attitude: we are the Lords of the Seas, and therefore we control
it, because we've got the guns and the boats and everything else.
        That has affected I would say the "think-tank class," or the
"intellectual class," [which] is permeated with this; whereas the
general population is not. So, I think what has to be done is
there has to be more of this "meeting of dialogues," not at an
experts' level so much, but at the people-to-people level, so
that people here in the U.S. who are reading the {New York Times}
can go to China and say, "Boy, the {New York Times} really has a
wrong foot, entirely! They don't get it!" And they would see it.
I think also what China's doing with the Belt and Road, if it
were done here, if we would agree, if they would build high-speed
rail here, people would have a different attitude toward China.

        OGDEN:  I think that provides a very good foundation for a
productive discussion. The very first point that Mr. LaRouche
made in the beginning was, "Are the citizens of the United States
willing to re-assess themselves, re-assemble themselves, and
re-consider their destiny? Are we going to allow this war to
happen, or are we going to shut it down? Are we going to save
civilization?" I think that's the question on the table.

        DIANE SARE:  Well, he did put a particular — as we heard —
very strong emphasis on Manhattan; and I think there are a number
of aspects to that.  One, perhaps the biggest, is the question of
Alexander Hamilton. And I was just reflecting as we heard these
comments from these people, this character from the US Naval War
College, who was somewhat hostile in the way he pounced on Mrs.
LaRouche's question; and then you hear his view of mankind.  It
indicates a lack of ability to think of the future or to be
creative, because if you think about Einstein or you think about
Kepler, or you think about Hamilton, for example.  What does
Hamilton come from?  He was on a British-colonized,
Dutch-colonized plantation place in the Caribbean, where he saw
the real evils of slavery and usury firsthand.  He comes to the
United States, which is a colony of the British Empire, and
nonetheless, has a very clear vision of how mankind {should} live
without ever having actually experienced it himself.  And that is
really unique.
        And if we think about Einstein and the question of
gravitational waves, similarly he was able to think through,
without the measuring instruments that we've had only recently,
but in his mind he said, no, this must be the principle of
ordering of the universe; and similarly Kepler's thinking.  And
it's not different from the question of human economics and the
development of mankind as a species that it is the natural state
that we become better, more intelligent, live longer, healthier,
and you have more of us with a higher standard of living; that is
actually the natural state of human affairs.  Many people today
have trouble thinking of this because the entire system has been
geared against creativity, and has been set up to crush the
ability to actually think of unthought-of thoughts; to think of
something new.  Instead, people go with a Bertrand Russell
algebraic approach that everything has to follow in a sequence of
what it's been doing.  And I would say it's that outlook that has
led us to have a record number of suicides, a record number of
heroin overdoses, and a collapse; and people seemingly lacking
the vision to actually solve it.  And I think it's just so
crucial that people take note of what just occurred at this
conference organized by Mrs. LaRouche, that she and her husband
were at in Berlin.  They actually don't operate in the way that
you may have been thinking that they do for most of your life.

MEGAN BEETS:  Well, I had a similar thought, Diane, listening to
the counterpoint between Helga's question and the answer by the
gentleman on the podium there.  The question raised — maybe not
in these words — but the question before us all now is, is
mankind capable of rising to the level of reason?  Is society
capable of assuming a state of existence as we're seeing and
calling for in this New Paradigm which has never happened before.
If you look back in history, people like Friedrich Schiller was
facing the same question with the failure of the potential and
the opportunity of the French Revolution which failed.  And he's
looking at the question of can mankind actually educate itself to
be rid of the characteristic of barbarism within society for
good.  Can there actually be a perpetual renaissance?  And two
other people who obviously contemplated this and had a certain
optimistic vision of this, are Helga Zepp-LaRouche herself, and
also Krafft Ehricke, who had a completely optimistic view of the
future of mankind in space; and knew that it would only come
about through an aesthetical education of society.  I think it is
a very challenging view for people today to contemplate the
notion that it is possible to move beyond this childishness of
mankind into a state where warfare and geopolitics are things of
the past, and are no longer part of human society.  I think that
does require exactly what you said: the tapping into the
creativity of the population, as Hamilton recognized was the
basis of economics, and what LaRouche has based his economic
discoveries on — the human mind's ability to create that which
never existed before.

        KESHA ROGERS:  I think it's important to look at what Mr.
LaRouche laid out a few  years ago in June of 2014, as the
alternative and the only option for saving the United States and
the survival of mankind.  Which now really has to be looked at in
an even greater context in terms of the role of the United States
in cooperation with nations such as Russia and China, around
meeting the common aims of mankind as Mrs. LaRouche indicated.
Mr. LaRouche has laid out four fundamental principles — really
scientific principles and  Constitutional principles as he named
them — which are governed by our US Constitution and were
reflected in the policies of people such as President Franklin
Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, and President Lincoln before; and
really were centered around the foundation of our Constitution as
Diane said, with the Hamiltonian conception of a credit system.
        More importantly, it gets to the question of what is your
conception of the nature of human beings.  Do you think that
human beings are just animals or beasts; or do you see human
beings as superior and having mental capacity over lower forms of
life?  When he put these four laws out, which state — I'll just
go through them; and I think we should have a further discussion
about it. The first law was that we must re-enact Glass Steagall
in the precise form that Franklin Roosevelt put into effect.  2.
Return to a system of national banking, as Alexander Hamilton had
intended, and was described under Abraham Lincoln's greenback
system.  3. Institute a Federal credit system to generate
high-productivity improvements in employment. 4. Adopt a fusion
driver crash program.
        Now, on this fourth point, it was encompassing of the entire
program that Mr. LaRouche put forward; because it wasn't just
about nuclear power or building nuclear power plants and so
forth.  It really got to this conception of what is our human
destiny; how do we view the nature of mankind as acting to remove
any limitations that are put on human progress?  It reminded me
that these four laws were very in tune to the laws of Krafft
Ehricke in his three laws of astronautics, that he put out in
1957; because when you think about this, the fourth law of Mr.
LaRouche's fusion crash driver program was very much in line with
what Kennedy had intended when he made his address on May 25,
1961, calling for landing a man on the Moon and returning him
safely to Earth.  This program was actually exemplified by this
very question of what is mankind's mission in participating in
the creative process.
        What Krafft Ehricke brings up is just that; it is the
question of the moral law of human beings that they are actually
doing away with this conception that mankind is nothing more than
beasts.  It was interesting listening to this comment — as Diane
said it was pretty hostile.  It was hostile because this
gentleman has a very low conception of what the nature is of
human beings.  He has already made the determination that you can
only allow something to happen that has already been determined
and decided for you.  As he was making the point, "Well, I would
like to have a nation where we live in peace and harmony; but
unfortunately that's not the world we live in."  Well, the
question is, how are we going to make the determination that we
must create that world and bring that world about.  That was the
basis, and continues to be the basis of Mr. LaRouche's economics
and what he means by the conception of these four laws.  And what
was defined also by Krafft Ehricke's laws of astronautics; that
are not just the basis of how you go about into space travel, but
more so the principle of what mankind must overcome to be able to
create these breakthroughs which are necessary to define a future
progress and a future human destiny.  The idea, as we've stated
on many occasions, that nobody and nothing under the natural laws
of the Universe impose any limitations on man except man himself;
that's something that really had to be defined in this discussion
that was had at the Chinese press conference there.
        But the key thing right now, as Mr. LaRouche said, is are
people going to prepare themselves to reconsider their destiny?
And reconsidering their destiny means we have to get rid of these
limitations; we have to now move immediately to shut down this
war drive of Obama, and everything that he represents in terms of
this culture of death.  Right now, we are seeing the escalation
towards all-out war, and we'll speak more on this in just a few
moments.  But the fact that, as we speak right now, the NATO
summit in Warsaw, Poland is happening; Obama is there, pushing
more provocations against Russia.  It is very clear that
Americans do have to make the decision that we want to
collaborate as human beings with other nations for the betterment
of mankind.  We have to stop this killing and this war threat and
actually move toward a new conception of human nature.
        So, I wanted to start with that, and then I'll come back
with more.

OGDEN:  I think that is very significant, because the whole
threat that Obama is making — and this is what Mr. LaRouche said
last week — this is a very empty threat.  This entire system
which Obama represents is completely bankrupt.  Look at what's
happening in Europe; the entire European system is splintering
apart.  Nobody has any idea how the consequences of the Brexit
vote are going to pan out; the leadership of all the parties is
collapsing, it's crumbling, it's imploding.  Then you have Obama
making these boastful threats.
        The point is, Europe is bankrupt; you have an emerging New
Paradigm; you have China and Russia; the Eurasian system could
encompass all of Europe.  You could have, finally, an integration
of this entire continent around a New Paradigm; a new system of
relations among nations, as Helga said at her intervention at
that event in DC.  This is a completely new concept of the
relationship between nations.  And yes, people within the think
tank class — as I think Bill Jones rightly called it, the pundit
class — are extremely pessimistic people; they don't have
vision, they don't have imagination.  That's why you have
leadership like Helga at that event.  Then, what happened?  You
had this Berlin conference which was incredibly good timing; two
days after the Brexit vote.  So, one thing on that subject,
because I think it ties together the question of the bankruptcy
of this trans-Atlantic system.  What both Diane and you, Kesha,
brought up about what's the new system?  This is Hamilton;
Hamilton is back.  We have the solution; the Four Laws are
self-explanatory, they're on the table.  They could be enacted
overnight; and this really is, in effect, the United States
joining the New Paradigm.  So, this is I think an important
comment by Mr. LaRouche; it came out of a discussion he had with
Jeffrey Steinberg earlier today.  Jeff presented him with the
institutional question that we got this week from contacts within
DC.  The question was:  "In your view, Mr. LaRouche, can the
European member countries post-Brexit chart a constructive and
viable economic course?  And how can they reverse their economic
decline?"  And I think Mr. LaRouche's remarks are very apropos.
He said, "The European Union must consent to end the system of
trash nations."  And by trash nations, he said [he meant]
"nations in the EU like Italy, that are treated like trash.
Other nations — Greece; that's obviously treated like trash.
This is resulting in the destruction of the nations of Europe."
Mr. LaRouche said, "You are going to have to depend on
cooperation between Putin and the right people in Germany; who
are in a minority, but are tied to the real, productive economy.
You're going to have to rely on that cooperation between Russia
and Germany to make the needed shift.  You have to return to
principles of physical economy, or all of Europe will collapse
very soon.  The anchor is the Russia-Germany collaboration."
        So, in reality, this is the path forward.  And for all of
Obama's threats in Warsaw, and all of the bluster from NATO; yes,
this is a very dangerous situation.  As Helga said, it is far
more dangerous than at any moment during the Cold War.  But, this
is the face of a collapsing system; and the only solution here is
the return to Hamilton.  And I think the leverage is very clear,
Diane; we've got the leverage to do this in Manhattan, in New
York City.  With the necessary escalation that could be enacted
now, we have the leverage to lead the United States from our
center in Manhattan, around the principles of Hamilton.  And I
think the other thing that we're going to get into, is in the
months leading up the 15th anniversary of the attack on September
11th; we're going to get to the truth of who lied, who was behind
these attacks, and who is covering up the truth about these
attacks and for what reason.

        ROGERS:  When you brought up this question of the principles
of physical economy, I think it's very important that we
understand that this is the principle of the human mind.  Mr.
LaRouche's {Science of Physical Economy} gets at this question of
how do you actually more creative and productive citizens in your
society.  When you think about these Four Laws, this is what we
have to actually bring about; the adoption of these Four Laws is
going to be done under the context that you are moving the
population toward building a more productive society that's going
to be able to create something better for their future and for
the future of those not yet born.  I think that we've lost sight
of that in our society.  Most people right now are — it's a
dying culture, a dying — as you said, Matt — financial system
that people are trying to hang onto.  We cannot do that; we have
to have a total reversal of the direction that this nation has
been going in.  And that reversal is really being led by China
and Russia taking up this principle of what the embodiment of
Hamilton represents; or the embodiment of what our American
System has truly represented.  I know Diane will say more on how
the mission of the United States is going to come from — as
we've stated — Manhattan to carry out that mission here in the
United States.

SARE:  Well, I'll just say that when Mrs. LaRouche spoke at the
conference in Berlin, she made this point of the question of
justice.  That when Tony Blair launched his fake campaign about
the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he launched
what has now been admitted to have been a war of aggression —
which is a crime under the Nuremburg Statutes.  She said that
justice will be done in this case; sometimes it's not immediate.
The Universe will ensure justice is done; however it is better if
mankind can act on behalf of justice.  Because if we let things
go too far, justice of the Universe may end up being the
annihilation of ourselves.  If we don't stop thermonuclear war,
if we don't stop our society from going down that path.
Similarly what we've had in the United States in the wake of
these attacks on September 11th, is we've had two murderous
regimes.  We've had the Bush/Cheney administration, who were
fully happy to collaborate with Tony Blair and his lies to enter
the war with Iraq.  We've had Obama, who has been probably the
most murderous President we've ever had in history.  And I think
it's important to say this here, because I know many people are
very upset about the recent killings in Minnesota, New Orleans,
and then Dallas.  I find it tragic.  We've heard of lone
assassins before from Dallas.  We've also heard of what happened
in Orlando by supposedly one person.  I think Americans are
growing increasingly skeptical of these stories.  What we see in
the case of 9/11, which I think gives us the ability to break the
whole thing open and end this train of abuses, is, for example,
the role of the FBI in covering up and hiding evidence; the role
of the Bush and Obama administrations in refusing to release the
28 pages.  I haven't read them, of course, but from what I
understand, they deal with how the hijackers were supported when
they came into the  United States.  Obama said he would do
various things, and did not; and there has now recently been an
escalation coming from the US Congress.  We have a clip which
people should watch of a press conference given this week by
Congressman Walter Jones, Stephen Lynch, and Massey, who are the
co-sponsors of a new bill on the 28 pages; which addresses the
fact that these 28 pages are actually the property of the
Congress.  I won't say more, I'll let them speak for this; but
this is a very important flank.  It's very important in Manhattan
in particular, because thousands, millions of people in this area
were very directly impacted by this; and they're not in a mood on
the 15th anniversary of this to just let it go another year
without the truth coming out.  People had a very feisty response
when the Saudis were threatening financial warfare in response to
any legislation in the Congress against Saudi Arabia.  I think
this is something which could break this open and fundamentally
change the United States, and emphatically destroy Obama's
ability to wage the kind of war and destruction that he wants to
now.  So, if you have that there, I think it would be useful to
show that clip of this press conference.

        CONG. LYNCH:  There is precedent; and the thing is, that if
the President — and I hope he will keep his word to the people.
But if not, we wanted this.  And that's the reason we introduced
this, so it would go to the Intel Committee; because again, Kevin
Nunez says yes, he thinks it ought to be declassified, and so did
Adam Schiff, the ranking member.  So we want to give them an
opportunity, if the President does not keep his word.  And I hope
that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, when they make their acceptance
speech, that they will call on the President to keep his word.
But if not, then we're going to be pushing this when we come back
in September; and hopefully get a hearing and get the families
back down here to listen to the justification for declassifying
this information.  There is precedent.
        And on a finer point, if you look back during the Pentagon
Papers, the Church Commission generated a report.  While the
White House refused to allow that report to be publicized,
Congressman Gravel went to the well of the House and read the
Pentagon Papers; and was protected — the Supreme Court ruled —
was protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the United
States Constitution.  So, even though they tried to prosecute him
for reading that, the Supreme Court said that the Separation of
Powers gives Congress the right to speak and debate on issues
that affect the American people.  That Separation of Powers and
the Speech and Debate Clause protected that member of Congress,
who went to the Floor and actually read those papers.  So, we
believe we're protected.  It may come to that; it may come to a
point that myself and Walter and Mr. Massey go to the well of the
House and read the text of the 28 pages, if we can get it
released to us.  That's the key; because when we go down to the
Intel Committee room and read the 28 pages, they have people sit
there in front of you.  They take your phone away; no
electronics; you're not allowed to take notes.  You're allowed to
read it and read it under the observation of either Intel
Committee staff or other folks that are there for security
purposes.  So, we don't have the 28 pages.  We can sit there as
long as we want and try to memorize it and read it, and go over
and over it.  We have done that, each of us; but in order to
release it, you have to have custody of it.

        OGDEN:  This is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  It's
very significant to watch that press conference in full.  There
were remarks from both Congressmen Walter Jones and Walter Massey
in addition to what Congressman Lynch said.  Also, Terry Strada
and her daughter, Kaitlyn Strada, had extremely powerful
statements making the point that the White House had promised to
get back to them with the declassification review on June 17th;
and that date has come and gone, and they have still to hear one
peep out of the White House.  They are not returning the calls of
the 9/11 families, they are not returning the calls of the
members of Congress. They are not returning the calls of Senator
Bob Graham; who is the one who wrote, or who oversaw the writing,
of the 28 pages.  So, there is a stonewalling by the White House.
The press corps should be asking these questions during the press
briefings.  Terry Strada said you've got Josh Earnest and Jim
Clapper basically reading right out of the Saudi Arabian talking
points; the talking points of the government of Saudi Arabia.
Whereas, the people who wrote the 28 pages are contradicting
every single thing that the Administration says.  So, it's hugely
significant that House Resolution 779 has been introduced;
because it says,  we are bypassing President Obama.  We are going
to go right to the floor; this is the property of the United
States Congress.  And it's doubly significant what you just heard
from Congressman Stephen Lynch.  He said, it may well come to the
three of us going to the floor of the House and having a Senator
Gravel moment.  We may very well read these papers into the
public record; which would be absolutely historic and
groundbreaking.  So, I really encourage everybody to watch the
press conference in full.  There's been some coverage, but not
enough.  And to circulate this very widely.
        Obviously, this is also feeding into some of the work that
we're going to be doing in Manhattan in the coming months;
especially around the commemoration of the 15th anniversary of
these attacks.  So Diane, maybe you want to say more about that.

SARE:  Well, I can say on that point, because it gets at what I
was thinking about, which is LaRouche's question of whether
Americans will re-assemble themselves.  I think the most
important thing for Americans right now, is to not allow
ourselves to be divided; which is clearly the intent of these
operations and the news media coverage of them in such a way over
these last days, and the intent of our President, who perhaps
wants us all to start shooting each other while he launches a
nuclear war against Russia and we don't notice.  What is planned
around New York City is a series of performances of the Mozart
{Requiem}; and we have a number of choruses of the Schiller
Institute in now Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and New Jersey.
We'll be doing a series of performances of the Mozart {Requiem}
on and around September 11th.  The response to this is very deep;
people — as I said earlier — were profoundly affected.  And
what people in New York want is not revenge; people don't want to
go blow up some country like Saudi Arabia.  What people want is
justice; and they should be able to rest assured that such crimes
will never be allowed to occur again.  That, in turn, would give
profound meaning and immortality to the lives of all of those
people who have died in 9/11 and in the wake of 9/11.
        So, I think this question before us about whether the
American will re-assemble ourselves and reconsider our destiny is
the pressing question of the moment.  Not simply from the
standpoint of abolishing evil; but from the standpoint of
actually creating the good.

        ROGERS:  That brings to mind the very question and the
important point that was made by President Franklin Roosevelt,
because I think to accomplish this destiny, the question is also
whether or not people will allow themselves, or continue to allow
themselves to live in fear.  When Franklin Roosevelt made his
first inaugural address, and people recite these famous words all
the time, of his call that "We have nothing to fear but fear
itself.  Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which
paralyzes needed efforts to turn retreat into advance."  The
problem right now is that we have a culture that has numbed
people to the point where the advance which is necessary, and the
fear which must be overcome to actually demand justice now, is
very dominant.  And I think this what we have to overcome.  The
destiny that we have to create for ourselves requires that we're
not just talking about implementing the 28 pages; but we're
talking about doing away with this evil which creates this type
of fear and this type of injustice that actually paralyzes
people.  To actually do away with that fear, and to be able to
bring that destiny about.  So, when you're thinking about —
Diane, you had your discussion yesterday — you have to deal with
this a lot, just in terms of the fear that people were
expressing.  And I think that right now, we've been given a very
unique and important opportunity that we don't have to live in
fear.  That — as was already stated — this Empire, their stooge
Obama, this whole financial system has no power; it's
disintegrating, it's collapsing right before their ugly faces.
So now we have the power to finish that off and create something
better for mankind.

        OGDEN:  I think one of the sources of the fear is that our
fellow citizens are victim of a concerted propaganda war.  The
number of lies that Americans are told on a daily basis, the
continuing lie of what was actually the truth of who financed and
organized 9/11, which has been the overshadowing lie for the last
15 years.  Then the lies in succession:  Tony Blair's lies;
George Bush's lies.  The lies justifying these so-called
regime-change wars, these regime-change operations.  And now the
lies that are being told to people about Russia, about China.
Look at what China is doing:  uplifting hundreds of millions of
people out of poverty; developing technologies that have not been
developed before; bringing access to the modern world to the
entire interior of the continent of Eurasia; exploring the dark
side of the Moon.  Is this what you're told about in the pages of
the {New York Times}?  No!  People are victims of a propaganda
war.  One other item we've provided for our viewers this week on
the LaRouche PAC website, is an extraordinary interview with a
state senator from Virginia, Richard Black, and another citizen
of the US, who travelled to Syria and actually saw what the
situation was on the ground in Syria.  Met with President Assad,
incredibly.  The title of the video, I think is apropos — it's
called "Breaking the Propaganda War Vis-à-vis Syria".  This is a
huge responsibility.  People have to realize they have a
responsibility to figure out what is true; and to then act on
that basis.
        And I think the re-assembling of American citizens, as Mr.
LaRouche said, and the decision that we are going to change our
destiny; and we are not going to allow Obama to carry us, in our
name, into a Third World War, is a decision that has to be made
by the American people.  Again, the leverage to lead the rest of
the nation comes from what is happening in Manhattan.
        OK; well, I might give myself the final word.  On that note,
we've referenced and shown you little bits and pieces of several
items that you can now immediately go and watch on the LaRouche
PAC YouTube channel.  You will subscribe to the YouTube channel
and receive notifications every time we post a new item, such as
that.  So, I would ask you to subscribe to the YouTube channel
and to circulate all of that material as widely as you can.  If
you haven't yet, please subscribe to the LaRouche PAC daily email
update; you will get the news as it really is happening, to your
inbox every single day.
        Thank you for tuning in, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.  Good night.

Tiden er nu inde for en
Ny Renæssance for menneskeheden!
LaRouchePAC Internationale
Fredags-webcast, 1. juli 2016.
Inkl. videoklip fra hovedtalere på
Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin.

Aftenens webcast omfatter en eksklusiv video-premiere fra Schiller Instituttets internationale konference i Berlin, 25.-26. juni – en global intervention, der ikke kunne være kommet på et vigtigere tidspunkt. I kølvandet på Brexit-valget ser vi det finansielle systems sammenbrud dukke op igen og en accelerering af fremstødet for krig – udviklinger, der ikke blev forårsaget af Brexit-valget, men som er udtryk for det samlede transatlantiske systems sammenbrudsproces som helhed. Lyndon LaRouches vurdering er klar: diverse manøvrer og spil internt i systemet kan ikke fungere; systemet er gået ned, og der er ingen måde, hvorpå det kan overleve i sin nuværende form. Dette betyder ikke, at vi absolut skal i krig, men man spiller et meget farligt bluff. Som det blev demonstreret på denne historiske konference, så er den eneste løsning den at indføre en ny tankegang, et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden, et skifte i lighed med det, der fandt sted med den berømte, 14-hundredetals Gyldne Renæssance, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche uophørligt har understreget.

Lyndon LaRouche på Schiller Institut-konference i Berlin (uddrag; se video min. 14:05):

»For det første undersøger vi dette spørgsmål med, hvad er mennesket pr. definition? Menneskets evne til at skabe højere niveauer af udvikling af menneskehedens menneskelige evner?

Det andet er: Hvordan finder vi ting, der vil gøre menneskeden mere succesfuldt eksisterende? Det er endnu et spørgsmål. Alle disse ting er enkle, videnskabelige spørgsmål, og det, vi er afhængige af, er det, vi kalder at fremme fysisk videnskab, og at fremme det til et højere niveau, pr. person, uophørligt. I denne proces må man definere, ved hvilke midler, dette skal gøres. Det har altid været min interesse at komme frem til en ny, mere avanceret teknologi; en teknologi, der vælter og fjerner behovet for en eksisterende teknologi. Mit speciale er at koncentrere mig om revolutionen i anvendelige teknologier. Og dette er det eneste redskab, jeg kender til, ved hvilket mennesket kan forbedre det, mennesket nu har behov for [for fortsat at eksistere].«

Engelsk udskrift.      


LaRouche PAC Friday webcast for July 1, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's July 1st, 2016. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast here
on Friday evening from LaRouchePAC.com. As you'll see, I'm joined
in the studio by my colleague Benjamin Deniston; and we're joined
via video by two members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee:
Bill Roberts, joining us from Detroit, Michigan; and Michael
Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California.
        We have a very special broadcast tonight in which we will be
featuring a short video "teaser," which will provide you a
substantial overview of the conference, the very important and
historic conference, which just recently concluded over last
weekend in Berlin, Germany, sponsored by the Schiller Institute.
        As a preface to that video, which will provide us the
material for a further discussion here tonight, let me just say
that it couldn't have come at a better time — this conference.
It's clear to see that there's an absolute disintegration of the
trans-Atlantic system, which we are experiencing right now. This
is not {only} an economic or financial disintegration, but this
is in fact a disintegration of the entire {system} as a whole.
This is a political breakdown, this is a social breakdown; this
is an intellectual breakdown of the axioms which have provided
the foundation of that failed system. The axioms underlying this
trans-Atlantic system have failed. It's bankrupt in every sense
of the word, not only financially, but also politically,
culturally, intellectually, and the only solution to that would
be replacing this failed system with an entirely new paradigm.
        This is exactly what Mr. LaRouche had to say when we had an
extensive discussion with him yesterday. The people who are on
this broadcast tonight all participated in that discussion. What
Mr. LaRouche said is that there is no way that this
trans-Atlantic system can survive. It's not to say that it is not
very dangerous and that it could have very terrible consequences
if the war were to be launched or if other things were to get out
of hand. But what's being done under these circumstances by the
so-called "leadership" of this failed trans-Atlantic system "is a
complete bluff. It will not work," Mr. LaRouche said. He said,
"We're facing a very serious kind of collapse, one which mankind
is not well-prepared to deal with."
        This is very clear. At the same time that you have a
plummeting of the entire financial markets in the trans-Atlantic
system, you've got an inverse escalation in the bellicosity and
the aggressive stance that is coming out of Obama and his
colleagues, against Russia and China, both. Obama was in Ottawa
just yesterday at [the “Three Amigos”] summit of the North
Americas, in which he was {twisting} the arm of the Canadians,
telling them that they need to participate in a much more
prominent way in combatting so-called "Russian" aggression, by
lending their troops to this NATO deployment.
        The Atlantic Council is calling for this NATO deployment to
become a {permanent} deployment on the borders of Russia. Russia
is very clear: Shoigu, the Defense Minister, responded, saying
that NATO has already doubled its deployment along the border of
Russia and this is already before the NATO Summit has happened,
which is scheduled to occur in Warsaw, where you can expect that
that deployment will "significantly increase."
        Mr. LaRouche went on to say, when we were discussing this
with him yesterday, that you can see that all the so-called
"leadership" of this system is bankrupt. "The leadership itself
is bankrupt as an institution. Not that they {have} a problem,
but that they {are the} problem." "They are fraudsters," he said,
"and we are, in fact, the only leadership available on the
        What Mrs. LaRouche had to say — and this is, again, in the
aftermath of her experience as the primary organizer and keynote
speaker of this very important conference which you are about to
see some excerpts from — she said, "Look, this could not have
come at a better time. This was literally two days after the
Brexit vote. And the Brexit is merely paradigmatic of the entire
breakdown crisis. You have an ongoing disarray, ongoing chaos and
disintegration coming out of this. You have the breaking apart of
the entire leadership of the United Kingdom. All of the major
political parties are like gangs of wolves at their own throats,
and it's very possible that Scotland, Ireland could both leave
the United Kingdom, turning 'Great' Britain into 'Lesser'
Britain, or 'Very Small' Britain."
        She said we have no idea where this is going, but it makes
it very clear that this conference couldn't have occurred at a
better time, because what was presented and what you will see in
this brief overview that we're about to play for you, is that
{there can be no piecemeal solutions.} Too little, too late. You
can't solve this problem here and this problem there, and try to
piece it all together. The only thing that will work is an
entirely new paradigm that supplants the failed way of thinking
with an entirely new of principles, she said, "A new era of
civilization. And, if you don't make the jump," she said, "you're
just not going to make it."
        With that said, I would like to present to you a brief
overview of the conference which occurred in Berlin. This is to
entice you to watch the full proceedings, which will be available
in video form in due time.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think we all have all come to this
conference because everybody who is in this room knows that we
are experiencing an absolutely unprecedented, systemic, and
existential crisis of civilization. You have the coincidence of a
war danger, where NATO is confronting Russia in a very, very
aggressive fashion which could lead to a third world war. You
have a U.S. confrontation against China in the South China Sea.
You have the danger of a new 2008-type of financial crisis which
could blow up the financial system. And, two days ago, you had
the Brexit — Great Britain voting to leave the European Union.
As we all know, this was not a vote against Europe as such, but
it was a vote against a completely unjust system and a corrupt
        The conference has one subsuming topic, and that is to
define solutions to these crises, to discuss what would be the
new paradigm, and is mankind capable of solving such an
existential crisis?
        We have distinguished speakers from four continents, from
many countries. They are representative of the kinds of people
who are determined that a solution is being found. Before I go
into touching upon these various mortal dangers, the solution is
easy. So, be addressed and be calm. If men unite for a good plan
and act in solidarity with courage, {any} crisis in human
civilization can be overcome, because that is the nature of human
beings: that when we are challenged with a great evil, an even
greater force of good is being awoken in our soul.

AMB. (ret) CHAS W. FREEMAN, JR: Helga, I'd like to thank you for
that very inspiring set of opening remarks. We have entered a
world in which, as William Butler Yeats put it in 1919: "Things
fall apart; the center cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon
the world." In Europe, in America, and in parts of Asia there is
a sense of foreboding — an elemental unease about what is to
come. There is vexing drift amidst political paralysis.
Demagoguery is ascendant and the stench of fascism is in the air.
        This is the global context in which China has proposed to
integrate the entire Eurasian landmass with a network of roads,
railroads, pipelines, telecommunications links, ports, airports,
and industrial development zones. If China's "One Belt, One Road"
concept is realized, it will open a vast area to economic and
intercultural exchange, reducing barriers to international
cooperation in a 65-country zone with 70% of the world's
population, with over 40% of its GDP, generating well over half
of its current economic growth.
        In concept, the Belt and Road program, which is one of the
major topics of this conference, is the largest set of
engineering projects ever undertaken by humankind. Its potential
to transform global geo-economics and politics is proportional to
its scale.

        COL. (ret) ALAIN CORVEZ: I want to congratulate the Schiller
Institute for organizing this conference at a critical moment
when the threat of a nuclear war which would lead to the
extinction of humanity becomes clearer every day, because of the
concentration in the heart of Europe of weapons capable of
destroying the planet within seconds.
        To respond to the reinforcements of U.S. strategic forces
inside NATO on European territory, Russia was forced to deploy an
equivalent arsenal of deterrence on its western borders. It's
therefore high time that the strategists of various countries,
even those far from the European Theater, demand restraint and
more wisdom from the heads of state of the entire world.
        This is the purpose of this beneficial institute founded by
Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, whom I wish to compliment personally.

        JACQUES CHEMINADE; French Presidential candidate: So,
LaRouche thinking proceeds from the becoming, as a science which
is the active principle of the economy. The trans-Atlantic
financial system in which we are living, based on accumulation of
money, is leading to the opposite, not to increasing the size of
the physical economy, but to chaos and war, or, more precisely
and more tragically, to a combination of both.
        The preceding speakers have shown that the current world is
more dangerous, yes, more dangerous, than it ever was during the
height of the Cold War. Those proclaiming themselves "realists"
and "reasonable," while following the rules of the system, in
reality contribute to its collapse by the mere fact that they
operate inside the system without fighting it.
        Now we have arrived at the point in history where systemic
change, a just concept of economy and man, are necessary for the
survival of all. Money has no intrinsic value. It is nothing but
an instrument, acquiring value through what it promotes. From
there on, what is the goal to reach?

        LYNDON LAROUCHE: First of all, we're looking at this issue
of man, as such — man's ability to create higher levels of
development of the human powers of mankind. The next thing is:
how do we understand, how do we find things that are going to
make mankind more successfully existent? That's another question.
All these things are simple, scientific questions. What we depend
upon, is driving what we call "physical science," and driving it,
{per capita}, to a higher level, always.
        In that process, you have to define what the means is by
which you're going to do this. My concern is always to come up
with a new technology, a more advanced technology, one which
overturns and obviates the need for an existing technology.  My
specialty is concentrating on the revolution in the applicable
technologies; and that is the only device by which I know that
mankind can improve the requirements for mankind now.

        MARCO ZANNI; head of M5S delegation in the Eco. and Monetary
Affairs Cttee. of the European Parliament: The European financial
system is collapsing; it's collapsing because of wrong policies
brought about by European governments and by the European Union.
Clearly, a first step — and we proposed one bill in the Italian
Parliament and one in the European Parliament in the framework of
the banking structure reform is restoring banking separation.  We
think that we have to set up a sort of modern European
Glass-Steagall that will simplify the regulation on the banking
system, and will make the separation between the core part of a
bank and a speculative bank in order to create a banking system
that is no longer focussed on speculation, on the financial
system; but on the needs of the real economy, on the needs of
people.  This is the first step.

        AMB. (ret) LEONIDAS CHRYSANTOPOULOS:  Another threat facing
humanity is the US animosity towards Russia, as if we were still
in the Cold War period.  This was discussed in the previous
panel, but very roughly I would just say about it.  A missile
system is being set up to encircle Russia; and of course, Moscow
is preparing a defense field to counter it.  The EU embargo on
Russia after the Ukrainian crisis is not at all helping the
situation.  Also, threats have been recently made by Obama
against China and the need to restrict her economic power.  With
a collapsing EU and a USA looking for confrontation with Russia
and China, a solution for humanity can be the BRICS initiative;
which is the initiative of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa to pursue a policy of economic development for the
benefit of humanity.  They have created their own development
bank to invest in the necessary development projects.  China has
established the Asia Infrastructure [Investment] Bank; joined by
over 20 Asian nations as founding members, and has set up a Silk
Road Development Fund.

        AMB. HAMID SIDIG; current Ambassador of Afghanistan to
Germany:  I would like to express my gratitude and honor to be
part of this important event.  Over the past 30 years, the
Schiller Institute has played a significant role in promoting
international discussion on major topics, and has shaped the
future of our work.  Since ancient times, the Silk Road has been
a symbol of the commercial artery to connect Asia and Europe;
creating wealth and cultural exchange to benefit all countries
involved in this area.  Our conference today — and I hope to
build on this ancient tradition, by bringing together scientists
and politicians to develop a New Silk Road; and begin the process
of healing, integrating, and regenerating this very important
region — Central Asia.  Our vision is to create a secure and
peaceful life for our region, which will allow thousands of
refugees to return back to their homes and rebuild their
communities again.

        BEREKET SIMON; chairman of Commercial Bank of Ethiopia,
advisor to PM:  I would like to express my heartfelt sympathy and
support to the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, and the larger
Middle Eastern and North African countries who are subjected to a
wanton destruction as a result of a mistaken policy of regime
change by some global powers.  Allow me also to thank the
Schiller Institute for inviting me to speak on a broad topical
issue — the importance of the economic development of Ethiopia
in the context of the New Silk Road and the greater African
        Dear Friends, Ethiopia considers China's Silk Road economic
projects and maritime Silk Road projects jointly known as One
Belt, One Road as another milestone opportunity that could
contribute to sustain its economic development together with all
the countries in our region.  We believe that the last decade or
two have witnessed the resurgence of trade between Africa and the
East.  The New Silk Road would also further strengthen the mutual
benefits of expanded trade between nations.  This will apply to
the relationship between Ethiopia and its traditional partners
[inaud; 20:49].  Together with our neighbors in the region, we
are determined to an Ethiopian, and indeed African, renaissance
which can harness the new possibilities opened by developments
like the New Silk Road.  I thank you.

        AMB. (ret) MICHEL RAIMBAUD:  Good morning.  I want to talk
to you about Syria and the title of my intervention is "In Syria
and Elsewhere, Against the War Party and the Law of the Jungle,
We Have to Rebuild Peace and International Law"; these are my
themes.  First of all, the world today is in great danger of war;
more than ever before.  It's going through a global crisis —
that has been said already.  One hears much about a new Cold War,
which would lead us back to the old confrontation between the
free world, so-called, the Axis of Good, and the totalitarian
bloc, dubbed the Axis of Evil by George Bush.
        We have lift immediately the sanctions; if there's a message
I want to give you, these sanctions have to be lifted.  It's a
crime of war; it's a major crime of war.  This has to be lifted
right away; we have to fight for this.

        Message from FOUAD AL-GHAFFARI; Chairman of Advisory Office
for Coordination with BRICS, Yemen:  Dear Mrs. Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, the noble chairwoman of the Schiller Institute and
the New Silk Road Lady; dear Mr. Hussein Askary, the Middle East
coordinator of the Schiller Institute, Ladies and Gentlemen who
are gathered in this conference here in Berlin today; I carry a
great deal of joy and gratitude for you and for your team for the
outstanding awareness achieved in my country about the New Silk
Road and the World Land-Bridge, and the new economic system of
the BRICS.  All that awareness delivered special marks that is
occurring through our advisory office, the rights to publish and
distribute the Arabic of the EIR Special Report, "The New Silk
Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge"; and printing 1000 copies for
the Yemeni market.

        DR. BOUTHAINA SHAABAN; from the Presidency of Syria: If we
need to create a world for all, if we need to create a peaceful
world, if we need to create a prosperous world for all, we need
to create a conceptual, intellectual concept of one world; we
need to create a conceptual concept of the Silk Road.  Not only
an actual Silk Road, but an intellectual Silk Road.  All of you
know that Aleppo and Syria were extremely crucial in the ancient
Silk Road that connected Asia to Europe.  Syria and the Syrian
people will be more than happy to be also very active in a New
Silk Road, in a political, social, intellectual Silk Road that
connects Asia to the West; that connects Eurasia to the West.

PROJECT PHOENIX video:  Not only Aleppo, but all of Syria with
its people, culture and artifacts, represents a unique and living
testimony to the coexistence and continuity of different human
civilizations.  It is imperative that the world defend and
preserve it; and when peace is established, make it the world
capital for the dialogue of civilizations.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  So, I think we should be fully
conscious that in this present crisis lies a tremendous chance to
reach a new Renaissance as significant, and maybe even more
significant, than the change from the Middle Ages to the modern
times.  That if we break with the axioms of the globalization, of
the deductive thinking, of all the things which have led to this
crisis; and focus on the creativity of mankind as that which
distinguishes us from other species, that many of us can probably
live to see a world where each child is educated universally and
that the normal condition of mankind will be genius.  That that
which is human will be fully developed, to have all the
potentials developed of the human species as creative composers,
scientists, engineers, extraordinary people discovering things
which we doesn't even know the question here of; like China going
to the far side of the Moon.  We will understand secrets of the
Universe which we don't even know yet to ask.  And people will
become better people.  I believe that the true nature of human
beings is good; that every human being has a capacity of
limitless perfection and goodness of the soul.  And to accomplish
that, is within reach; and let's work for it.

        OGDEN:  So, as you can see, this was an absolutely
extraordinary conference.  And on the final screen, you saw
briefly the website displayed where you can find the full
proceedings of the conference.  It's
newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com.  And although that was a tour
de force of incredible speakers of a really incredible caliber,
that was not even all of the speakers who were present.  So, we
encourage you to go to the website and watch all of the
presentations in full.  Mrs. LaRouche was emphatic in saying
after the fact, that this was an absolute breakthrough in terms
of the activity of the LaRouche Movement, the types of people,
the caliber of people who were there.  This was not just an
analysis, or talking about issues, or the problems of the planet.
But it could be seen very clearly that we are the center of
organizing the solution, organizing the change in paradigm.
        One of the other things that was a major feature of this
conference, which we just couldn't include in that overview, was
an outstanding Classical musical concert that was organized on
the evening of the conference.  This included a Russian
children's choir singing Russian songs; it included a string
orchestra based out of London that plays professionally at the
lower Verdi tuning of A-432; it included a performance of Chinese
folk songs and other Classical music; and then a grand finale
performance of the Mozart Coronation Mass by the greater European
Schiller Institute Chorus, joined by other choruses from around
        So, this is an absolute breakthrough; and as Mrs. LaRouche
said, the conceptions which lie at the heart of the solutions to
the crisis were there.  And this was representative of the
leadership of the world.  And I think that's what we have to
offer in this moment of danger and uncertainty.
        So, I think we can open up the discussion from there; it's a
hard act to follow, I'm sure, but …

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Well I think that the point that Helga made
that you just referenced, Matt, on this question of shaping
policy; what you see increasingly now not only in Eurasia, but
what we saw with the participation at the conference with
significant participation from Europe, high-level participation
from the United States.  You see an increasing desire to look at
the fact that this current system, even the {New York Times} had
the intellectual ability to recognize that this post-World War II
system, the system set up by Churchill, by the FBI — this Wall
Street system — since Franklin Roosevelt's death, is essentially
now coming to an end.  That's what the Brexit references.  The
conference as a whole was in the context of the Brexit vote; but
it's not simply a vote to leave the European Union.  This is a
reaction by an increasing majority in the trans-Atlantic within
the population; which recognizes that the system is dying.  It's
dead.  There's no longer a future, a life in the current system
they're living in.  Whether that's Great Britain, whether it's
the United States, where you see the major populist revolts here;
this was discussed by many of the speakers.  And many of them
didn't expect it to occur; and yet, when you're on the ground and
you're organizing the population, when you have increasing
suicide rates, increasing drug overdoses, increasing levels of
unemployment, it's not hard to figure out when talking to the
        It's a new system, a system of value, a financial system;
but it's a policy.  It's a policy for the long-term development
of mankind that has to be conjured and redeveloped in the minds
of the population.  And I think that's what's so essential about
the conference is that Helga's entire intent with this
conference, and why Lyn's participation was so important, was
because it provokes a quality of discussion.  A new conception of
where mankind must go and what mankind must become; and that
really is the essential nature.  Because at this point, this
trans-Atlantic system has no longer any life; it almost like it's
breaking, it's fracturing.  Each break leads to more breaks.  The
question is, what's the new whole; what's the new conception of
mankind in the trans-Atlantic and for the world?
        And I think we have a lot of work to do, but clearly it's
the most open situation politically that we've ever seen.

        WILLIAM ROBERTS:  I would just add that I think for an
American audience, the thing really to take away from this whole
process is that clearly what we're seeing in terms of the process
of development of the New Silk Road, and in terms of the beauty
of the idea which I think people, as they have a chance to
experience the cultural panel, the musical process from this
conference, will geopolitics is irrepressible at
this point.  What that means is that there's no turning back;
there are no half measures or piecemeal measures to do anything
of a halfway nature at this point.  I would say that this
includes that it really should be very obvious to the American
population that this current election process is a complete and
utter sham.  A so-called "democratic" election process, where you
have a couple of candidates, but there's absolutely no discussion
of the ridiculous war crimes of the last 15 years of
administrations in the United States.  Even in Britain now, you
have Jeremy Corbyn who is threatening to bring a war crimes
tribunal, should he come into government, against Tony Blair. The
Blair crowd is shaking in their boots, and you can see that there
is a complete and total situation of weakness of this entire
British Empire at this moment.  And because this is really
unclear in the minds of the American people, and because it's
very unclear how close we are to thermonuclear war, how
aggressively the threat of thermonuclear warheads is being used
against China and Russia.  Because the ignorance to that is the
most dangerous thing that's contributing to the danger that's
facing this planet right now.
        I think the one pathway or one tool in the United States
that expresses that level of an abrupt shift against geopolitics
in particular, is what is now the motion around the 28 pages to
expose the role of the British and the Saudis and the cover-up of
that process.  Sen. Bob Graham has made the point in a recent
interview in the {Daily Beast} that it's very clear now that the
two-month period that the Obama administration gave him
assurances of that they would review the pending release of the
28 pages.  That's come and past now; and it's clear the intent is
to keep this thing in the dark and continue the desperate war
        I'll just mention one more thing.  There are also now, the
Obama administration is completely pushing a lie and vastly under
counting the number of innocent civilians that have been killed
by drone strikes throughout the countries that we're not at war
with.  It should really just hit people, the contrast between the
beauty of this process of a world beyond geopolitics and the
unconscious war crimes and the acceptance of the legitimacy of a
process which completely covers over and overlooks the tremendous
war crimes of these recent two administrations.  So, I think that
should be a real immediate wake-up call that we do have to, as
Americans, break out of this current paradigm.

        OGDEN:  What Helga began the discussion with, which I think
shaped the entire quality of all of the panels, was the statement
— which was a very profound statement — that in the face of
great evil, mankind is capable of finding within himself great
good.  And I think that you were witnessing that in all of the
speakers.  The spirit that was moving all of these speakers, is
one that this system can no longer be allowed to continue; it has
reached the point where it is too horrible to contemplate the
logical outcome of following through with a continuation of the
values that underlie this system as a whole.  And we see it
breaking itself down all around us.  None of these events that
have occurred are somehow causal of the breakdown of the system;
they are merely systematic, they are paradigmatic.  The Brexit is
paradigmatic; everything that you see in terms of what Michael
was sighting about the depression, the demoralization, the
despair in the populations in both the United States and Europe.
This is symptomatic of a system that is in dire need of dramatic
        The good news is that that change, the wind is blowing in
from the East.  You have a new system, which has come to life
based on proposals that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche laid out in
their seed form 30 or 40 years ago.  It's now taken the form of
the official policy of the most populous country in the world.
You have the official, public integration between the New Silk
Road and the Eurasian Economic Union; this is explicitly based on
a return to the values that Franklin Roosevelt envisioned would
dominate the world following World War II.  However, [they] were
supplanted by some very evil and destructive forces.  Now you
have the New Silk Road, you have the opportunity for an entirely
new paradigm, which Helga says repeatedly; and which she said at
that conference.  It would be so easy; this is not some daunting,
never-ending distant dream of a new system which is a fantasy.
It's very real; it's very present; and it's something that, on
the turn of a dime, by a handful of leaders comprised of many of
the people you saw speaking at that conference and the circles
that they represent.  A decision overnight to enter this new
paradigm and to drop some of the failed values that have led us
down this path to danger and destruction, would be sufficient to
bring Europe, to bring the United States, to bring the Western
world into harmony with a New Paradigm which is already emerging.
Not that anything is perfect, but there is a directionality,
there is an impulse towards the perfection of man, towards the
increase of the productive powers of the human race, towards the
greater good of the human species; which is guiding us or pulling
us into the future.  And if we're willing to listen to that
voice, the voice from the future; we can save man at this
critical juncture in our history.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think it really goes to the issue to the
power of ideas in this whole process.  Because I think Helga made
the very emphatic point that this was a major breakthrough
conference.  If people are familiar with the Schiller Institute,
much of its activity is centered on these international
conferences.  And if you go back to the mid-'90s, the conferences
we were involved in, Helga was involved in then, and the
launching of the whole Eurasian Land-Bridge perspective when it
was just an idea.  It was just a conception; it was a right idea,
it was true, it was on principle.  And Lyn and Helga fought for
that conception; and now you see it coming to fruition.  So I
think this whole process is useful, especially for people who
watch too much TV in the United States and are immersed in the
insanity of the United States, to get a sense of what's actually
real; what's actually powerful.  What matters in history.  It's
not the crap you see thrown around that this culture is inundated
with; that is a passing breeze in history that's going to come
and go.  What matters is your truthful commitment to principles,
to true ideas.
        And I think Helga's concluding remark about looking at where
we are from this much longer historical perspective and saying
"We need a new shift in our very recognition of what mankind is.
We need to look to things like the Golden Renaissance; and look
at mankind in the Middle Ages, in the Dark Ages.  And compare
that to what mankind became after the Renaissance.  It's a
complete transformation of the human species that I think Lyn was
intervening with in some of the discussions; that we have to
recognize that that character of continual complete revolution in
the very nature of our existence, is human.  So you're looking at
a moment like this, and Lyn really emphasized the self-breakdown
of this trans-Atlantic system.  This self-feeding breakdown
process.  People talk about the Brexit like what maneuvering are
they doing; why did they decide to do that.  They're panicking;
they're responding to crises that are being created by the
breakdown process itself.  This is not something that's in
control.  In that complete disintegration, it's these
conceptions, these ideas, this gathering of people of this
caliber for international discussion around what does mankind
really need to be doing as mankind on this planet.  Can we
finally reach the point where we actually unite nations around a
real conception of what is a universal, unifying, truthful
principle about humanity?  About what makes our species unique
and different from anything else we see on this planet.  That's
us; that's mankind.  We can have that as a common goal, as a
common unifying factor; and that's emerging now.
        So, I think for people inundated with the degeneracy of the
political process, the cultural process, this stands out as a
reference point that people can use to lift their minds out of
the gutter of popular opinion and into history and see what's
actually happening right now.

        OGDEN:  Absolutely.  One thing that people will have noticed
from that overview video that you had the opportunity to watch,
is that there was a very significant involvement from leadership
within Syria.  Right in the war zone, including a government
advisor, Her Excellency, the advisor who you saw speaking; which
was a live video hook-up directly from Damascus.  And she engaged
in a dialogue process with the attendees of that conference,
which was very significant.  Helga LaRouche said that that panel,
which was an entire panel on the reconstruction of Syria.  What
happens after we bring peace?  How can we bring peace to this
region?  A region which is a crossroads of civilization; was a
crossroads of the old Silk Road, is a crossroads between three
continents.  She raised the fact that President Assad, prior to
the outbreak of the fighting, had proposed an idea called the
Five-Sea Strategy.  And if you look at the five oceans — the Red
Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the
Persian Gulf — you have Syria situated right in the middle of
those.  So, it's not only a crossroads of the Silk Road as a land
route from Asia to Europe to Africa; but it's also a crossroads
of the Maritime Silk Road, and the connections between these five
        There was a video presented which was prepared prior to the
conference called "Project Phoenix"; which is a vision for the
reconstruction of Syria.  And there was other dialogue at the
conference from very high-level persons from within cultural
circles and also government circles within Syria.  So, Helga was
emphatic to say that this panel on the reconstruction of Syria
was certainly a highlight of the conference; and I think it was
just exemplary of the fact that the Schiller Institute really is
the go-to body in terms of these people who are desperate for a
solution, desperate for a future for their countries.  They know
who has the ideas, they know where to go to get those ideas.  So,
the combination between the expansion of the New Silk Road, the
reconstruction of Syria, there were three resolutions that were
passed at the conference.  One for the immediate end to the
sanctions against Russia; another for an immediate end to the
sanctions against Syria; and also one against the Saudi
bombardment of Yemen, which is ongoing to this day.  And you saw
a gentleman who sent in a video from Yemen; right from the war
zone there.
        I can't emphasize enough, and I think you got a little bit
of a flavor during that overview, of the caliber of this
conference.  But I really can't emphasize enough:  You need to
watch this conference in full.  You need to share this; you need
to get this around to everybody who you know.  As you were
saying, Ben, this is a completely different perspective on the
world than what you would normally get from your average
mainstream media.  So, I just wanted to encourage you, again, to
— as the videos become available — to go the
newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com website.

        STEGER:  Just to add to that, Matthew, I think you might
have mentioned this at the beginning; but in the discussion with
Helga and Lyn yesterday, the reality is that the kind of collapse
and crisis we are now incurring is something beyond anything
mankind has experienced up to this point.  This is not a collapse
of the stock market; it's not a Lehman Brothers financial
collapse.  You're now seeing the political dissolution.  The
Presidential spokesman for Russia, Peskov, made some comparison
to the breakdown of the Soviet Union; but you see that this is
even of a greater scale than that kind of collapse.  You might
say that the world is better prepared for this crisis than the
one in 1989, but I would say that it's not prepared sufficiently.
And the leadership in the United States and the trans-Atlantic is
not prepared sufficiently at all at this point.  And the
population has to bear some responsibility on this.  There's so
much emphasis on democracy in the West; democracy in and of
itself is not a principle.  As Ben referenced, we need an actual
return to a sense of universal principles; knowable scientific,
physical characteristics of the Universe to shape our policies.
But those principles cannot exist within a small set of people;
you can't expect an elite to somehow solve and address the
problems we now face.  The population as a whole — and this is
why our outreach in the United States to uplift people beyond
this Presidential fiasco; and to recognize that there is not a
preparation, there is not yet a capability to address this
problem sufficiently.  But what this conference addresses is the
level of discussion, the level of participation that begins to
move it in that direction.  And that is of an urgent nature;
because these events, as we saw last week, are only going to
increase in the weeks ahead.
        Just in the last couple of weeks, you've seen fundamental
changes in orientation from Japan towards Russia and China.  The
new Philippine President Duterte made major motions toward the
FDR and Lincoln tradition and a collaborative effort towards
China.  You've seen major changes even in the last week by Turkey
and their rapprochement towards Russia.  There are major
developments constantly happening which are reshaping the world.
But the crisis of a collapse of this trans-Atlantic system is far
beyond anything most people have ever imagined; and I think the
seriousness and urgency to develop these ideas and participate in
this dialogue has never been greater.

        DENISTON:  The collapse goes to the heart of this British
system.  A lot can be said, but go to Adam Smith, go to the
original fundamental cultural assumptions, ideas about the nature
of man.  Man is governed by pleasure and pain; that mankind is
just a species that can respond only to pleasure stimulus, avoid
pain stimulus.  The whole ideological framework of the British
system, which has increasingly infected and taken over the United
States and run the trans-Atlantic system, goes to those deep
issues about what is your understanding of the nature of mankind
in the Universe.  And we're seeing the breakdown of this entire
British ideological imperial cultural system that has dominated
really for centuries.  I think that is the scale that we're
looking at.  This is the breakdown of a century-spanning imperial
outlook that's had ebbs and flows and increases and decreases of
its dominance; but it's not reaching the point of self-inflicted
collapse.  So in a certain sense, Americans have a certain
tradition in direct opposition to that clearly; and people should
be celebrating that in the next couple of days, not just hot dogs
and fireworks.  But actually use this as an opportunity to get a
real rooted sense of what is our mission as Americans in
opposition to this imperial ideology.  In direct resonance and
collaboration with what you're seeing out of Asia right now; this
is the time to bring that back.

        OGDEN:  Right.  It's exactly what you said — to constantly
come back and say what is the ideological failure which is
underlying all of the events that you're seeing.  The breakdown,
the refugees, the disintegration politically, financially,
culturally of the European system; and as Helga emphasized at
this conference, it's only a paradigm shift on the level of
change from the Dark Age to the Renaissance which will something
that will function at this moment.  That didn't just happen; that
was not some sort of organic process of historical materialism
transforming itself.  That was a willful change; that was a
willful change in the fundamental ideas underlying society and
the way that society worked.  It's people who have to ability to
self-consciously reflect on the fact that we are facing the
failure of a system of thinking; and then to say to examine what
those failed ideas are.  And then to say, how do we replace them;
how do we discover a new principle and create a fundamental
intellectual revolution which will allow mankind to carry itself
forward into the future?  I think that's what we witnessed in the
proceedings of that conference; but as Michael said, it's
something which cannot stay within the confines of that
conference and the people who attended it.  It is something which
must become an integral part of our national dialogue as a
people; and it's our responsibility to bring that about.  That's
not something that we can sit back and wait for somebody else to
        So, I think that's a good Independence Day message.

DENISTON:  People think they are what they experience; they think
that's what they are.  That's not what you are; people are what
they create, or what they fail to create.  People are not just
your experiences in life; people are what is your new fundamental
contribution you're making to human society, or you're failing to
make to human society.  Until people completely transform their
understanding of what they think their lives mean, we're not
going to reach the level needed to make the transition that was
presented very clearly this past weekend.

        OGDEN:  All right.  I'm going to bring a conclusion to our
show at this point, but what you should immediately do is visit
the newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com website.  Some of the
videos are available; I know that Helga Zepp-LaRouche's keynote
video is available in full.  That's a 30-35-minute length video;
so at least please watch that.  And then, as the other videos
become available, it'll be posted on that website; so bookmark
it, make sure that you follow the YouTube channel, and you'll be
notified as soon as those videos are made available.
        So, I'd like to thank all of you for joining us today.  And
I'd like to thank Bill and Michael for joining us via video.  And
again, to emphasize:  newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com.  And we
will have continuing coverage on larouchepac.com as well.  So,
thank you very much.  Happy Independence Day, and good night.

EU er bankerot, og sammenbrud er ikke en reaktion på Brexit:
Valget er klart; vi behøver et Nyt Paradigme,
med globalt samarbejde om udvikling,
med Rusland og Kina, og Europa og USA!

Så vi ser nu, mht. efter denne afstemning, indikationer på det fortsatte sammenbrud i Europa og det transatlantiske system, der allerede var i gang; men på den anden side har vi noget fuldstændigt bemærkelsesværdigt, der introduceres. Vi ser Putin og Modi – Indiens premierminister, præsident Xi i Kina, SCO-topmødet i denne weekend og indgåelsen af massive aftaler for økonomisk samarbejde og udvikling, inklusive samarbejde om rummet. Spørgsmålet lyder, hvor er USA i alt dette? Ideen om, at renæssance-begrebet om menneskeheden, baseret på denne identitet med at skabe fremtiden og genoprette en moralsk værdi i samfundet, ses direkte i det, som Rusland og Kina gør netop nu; og hvorfor dette er et krav til USA’s moral, der er af afgørende betydning, om, at USA skal ændre dette og tilslutte sig denne kurs.

Download (PDF, Unknown)


BREXIT-afstemning er langt alvorligere og mere
dødbringende end blot en reaktion. Vi må levere det
nødvendige lederskab for at undgå krig. LaRouchePAC
Internationale Fredags-webcast, 24. juni 2016. Video, engelsk

Det er i dag den 24. juni, 2016 – en særdeles lovende dato. Det er en meget, meget farlig periode, og vi står med ekstraordinære udviklinger på hånden. Det kunne vel næppe være tydeligere netop nu, forskellen mellem sammenstillingen med det døde-og-døende transatlantiske system, centreret omkring den Europæiske Union; og så fremtiden med det Eurasiske System. På den ene side, med det totale sammenbrud og den bogstavelige disintegration af det europæiske system – briternes exit af den Europæiske Union, samt det transatlantiske finansielle systems totale bankerot, der nu afsløres. Og, på den anden side, Vladimir Putins og Xi Jinpings igangværende indsats for en konsolidering og sammensmeltning af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, den Nye Silkevej, og hele verden centreret omkring Stillehavet, som Lyndon LaRouche i mange årtier har arbejdet hen imod, i form af samarbejde mellem de store nationer Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre. Valget er meget, meget klart.

Engelsk udskrift.

(En oversættelse af første del af webcastet følger snarest. Bliv på kanalen! -red.)


LaRouche PAC Webcast, June 24, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It's June 24th, 2016. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly
LaRouchePAC Friday evening webcast. I'm joined in the studio by
Ben Deniston from the LaRouchePAC Science Team; and via video, by
three members of our Policy Committee: Diane Sare, from New York
City; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, TX; and Rachel Brinkley, from
Boston, MA.
        Today is June 24th, 2016 — a very auspicious date. It's a
very, very dangerous period, and we have extraordinary
developments on our hands. I think it could not be more clear
right now the distinction between the juxtaposition of the
dead-and-dying trans-Atlantic system, centered in the European
Union; and the future, of the Eurasian system. On one hand, with
the complete breakdown and {literal} disintegration of the
European system — the exit by the British from the European
Union, and the complete bankruptcy which is now being exposed of
the trans-Atlantic financial system. And on the other hand, the
ongoing efforts by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to consolidate
and coalesce the Eurasian Economic Union, the New Silk Road, and
the entire Pacific-centered world that Lyndon LaRouche has been
working towards for many decades in the form of the collaboration
between the great nations of Russia, China, India, and others.
The choice is very, very clear.
        Earlier today we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche. He was
very emphatic to emphasize that the crash that we're now seeing
in the trans-Atlantic financial system must be blamed on Obama.
This is not something which can be construed as a reaction to an
event, but in fact the bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial
system was already a reality before this [Brexit] vote even
occurred. This is not a reaction, he said. This is something
that's much more dangerous, and much more serious, and much more
deadly, especially when you consider the fact that Obama is
continuing to push the world towards the brink of thermonuclear
war with the emerging Eurasian system of Russia and China.
        Mr. LaRouche said we're experiencing a complete change in
the whole fundamental situation. Everything is now going towards
a crash. And it's not because of a reaction to an event, but it
was already pre-determined. Mr. LaRouche said, "We're on the edge
of thermonuclear war, which under the current circumstances Putin
would probably win; but Obama is insane enough to continue to
push the world in that direction." He said, "Putin is currently
in charge, in terms of his role being hegemonic. That was very
clear by the recently concluded events in the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum, and then the bilateral meetings
that are going to happen this weekend between Putin and Xi
        Mr. LaRouche said, "We're on the edge of something very big.
You must get Obama out! It's very dangerous to have him in office
under these circumstances. Our job is to calmly bring a solution
to this crisis from inside of our role here in the United States,
with Putin playing a key leadership role internationally. We are
in a position," Mr. LaRouche said, "to enter into a phase in
which a solution is possible."
        Now, I want to open up the discussion; I want to invite
Diane to elaborate a little bit more on the role that Obama,
together with David Cameron, played in creating the circumstances
that we are now observing in terms of the aftermath of the

        DIANE SARE:  Well, everyone has heard of the famous
expression "the kiss of death"; and Obama delivered this in
London on April 22nd when he went there for two purposes.  One
was to express his firm support for Great Britain remaining in
the EU; and I'm going to read his exact comments, so that there's
no question on that.  And then also, to celebrate the birthday of
Her Majesty the Queen, whom he says is one of his favorite people
— I'm reading from his remarks; and he said, "And we should be
fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. She
is an astonishing person and a real jewel to the world; not just
to the United Kingdom."  And in fact, that has been Mr.
LaRouche's point — that the Queen of England does not see her
realm as the United Kingdom; she's been trying to run a global
dictatorship, and Barack Obama is one of her tools.  And like a
typical malignant narcissist, Obama either intended to crash the
entire system; or is blithely unaware of how despised he is.  So,
at a joint press conference at 10 Downing Street with a British
Prime Minister who is now resigning, David Cameron, Obama admits
he said, "Yes, the Prime Minister and I discussed the upcoming
referendum here on whether or not the UK should remain part of
the European Union.  Let me be clear:  Ultimately, this is
something that the British voters have to decide for themselves;
but as part of our special relationship, part of being friends is
to be honest and to let you know what I think.  And speaking
honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep
interest to the United States; because it affects our prospects
as well.  The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a
partner, and the United Kingdom is at its best when it's helping
to lead a strong Europe.  It leverages UK power to be part of the
European Union."  And then he adds:  "Let me be clear.  As I
wrote in the op-ed here today, I don't believe the EU moderates
British influence in the world, it magnifies it.  The EU has
helped to spread British values and practices across the
continent.  The single market brings extraordinary benefits to
the United Kingdom; and that ends up being good for America,
because we're more prosperous when one of our best friends and
closest allies has a strong, stable, and growing economy."
        So presumably, the time between April and this referendum
was enough for people to stop vomiting and make it to the polls,
and vote to get out of the European Union as quickly as possible;
which is what many of them did.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think also, according to what Mr. LaRouche
said — and this is absolutely the case — the crash was already
happening.  It's a faulty view of history to say, "Well, an event
happened, and therefore there was a reaction."  And Mr. LaRouche
is saying, the problem is that people think in terms of
reactions; one thing happens and then another thing happens.  In
fact, Europe was already bankrupt.  Think about what was already
happening.  You had major European banks refusing to put their
money into the ECB; you had negative interest rates at the ECB,
which is an unprecedented, never-before-happened event in the
history of that system.  And you had a complete breakdown of the
ability of both the European and the American workforce to be
able to have productive jobs or anything of that means.  So, we
already were in a complete bankruptcy of this entire
trans-Atlantic financial system; and now today, it is more clear
than ever that the New Paradigm — which is represented by
Vladimir Putin's and Xi Jinping's collaboration; the combination
between the Eurasian Economic Union and the New Silk Road policy
of China, which is based not on an idea of rival blocs or
economic competition or something like that.  It's based on the
idea of a win-win collaboration.  Now's the time for the European
countries and for the United States to finally reject this Obama
paradigm; and say we are going to join this New Paradigm.  And
many other nations in Europe could follow very closely behind
Britain and leave the European Union, since it's now clear that
it's a completely bankrupt institution.

KESHA ROGERS:  And Obama can follow behind Cameron and leave the
United States immediately.  What you're seeing right now, as Mr.
LaRouche once said, is the end of a delusion; an end of a dead
system.  And the end of an era of a zero-growth paradigm; which
has dominated the culture and society for far too long.  And it
actually goes against the true essence of our nature and being as
human beings.  And this is exactly the strategic conception of
man and the fundamental understanding of human beings that Putin
actually understands; and those who are taking this direction of
the New Paradigm forward.  Because it's based in the identity for
the future, of actually creating the future.
        I just wanted to say that tomorrow, there will be several
meetings, including one I'm going to be hosting here around the
space program and the identity of the great mind of Krafft
Ehricke.  The title of the event is going to be "Free Mankind
from Terrorism and War; Embrace Krafft Ehricke's Age of Reason".
I think that's where we are right now; the question is, can we
bring about an age of reason by getting the population to
understand that what they have accepted in terms of the policy of
dictatorship and backward, degenerate culture that we have been
under for the last 15 years.  Namely, with the destructive and
murderous policies of 9/11, that have not to this day been
brought to justice; and 9/11 never ended.  That's why Obama is
continuing to get away with the murderous policies that are
influencing the entire world right now.  That we haven't brought
these crimes to the forefront; that we haven't brought the
perpetrators of these crimes — Obama, the Saudis, the British —
to justice and actually declared that we are going to join with
this New Paradigm.  That's what really has to come across right
        The conception of Krafft Ehricke is very crucial in
understanding what has to be the turning point for the thinking
and identity of our nation, based on its foundation around being
the example of a true Renaissance culture.  When you think about
the Apollo mission, and you think about what we did with the
space program; and why Obama has targetted the space program.  It
wasn't a matter of opinion or a budgetary question; it was a
direct targetting on this potential for human progress and to
continue to promote this zero-growth paradigm.  What we're seeing
right now is that Russia and China are saying that this is not
the direction that we will allow and have mankind to go in; we're
going to actually develop and promote the true conception of what
human destiny actually is.
        So, what you see right now in terms of after this vote
indicating the further breakdown of Europe and the trans-Atlantic
system, which was already in the process on the opposite side,
you have something that is completely remarkable being brought
in.  Putin and Modi — the Prime Minister of India, President Xi
Jinping in China, the SCO summit this weekend, and the signing of
massive agreements for economic cooperation and development,
including space collaboration.  The question is, where is the
United States in this?  The idea that the Renaissance conception
of mankind based on this identity of creating the future and
restoring a moral value to society, is seen directly in what
Russia and China are doing right now; and why this is a critical
call to the moral of the United States to change that and to join
with that direction.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY:  Another important aspect is what is the
solution; what are the new systems.  And the question of the
space collaboration between Russia and China is not just over a
few projects; this is what they emphasized over the last few
days.  They're looking at two things — space travel for one, and
space station collaboration for two; and also with an emphasis on
health and the implications [of space] on human bodies.  So,
these are big questions; these are not just, let's put a rover
and test geology or something.  This is looking at how the
Universe works, how the Solar System works, how the human body
works; and saying that this is going to have implications on
Earth in medicine, to give people a sense that this is how
mankind makes advances.
        This has to be in the context of the question of Alexander
Hamilton, which LaRouche has emphasized, and he recently made the
point that what was it that was important about Hamilton?  He
said, what he did in Philadelphia, what he did in creating the
Constitutional system of the United States.  He knew that it
wasn't just the military victory that would enable the United
States to survive; the intention of the United States was to be a
system that created a better future for every single individual,
not a slave system.  So, he created the inherent economics of
political economy to create that better future; and that is what
the discussion is right now.  This is not just Russia and China
making some oil deals, or a new pipeline or something like that;
it's actually above nations as such.  That's what LaRouche said
about this Brexit vote; it's not just business as usual, this is
not a vote on pragmatic politics.  There's something bigger
acting.  People did not want war; they're tired of Obama's kill
policies which have terrorized the planet through his support for
ISIS, the refugee crisis out of Syria; this is clear.  So, this
is something that's being called for, there's something acting
which is coming from the future.
        The problem with Americans is that they've lost the sense of
how to think about that, about the future.  So, that's our job
right now, to create that discussion and that optimism about how
to do that.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think that's the question now.  What can we
create?  I was just reflecting on the discussion with Mr.
LaRouche earlier and some of his remarks throughout the week, and
I think his emphasis that you can't respond to or interpret
events is really critical at a time like this.  When you're
seeing these types of developments — because the Brexit vote is
one example; these are not events causing the process.  These are
events caused by the process; you have a breakdown process.  This
is an explosive development in that context, but there's already
an ongoing breakdown of the trans-Atlantic system; the cultural
system as much as the monetary system, the whole political
system.  Look at the British imperial ideology.
        But the point is, if you're responding to the events of that
process, you are still contained by that process.  How do you
break free from that process?  It's a question of creativity.
What are you doing to actually bring something fundamentally new
to the world situation?  I think that's why what you're seeing
out of Russia and China now is that; it's something new.  It's
not just a response, crisis management or trying to handle it, or
trying to respond to the events per se.  We're beyond that; the
events per se are death, that's where this thing is going.  Be it
a complete breakdown of the system, or whether it's that drive to
thermonuclear war.  So the question on the table now is, what can
you create?  What can you do that's fundamentally new to create a
new system; to actually generate a new orientation for mankind,
for leading nations, that doesn't come from a response to current
events?  That comes from a new orientation to create in the
        The coverage of this in the media — the markets responding
this way or that way — it's just ridiculous.  The whole thing
has been going down for years; and we've  known it.  The question
now is, not who has the best spin on what mechanism caused what;
that doesn't matter.  The question now is, who's actually got an
insight into what the necessary future has to be?

        SARE:  I just wanted to say along those lines, to really
caution our viewers and anyone who's thinking that the way to
think about this is not to say how do we put together this broken
system; like Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall.  It's over;
and only recognizing that almost every fundamental axiom that
people had about economics in the trans-Atlantic was faulty.  And
I do have to point out that in 1988, Mr. LaRouche called for the
reunification of Germany based on his knowledge of the collapse
of the Soviet Union's economy.  And he made a proposal that the
West would provide food to Poland in return for early steps
toward an early reunification of Germany; and exactly one year
later, the Berlin Wall came down, and one year after that, Berlin
was the capital again and Germany was re-unified.  And he and his
wife both said at that time, the Soviet communist system has
failed; but that does not mean that the free trade trans-Atlantic
system is a success.  This, too, is finished; and it's end will
be much larger and more catastrophic than the disintegration of
the Soviet Union as we saw in '89.  So now we are truly there;
and the point is for the United States to recognize what Rachel
just said about Alexander Hamilton, what's embedded in our own
Constitution.  That that understanding of the intent of our
republic, combined with what Kesha represents in terms of the
space program and a true scientific orientation, is the platform
from which the United States can move to the future.
        And I just want to add — because Ben had sent something out
and I think Kesha, too — there's something circulating on the
web of 30 gigantic projects that China is engaged in building
which are changing the whole planet; these are huge
infrastructure projects.  One of them is a 16-mile long
suspension bridge across the Yangtze River; another is a group of
nuclear power plants; and so on.  I think the most expensive any
of these projects was, was something like $3.4 billion.  The
bridges might have been $1 billion or $750 million or something.
Think about that and think about the bail-out.  The first
bail-out of AIG — and there was more than one; but the first
bail-out of AIG was $80 billion.  Now, $80 billion is probably
more than the sum of what was spent on all of these 30 giant
projects combined.  You will also argue that this is not the same
kind of dollars; just like that's the problem with the metric of
what the space program generated, but I'm just using it as an
example.  Because particularly in the United States and Western
Europe, people have a totally insane view of what constitutes
value and what is money.  And if you just look at something like
this, you can see that the destruction, the degradation and
collapse of the United States has absolutely nothing to with
money per se; because we could have taken that $80 billion from
the AIG bail-out and invested it into high speed rail, nuclear
power, getting back to the Moon, any of these things.  And I
think we've done a number of $80 billion [bail-outs] just for
AIG, but the policy decision was not to do that.  And that's the
point of the insanity; and that's what we have to change, because
money itself has no intrinsic value.  Once you understand that,
you can stop panicking about all the money that's going to be
wiped out if everyone crashes and has their silly irrational
responses, or maybe it's finally rationality setting in.  Money
doesn't matter per se; the question is, what is the direction of
human progress, what is the direction of humankind?  From that
standpoint, we can turn on a dime; not that everything is going
to be repaired instantaneously.  It'll take probably two
generations for the United States to achieve a standard of living
that would be appropriate for this nation.  But nonetheless, the
direction could occur tomorrow; provided we do what Kesha said
first at the beginning, which is that Obama is no longer in
control of running the direction of this country — nor anybody
who thinks like Obama.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think it's very important that you brought
up this question of the fictitious values at the root of this
entire trans-Atlantic system; because what we're seeing in the
distinction between the bankrupt collapsing system in the
trans-Atlantic Europe-centered area, and then the growth in
China, in Russia, in India, and in that new Eurasian system.
These are not comparable types of systems; this is not one
person's loss is another person's gain or something like that.
These are completely two distinct species of outlook on the
world; and I think that's what we're getting at here.  What we're
experiencing with these crashes within the span of just a few
hours, HSBC lost 10% of its stock value; Standard Charter lost
10% of its stock value; the pound was down to a 31-year low —
lower than it's been since 1985.  But what is all of this?  This
is just the evaporation of fictitious value.
        On the other hand, you have substantial, real growth in the
form of the reconstruction of the New Silk Road, the development
of the vast interior Eurasian continent, the development of new
transport routes, these new development corridors.  Diane, I
think it's appropriate that you brought up the turning point in
1989 with the crash of the Soviet Union, because what we're
experiencing now is something at least of that caliber, if not
far, far greater than the caliber of 1989.  And you're right, Mr.
LaRouche was clear at that point that the Soviet system was
merely the first show to drop; now we're experiencing the second
shoe has dropped.  This system is bankrupt.  And at that time in
1989, is when Lyndon and Helga LaRouche planted the seeds for
what has now emerged as the New Paradigm, as the new Eurasian
economic system.  At that time it was first — in its nascent
form — the Productive Triangle; then it became what was the
Eurasian Land-Bridge.  This was adopted in the form of the New
Silk Road; and now this is being expanded to the World
Land-Bridge.  This is a vision for a global and extraterrestrial
development policy.  But Mr. LaRouche made several trips to
Russia during the 1990s; several trips to India as well.  Mrs.
LaRouche has travelled now multiple times to China in the last
several years.  This is the center; this is Mr. LaRouche's
emphasis on the impetus of leadership, the hegemonic influence at
this time of the creative leadership of the leaders of these
nations.  President Putin, President Xi Jinping, Prime Minister
Modi, and others.

DENISTON:  I think it's worth underscoring that it's still
playing out, too.  We have this SCO summit going on right now, in
which the heads of these nations are going to meet.  After that,
Putin is going to be travelling to China for a heads-of-state
meeting with Xi Jinping.  In this whole process, you're having
these dialogues to solidify — and I think this is really big —
solidify the Eurasian Economic Union cooperation with the New
Silk Road; which I think is a huge step in these very large but
regional projects moving closer to this Eurasian Land-Bridge,
World Land-Bridge perspective that Lyn and Helga have defined.
        So another point of emphasis that Mr. LaRouche has had over
the past weeks, I think is very sobering and represents a very
high level of thinking, is don't assume we know how any of this
is going to play out.  This is a developing, creative process;
there's a lot more things going on right now.  And we should be
orienting towards not trying to assume we know how all these
things are going to be finished, or what the results are going to
be.  This is an ongoing, creative process right now, and this is
how you have to think about it.  In the next days, as was
mentioned, out of the activity we're going to be engaged in over
this weekend which is very significant — both here in the United
States and in Europe — that's going to be a critical escalation.
But then over the next weeks also, we're just going to see a lot
of important developments coming.

        ROGERS:  I think it's important what Diane brought up on the
point of the system of monetarism that has dominated the culture
and society, that has actually set mankind backwards from what
the intention of the foundation of our republic actually
represented under the conception of Alexander Hamilton.  That's
really what you have to look at, too, when you think about the
cultural pessimism and the zero-growth paradigm that has
continued to dominate for the past several decades now.  It's
interesting, because people try to say that the targetting of the
space program has to do with not having enough money; we just
have to take these budget cuts.  And that's the same point.  How
much bail-outs have we put on these various financial speculators
and derivatives and so forth that we could not put into the space
program?  The idea was that it was never about the fact there
were not enough financial resources to put into the space
program.  It was in the intention not to invest into the future.
And there were many people who promoted this zero-growth paradigm
that Krafft Ehricke took on directly, who stated that the space
program represented too much of a "false optimism" for the
population; that it actually gave the population a sense of
optimism and a sense of their identity as human beings and a
commitment to the future.  The empire and those promoters of
zero-growth were adamant that they had to put a stop to that.  I
was reading an article from back in 1963 in the {New Atlantic};
it was referenced in a book by Marsha Freeman — "The Conquest of
Space and Stature of Man" by Hannah Arendt.  Hannah Arendt was
one of these major promoters of zero-growth and backwardness; and
she made the point that the fight against the space program is
not that of money, but a question of man being inherently corrupt
and that nothing good could come out of scientific progress.
        And that's the thing right now, is that what Russia and
China and this New Paradigm are promoting that only good can come
out of the nature of mankind's creative mental process in terms
of shaping and defining the future and creating that which has
never been created before.  As we're seeing with the outcome of
what China is doing with their space program.  That used to be
our mission; why we went to the Moon in the first place, and why
President Kennedy made the announcement that we would send a man
to the Moon and bring them back before the decade was out.  It
was our obligation to take on something that was fundamentally
new; that's our creative nature.
        That just puts the question that this monetary system has to
be thrown out the window; a new system of economic value based on
the real conceptions of the creative powers of the human mind has
to be brought in.  And the best conception to bring that about is
the space program.

        BRINKLEY:  Absolutely.  And Mr. LaRouche made the point that
also what do we replace this system with?  The idea has to be a
Eurasian policy; and that's what you see in space, that's what
you see in real economy is what are the mutual interests.
Europe's only chance is to join with this policy; so Obama has
explicitly prevented that.  He's called for everybody on the
planet not to join with Russia and China; he tried to prevent it,
whether it was Japan, Mexico, all the coups going on in South
America right now — Argentina.  Puerto Rico is being destroyed
and murdered by Obama and Wall Street.  LaRouche said this is
also why the [Brexit] vote occurred; Obama's economic policies,
his defense for this doomed system is clear.  Also the question
of Obama said our great ally is Great Britain, and it will be now
and forever.  Well, what are we showing with the 28 pages?  Saudi
Arabia did not act alone; actually this part might not be in the
28 pages, but it's in many other pages that are there to be
released.  Through the BAE deal, Prince Bandar, to be found out
that Great Britain might not be our greatest ally.  And Obama's
defense of Britain, of Wall Street, his continual murder policy,
the fact that somewhere 111-114 Americans commit suicide every
day; that this is Obama's policy. He is a murderer; and he has
got to be removed.  That's the fact; it's an absolutely evil
intention, and he's got to be thrown out.

        SARE:  I'd just like to add along those lines:  One is we
are having our regular Saturday meeting here in Manhattan,
although it's slightly expanded.  I will be keynoting it; and we
have Jason Ross from the Science Team is here and others, to
present these two views.  We also are holding a concert on Sunday
afternoon, dedicated to Sylvia Olden Lee, called "In Praise of
Sylvia Olden Lee", who was one of our very important
collaborators in the Schiller Institute in this fight for the
question of Classical beauty.  And Classical music is something
which can strengthen people, which strengthens our better angels,
as Abraham Lincoln might have said, to actually insure that
justice is done.  And I bring these things up, because here in
the US, you have this really diversionary, silly spectacle of
debates about gun control and Congressmen rolling around on the
floor and things like that; pretending that they're in some kind
of civil rights sit-in, when here you have the murderer-in-chief
— President Obama — presiding over a weekly kill session on
Tuesdays, deciding who he's going to kill.  Then you had
September 11th, which Rachel was alluding to, where close to 3000
Americans were killed; and justice has not been done.  And Obama
— as Bush before him — is covering up for the perpetrators of
othe crime and colluding with them as best we know.
  And I think this is a very important flank for those people
who say, "Well, it's impossible; we only have a couple more
months.  In January, we have a new President anyway."  Well, just
look at what's been happening in the last few weeks, to see how
quickly things can change.  NATO has deployed 50,000 troops in
exercises on the border of Russia.  Do you really think we should
just presume that we're going to safely avoid thermonuclear war
while we have a killer lunatic who is now more desperate than
ever as President of the United States?  I think it's very
important that people stop pretending or picking other so-called
"issues" which are really non-issues; when we have a great crime
which was committed 15 years ago on September 11, 2001, which has
not been addressed.  By addressing this and getting to the truth
of what was involved in this — the Saudi role, the British role,
the Wall Street role, the FBI role, the Bush role, Obama's role;
by addressing that, we have a lever by which to expel the current
President from the White House and hopefully land him safely in
jail where he belongs.  And to change therefore, the direction of
the United States.

        OGDEN:  If Obama was so interested in Britain's staying in
the EU, perhaps as Kesha suggested, he could follow suit after
David Cameron and announce his resignation as well.  To his
credit, David Cameron has announced that he is leaving his post
as Prime Minister before his term is over.

        DENISTON:  Obama might be too big of a narcissist; it'll
take more aggressive action for that one.

OGDEN:  But I do think that absolutely, Diane, what you just said
about the events that are coming up this weekend — both in New
York and then, Kesha, what you're hosting down in Texas — the
emphasis has got to continue to be, what is the creative
intervention that can be made to uplift the American people and
to lead the American people.  That was one thing that really did
stick out when we were speaking with Mr. LaRouche earlier today;
that it's never enough just to have the correct analysis of
events.  Our emphasis has got to be, how do we calmly bring a
solution to the table that will be the solution to this crisis?
And that's what you were saying, Ben, that we're in completely
uncharted territory; this is an unprecedented situation in the
history of mankind.  You have no idea what's going to happen
tomorrow, what's going to happen the next day.  It was almost a
comedy to watch how surprised all the pundits and the investors
and the big masters of universe and everybody were, when they
thought that they were going to sleep last night with the remain
vote having come out on top.  And then they wake up this morning
and lo and behold, it's the completely opposite result.  That
proves to you that these guys have no idea what they're doing.
        Diane, you brought this up in the webcast last week.  Why
would you give anybody any credit, when they had no idea that the
Crash of 2008 was right around the corner?  Why would you put
your trust in these people?  So, you have a completely
unprecedented situation.  The rise of the Eurasian system is not
something which is a fait accompli; this is what's driving the
directionality of the possibility of a thermonuclear war breaking
out.  Granted, the support for the sanctions and for the NATO
maneuvers in Europe is now becoming increasingly less strong; but
that doesn't mean that you're by any means guaranteed that we can
avoid a fate such as that.  So, it's decisive action and it's
creative leadership in the case of what we are able to provide;
and Mr. LaRouche was clear that it's the unique capability of the
members of this Policy Committee to provide that kind of
leadership within the United States.
        So again, I just want to emphasize the importance of these
two events that we have coming up this weekend.  So, I think with
that said, you can watch for coverage of those events as they are
broadcast.  The regular Saturday meeting will be live, available
on the LaRouche PAC website tomorrow for Manhattan; and we
encourage you to participate in that in person if you are in the
area, as well as the events in Texas.  And please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com as things rapidly change.
        If you haven't yet, make sure you subscribe to our YouTube
channel; make sure you don't miss any of these critical
discussions.  And also become a regular subscriber to our Daily
Updates which are delivered directly to your inbox via email.
So, thank you for tuning in, and please stay tuned to

Vi har nået det springende punkt – Vi må tage lederskab nu!

Hr. LaRouche havde en langt mere fundamental pointe, som han ønskede at fastslå for os i dag, og det er, at, uagtet disse faktorer på kort sigt, så er hele det transatlantiske finansielle system parat til at nedsmelte. Vi ved ikke præcis, hvornår det vil ske, men vi ved, at det er fuldstændig uundgåeligt, og det afgørende spørgsmål er derfor: hvilken slags planer vil der foreligge; hvilke fornuftige spillere her i USA og Europa vil udvikle en strategi for en erstatning af det nuværende system? Det er håbløst bankerot. Der findes ingen måde, hvorpå denne proces kan løses.

Fuld dansk oversættelse af LPAC Fredags-webcast, 17. juni 2016:

Download (PDF, Unknown)


Vi er kommet til punctum saliens – det springende punkt;
Vi må udøve lederskab nu! Hvornår kommer nedsmeltningen?
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 17. juni 2016.
Video, engelsk

 – Vi befinder os tydeligvis i en situation under hastig forandring, i hele verden. Vi har i løbet af de seneste dage haft uddybende diskussioner med både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche var meget kortfattet i sit råd, da han i går sagde: »Vær årvågne. Tingene kommer til at ændre sig meget hurtigt. Dette er en farlig periode.« Vi har stadig væk en trussel om global atomkrig, som er meget umiddelbar, men der er også en masse ting, der ændrer sig, som det meget tydeligt ses af de skiftende holdninger i Europa, Xi Jinpings besøg i Centraleuropa netop nu for at fremme Den Nye Silkevej, samt begivenhederne på det Internationale Økonomiske Forum i Skt. Petersborg.

Hr. LaRouche gik i dybden med nogle punkter tidligere på dagen, men jeg vil bede Jeff [Steinberg] foretage en hurtig gennemgang for at få en hurtig orientering om den globale situation, og vi vil dernæst i diskussionens forløb trække mange af punkterne frem og følge flere af de ledetråde, som både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche fastslog i deres bemærkninger tidligere på dagen.  

Engelsk udskrift. Dansk oversættelse af uddrag af webcastet følger snarest. Bliv på kanalen!


LaRouche Friday Webcast, June 17, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Afternoon! It is June 17, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast
here from LaRouchePAC.com, which we hold every Friday evening.
I'm joined via video by Dave Christie from our Policy Committee,
who's joining us from Seattle, Washington; and Megan Beets from
the LaRouche PAC Science team, who is currently joining us from
Houston, Texas, where she's engaged in some activities there with
Kesha Rogers. Here in the studio I'm joined by Jason Ross from
the LaRouche PAC Science team as well; and by Jeffrey Steinberg
from Executive Intelligence Review.
        We're obviously in a very fast-changing situation,
worldwide. We've had extensive discussions over the past few days
with both Lyndon LaRouche and Helga LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche was
very concise in his advice when he said yesterday, "Stay alert.
Things are going to change very rapidly. It's a dangerous
period." We still have a very proximate threat of global
thermonuclear war, but we also have a lot which is changing, as
can be seen very clearly by the changing attitudes in Europe, the
visit by Xi Jinping to Central Europe right now, to push the New
Silk Road, and the events at the St. Petersburg International
Economic Forum.
        Mr. LaRouche had some points to elaborate earlier today, but
I'm going to ask Jeff to go through a very quick sort of overview
briefing of the global situation, and then in the course of the
discussion we can draw out a lot of the points and follow a lot
of the threads that both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche made in their
remarks earlier today. So, Jeff.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG: It's critical to bear in mind that
between now and when we sit down a week from today for another
LaRouche PAC discussion, that we will know the outcome of the
Brexit vote in Britain. People are terrified of the implications,
no matter which way that vote goes, and now we have the added
dimension of the assassination of a Labour Party member of the
British Parliament, Jo Cox, which may or may not have been
directly related to the issues of Brexit. We'll still wait
judgment on that.
        Mr. LaRouche had a much more fundamental point that he
wanted to make to us today, which is that regardless of these
short-term factors, the entire trans-Atlantic financial system is
really about to blow. We don't know exactly when it's going to
happen, but we know it's absolutely inevitable, and therefore the
critical question is: what kinds of plans will be in place; what
kinds of reasonable players here in the United States, in Europe,
are going to develop a strategy for replacing the current system?
It's hopelessly bankrupt. There is no way to manage that process.
        There was a commentary earlier this week by an economist
named Simon Black, who just pointed out that major U.S. banks,
led by Bank of America and Wells Fargo, have resumed the whole
liar loans, just absolute fraudulent mortgages, that was one of
the root factors at least involved in the 2008 blow-out. He joins
Mr. LaRouche in saying that we're headed for a far bigger
blow-out at some unknown point in the very near future.
        Mr. LaRouche's point was that what's needed under these
circumstances is a return to classic economic principles,
Hamiltonian economic principles, in which {physical} economic
factors, and not {money} factors, are the priority, and where you
have to start, is by wiping the slate clean and wiping out all of
the existing gambling debt on the books.
        You've got a clear recognition, on the part of some world
leaders, that this is the nature of the crisis-moment that we've
now reached. President Putin spoke yesterday during the opening
plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic
Forum. There were around 16,000 people there. Whatever Obama's
plans, or British plans [were] to isolate Russia, clearly the
isolation is broken. The Italian Prime Minister Renzi was there.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the EU Commission, spoke
there on the opening day. The Secretary-General of the United
Nations, Ban Ki Moon, was there.
        We're still awaiting the complete translation of Putin's
speech, but what from what we've seen so far, he's made it very
clear that the global financial situation, the system, is very
unsettled. The problems of 2008 have not been resolved. He
emphasized Russia's commitment to be the bridge between the Asia
developments centered around Xi Jinping's One Belt, One Road
policy, and the bringing of Europe into that equation as a
cooperative factor.
        So, there are alternative ideas out there, but there's a
desperate moment from the standpoint of the British. We see it in
these two incidents, almost back-to-back: of the brutal terrorist
attack in Orlando, Florida, followed a few days later by the
first time in {hundreds of years} that a British Member of
Parliament was assassinated in cold blood on the streets of

        OGDEN: Absolutely! Right in the midst of that, you have a
very important initiative from Congressman Walter Jones, who has
taken the next step beyond what he has already done, around the
campaign to release the 28 pages, which would expose the entire
Anglo-Saudi apparatus behind what led to 9/11 and what continues
to be the threat of terrorism, world-wide today.
        He had 70 co-sponsors on H-Res. 14, but this week he has
introduced a new resolution, which says, Look, we don't have to
wait for Obama at all. We're going to bypass the Obama
administration, and Congress itself needs to take the initiative
to de-classify these 28 pages. It's a very important bill. The
text of it should be read in full. It cites the precedent. The
Supreme Court decided in favor of (former) Senator Mike Gravel,
who read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record; and
also cites the fact that this is Congress's prerogative indeed.
        That continues to be a very critical element in this fight
to dismantle what is in fact, as you were saying, the Anglo-Saudi
apparatus behind this entire campaign. Actually, just because
we've brought that up, I wanted to read, very quickly, our
"institutional question" for this evening, and then we can follow
the discussion out from there. It reads as follows:
        "Mr. LaRouche: Recently a scholar at the Johns Hopkins
School of Advanced International Studies penned an article in the
{Asia Times} warning that the Saudi-sponsored Wah'habi terrorism
is coming to Southeast Asia, and the United States has been the
essential enabler of this spread by boosting the Saudis with
protection. Dr. Christina Lin described the Saudi
'religious-industrial complex' as the source of spreading
Wah'habi ideology. Hillary Clinton recently rebuked Saudi Arabia
and two other U.S. allies — Qatar and Kuwait — by name, for
their support of terrorist networks and ideology. Mr. LaRouche,
in your opinion, what types of religions reform must Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, and other Wah'habi-oriented nations,
need to enact, to deal with Salafi-inspired jihadi terrorism?"
        Jeff, I know that you wrote a sort of summary article
earlier, in the beginning of this week, that goes through the
entire Al-Yamamah case, and everything that is implied by the
fact that that's still an on-going apparatus. Maybe you want to
give a little bit of a background on that, in response to this

        STEINBERG: Well, let me just start by saying that I think
the idea of any kind of near-term reform of Saudi Arabia or these
other countries that subscribe to Wah'habism, is a very unlikely
phenomenon. We've got to take the approach that this whole
apparatus has to be exposed, top down, and completely dismantled.
It's going to have to come from the outside.
        A very, very interesting discussion took place earlier this
week [on June 14] on the John Batchelor [radio] show in New York,
where Dr. Stephen F. Cohen, a Russia specialist, professor
emeritus of Russian studies, history and politics at New York
University, for the first time touched on the issue of Obama's
removal from office. He said one of the greatest crimes that
Obama has committed, has been the breaking of the cooperation
with Russia, that basically the U.S. has no understanding or no
capacity for dealing with this threat of Salafist terrorism, but
Russia does. Therefore Obama's demonization of Putin, refusal to
cooperate with Russia, is piling up the body-count around the
        In a very real sense, the Obama question and the British
Al-Yamamah question goes to the heart of what Dr. Lin said in
that [{Asia Times}] article, namely, who are the enablers? Who
makes it possible? Because Saudi Arabia on its own could do very
little, were it not for the sponsorship by Washington, by London,
and we can't leave out Paris in this equation, of the whole
development of the strategy of playing the Islamic fundamentalist
card for regime change. It started with the Soviet Union. It
extended to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now this is really
what's playing out in Syria.
        Unless you're willing to force the severing of the British
and U.S. support for this jihadist spread of terrorism, then
you're really not going to address the problem. If you single out
Saudi Arabia and leave out Britain, then you're leaving
Al-Yamamah and everything that that implies off the hook. This
was an arrangement that was made in 1985 between [then-Saudi
Ambassador to the U.S.] Prince Bandar [bin Sultan] and [then
British Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher, to set up what was
ostensibly an oil-for-weapons deal. But under the cover of that,
they amassed hundreds of billions of dollars in offshore
slush-funds, and those funds have been really what's been behind
the terrorism.
        The 28 pages make it clear that Prince Bandar was a source
of funding to the 9/11 hijackers at a time that he was getting
upwards of $2 billion wired into that account from the Bank of
England, as the result of his sponsorship of Al-Yamamah.  If you
talk about the Saudis without talking about the British and
without talking about Bush, and now Obama, then you're never
going to solve the problem.

        OGDEN: You mentioned what Stephen Cohen had to say. I think
this is obviously a very big step for him to make these remarks,
but he said, "The major single largest cost of this unnecessary
cold war with Russia, is Washington's refusal to cooperate with
Russia against international terrorism, whether in Syria or in
homeland security. That, I think, is an indictment of our
political class, the Obama administration and Congress in
particular, that we all should judge very, very harshly, because
they're endangering each and every one of us and our families.
Russia knows how to do counter-terrorism. We know we don't know
how to do it very well."
        And then he said, "I would call this anti national security.
These are impeachable offenses by our government, that they are
not doing things, out of this political, ideological Cold War
against Russia, that could help protect us. Whether we talk about
Syria or talk about homeland security, it's a pattern, and it
needs to end right away."
        One thing that just developed out of this yesterday, is
front-page coverage in the {New York Times} of a "dissent
channel," [a draft copy of an internal memo] by 50 mid-level
State Department officials, "urging the United States to carry
out military strikes against the government of President Bashar
al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the
country's five-year-old civil war," which is obviously a direct
declaration of war against what Russia is doing in Syria right

        STEINBERG: Absolutely!

        DAVE CHRISTIE: This is occurring in the middle of where the
Syrian government has just unleashed leaflets into Rakka, saying,
"We're coming!" The Russians have been very clear on this, that
they're not going to sit around and play games, or allow Obama
and his gang to play games, around this idea that we need more
time to separate out the moderate terrorists, which don't exist
anyway. This is a move to shut them down.
        Coming back to this point that what has been raised on the
nature of the terrorism, going back to the Al-Yamamah deal, this
was effectively the geo-political enforcement wing of what was
ushered in at that time. We had some discussions earlier this
week where this was coincident at the same time that Thatcher
brought in the whole "Big Bang" program to have London be the
center of global finance and this speculative offshore financial
system, which was sort of the consolidation of what had come in
in 1971, as Mr. LaRouche forecast, that when they broke with the
Bretton Woods system, they turned their back on the real economic
progress that we saw under Kennedy and, of course, Roosevelt
before then.
        There was an explicit destruction of the American System
that could have swept the planet, were it not for that
intervention by the British in '71. Mr. LaRouche was clear at
that point, that this would result in fascism. We've now seen
that come to fruition.  But the point is, that's the bankrupt
system that is now collapsing; and what Mr. LaRouche said today I
think is very important on the Obama question, and more
importantly what Obama represents.  Because he represents the
British Empire, he represents this integrated financial apparatus
which is funding itself through the dope trade, enforcing it
through terrorism, the whole migrant crisis; all of this is part
of the integrated policy of the British Empire.  And what
LaRouche said about Obama and that system is that they can't win;
Obama is going to lose, period.  The question is, will others
win?  And what Lyn also said today I think is very important, he
says that Putin has shown this leadership; he's straight on this,
he's the best leadership we have so far.  And I think that's part
of this growing recognition that the BRICS nations and
specifically Russia, China, India, are now the world leadership;
the British are having to react.  And I think what we're seeing
in terms of their reaction is, of course, increasingly dangerous;
because they see what the writing on the wall is in terms of the
imminent collapse of their financial system while this New
Paradigm is being consolidated.  Helga made the point on this
question of the German bonds; their 10-year bonds are trading at
negative interest rates, so that is a huge psychological shock to
the German people.  Anybody in business knows the implications of
        So you can really see that the political turmoil here in
terms of the potential of Europe to begin to shift towards this
new emerging leadership; similarly in Japan that we see.  The
fact that the situation in Korea is similarly potentially
shifting; and of course, Ban Ki Moon just spoke in front of the
St. Petersburg Economic Forum.  So, you just really get a sense
of what the potential is to shift this thing.  And I think what
we have to do is recognize that that global leadership is now
being established; but it's up to the American people to
recognize that Obama will lose.  People think that he's
all-powerful and they look at this crazy political election,
which is frankly designed around Obama.  The whole circling of
the wagons around Hillary wasn't so much circling the wagons
around Hillary in terms of her campaign; it was really circling
it around Obama.  And of course, Trump, what is this?  It's
nothing but a clown show to allow Obama to continue with this
agenda.  But as Mr. LaRouche said, he will lose.  The question
is, will we take up the leadership and responsibility to win?

        OGDEN:  And the point that Jeff made about the attempts to
isolate Russia clearly have failed.  I think that the St.
Petersburg Economic Forum is a testament to that fact.  And then
you have the very strong collaboration between Putin and Xi
Jinping right now, which is being acknowledged on all fronts.  I
think that it was very poetically at the St. Petersburg Economic
Forum by one of the visiting ministers from Ecuador, who said "We
view with envy the great projects that change the history of
civilization."  That's where we are. I think Helga LaRouche was
calling it an "epical moment"; it's a change in epic, both with
the emergence of this new world system, but also the fact that
we're experiencing for the first time in history the negative
interest rates within the European system and so forth.  But this
Ecuadoran minister said, these projects that change the history
of civilization, with the New Silk Road that China has proposed,
the creation of the AIIB, the BRICS bank, the Eurasian project
which Russia has defended.  I don't know if people saw the full
speech that Indian Prime Minister Modi made when he came to
Washington last week; but when he spoke in front of the joint
session of Congress, what he concluded his remarks with was
beautiful.  He said, "The foundations of the future are now
firmly in place."  And then he quoted from a poem by Walt Whitman
from {The Leaves of Grass}; a poem called "To Think of Time." And
Modi said, "The orchestra have sufficiently tuned their
instruments.  The baton has given the signal"; and then Modi
said, "Let me add to that if I might, there is a new symphony in
play."  And I think that's a perfect way of describing the new
world system which is now breaking onto the horizon.  And it
really has, despite the attempts by Obama and his allies, to
isolate this and to try to beat this back.  It is continuing to
take hold.

        ROSS:  That's true; it's undeniably taking hold in the world
in such a way that it's clear to everybody, too, that that's a
real standard of value.  You're not looking at the U.S., you're
not looking at the European Central Bank; you're looking at where
the growth is coming from; anyone can see that who is looking at
it. And the obligation that we have to prevent the U.S. from
being the stumbling block in this; because it's astonishing to
read the contrast between the speech that Modi made, or the
remarks of this Ecuadoran who you mentioned, with these kinds of
think-tanks or institutions in the U.S..  They're talking about
threats to American power; how are we going to secure American
power in the coming world with all of its difficulties.  It's
such a bizarre outlook to even try to have.  It's so outdated, so
European oligarchical, it sounds like it's something from
centuries ago; it hardly sounds like anything that represents
what the U.S. was founded to be under the economic leadership of
Hamilton, under the direction that we have taken at our best
times.  So, the great opportunity that we have to join in this in
the U.S., can make all the difference in the world; and it's
unfortunate that it comes to us from such a negative direction.
If we don't do something, the U.S. is blocking this and Obama is
going to create a war to prevent it.

        STEINBERG:  Putin made a point in St. Petersburg that
clearly there is now a profound strategic partnership between
Russia and through Russia the Eurasian Economic Union, with
China. And he said, this is not a closed partnership; we welcome
European participation with open arms.  And then he went after
the TTIP, this U.S.-British free trade agreement that is, in
fact, an exclusive arrangement that would cut off Europe from any
cooperation across Eurasia with Russia, the Eurasian Economic
Union, China.  And he just said, look, we're past the point where
we create alliances that are exclusionary; and he pointed out
that there are now 40 countries that are seeking trade agreements
with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union.  So, I think that
this idea of this openness and a common future and destiny, is
something that is not only at the core of what Xi Jinping is now
in Poland, and he's on a five-day tour of eastern and central
Europe; and then he's going back through central Asia.  So, he's
clearly got this idea of moving forward with the extension of
these policies into Europe; and in effect, there's a major split
beginning to develop in Europe.  It comes down to this
fundamental question of, do you focus on physical economy, or are
you stuck in the British system purely money game.  It's a point
now of clash where the two systems are so irreconcilable that
they can't both survive.  That's also why the war danger is so
pronounced at this point.

        BEETS:  Well, let me just add something in on this point
about this newly forming world system being led by China and
Russia.  I was remembering that a couple of years ago, around the
time of the BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, Mr. LaRouche said
that this is the beginning of a world system; but it's not the
final form.  There has to be now a discovery process undertaken
by peoples of the world to uncover and come to a point of
discovery of what the human species ought to be.  And I think is
really the point that is missing from 99% of the discussion that
goes on; most especially in the trans-Atlantic.  But even — and
I would put this out as a question — how self-conscious of a
discussion is this in other parts of the world as well?  And I
think it's important, because Mr. LaRouche's emphatic point this
morning was that the entire system has to be scrapped; we are at
the point of blow-out.  Any moves that are taken to try to save
it are complete foolishness; because anything you try to save in
the system is about to become completely worthless.
        So, you have to re-found a new system upon a newly
discovered notion of physical value.  And that gets exactly to
the principle that is the most fundamental; but is also the least
known, and the most contradicted in the United States today.  The
most fundamental principle of economics; which is that man is not
an animal.  And that there is a scientifically knowable principle
which separates mankind as a species from all other species known
to us today.  And that's expressed in the fact that as a species,
mankind is the only species that is not fixed.  We're the only
species for whom the new generation can be fundamentally
different than the previous generation; as expressed in the
powers wielded by the individual.  The scientific powers, the
powers in and over processes in the Universe, which is expressed
in the productive powers of labor of the individual; which
reflect knowledge of principle which is completely new to that
generation.  Which is both more perfect and higher than the
knowledge of principles of the Universe possessed by the previous
        I think if we go back and look back to the United States and
to our tradition, we see this expressed most recently — aside
from the leadership taken by Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche in the recent
decades — we see this expressed by the leadership of Krafft
Ehricke and his role in establishing and fighting for the United
States space program.  Krafft Ehricke was completely committed to
the idea, and it was a discovery in his own mind, that for human
beings there are no limits to growth.  There's no such thing as a
fixed set of resources, for exactly the reason I cited, of man's
potential to always discover a higher principle.  Krafft Ehricke
fought for the idea that man must always progress; and therefore,
man cannot be limited merely to the Earth.  Man cannot be a
species of a single globe.  We have to move out into conquering
space; becoming a species which is exerting power in an over the
Solar System.  Reorganizing, shaping, perfecting other planets in
the Solar System, beginning with the Moon.  Just to put it
forward, that's the only legitimate basis for an economic system,
is to organize the social activity of man to effect and promote
that kind of activity; and to protect and promote that kind of
capability which exists in potential in each and every human
being.  I think that we in the United States especially, have a
responsibility to wake up, and to have a renaissance in the
United States.  Where we once again demand our space program, and
demand that it represent the kind of principle expressed by
Krafft Ehricke; and expressed by Mr. LaRouche's insights into the
science of economics.

        CHRISTIE:  Just to follow up on that, I think that is
probably also the place where geopolitics is — it's the symbol
of the absolute end of geopolitics.  And Mr. LaRouche has been
discussing the idea of moving beyond nation-states.  That doesn't
mean a homogenized global McDonald's or something like that kind
of approach to economy.  What it means is, you're still going to
celebrate the cultural differences, you're going to still
celebrate the fact that people have histories and shared
languages and so on and so forth; but you're going to see that
the core of what it is to be human.  We're all human; there's
only one species.  And that's no better expressed than in space
        I also think that what you're beginning to see is how that's
operating now in terms of breaking up — or nations now
collaborating and not allowing themselves to be manipulated
around the British strategies of divide and conquer.  For
example, you just recently had Xi Jinping make a trip to the
Baltic nations; to work out the Baltic nations' entry into the
Silk Road program.  And that is one way to defuse the tensions
that the Baltic nations would have with Russia.  India is working
with Iran on the Chabahar port; where you get access to some of
the central Asian nations, which of course, could be pitted
against China.  And of course, China's working with Pakistan
around the Gwadar port; and defusing potential confrontations
that Pakistan and India might have.  You being to see that they
are all collaborating around this common mission; and seeing that
all these nations' relationships and integration is important.
And I think that, in terms of what has to happen in the United
States, we should also recognize that what is going on in these
nations, that is determining the global dynamic; and that is also
what is going to determine the internal political situation.
        So, all the Americans who are depressed about this crazy
election process, should just flush it down the toilet where it
belongs; because it has no real bearing on what is actually
occurring internationally.  It is being defined by this new
concept of thinking beyond nation-states; or at least beyond the
manipulation that can occur under geopolitics where these nations
are beginning to collaborate.  That's the point of space
exploration; that's also the point of Mr. LaRouche's Strategic
Defense Initiative, which he raised today in discussions.  This
present war drive, which is why the British are trying to tear
down this emerging New Paradigm, really began with the Bush crowd
sabotaging the Strategic Defense Initiative of Mr. LaRouche.  Had
that gone through, we wouldn't be on the edge of thermonuclear
warfare; we would have already begun that collaboration back
then.  So now is really our last opportunity to take up that
initiative; but we've got to bring this New Paradigm into the
United States.

        STEINBERG:  I was at an event in Washington when Prime
Minister Modi was here, and one of the speakers was a former
Indian ambassador to the United States.  I thought he made some
very important and pretty frank points.  He said, first of all,
the most important thing that came out of the meeting, other than
the speech that Prime Minister Modi gave before the joint session
of Congress, was the nuclear deal.  The fact that Westinghouse
had been contracted to build six nuclear power plants in India.
So, he's viewing what remains of the actual technology base of
the United States; of course, it's now a company that's working
very closely with the Japanese in order to even meet the
construction requirements.  But the other thing that he said was
that the United States has been blocking India from playing any
kind of constructive role in Middle East peace.  He said India
has a very important role to play; we have close relations with
all of the Arab countries.  But, he said, India views Iran as a
crucial ally; not only economically because of the Chabahar port
and the prospects of India, Iran, Afghanistan economic
integration.  But, he said, the threat to India and to Asia of
Islamic terrorism, is coming from Wah'habism; and that they've
never had any experience of terrorism coming out of the Shi'a
branch of Islam.  Therefore, India views Iran as a buffer against
the spread of this kind of Saudi-sponsored terrorism into South
Asia and the subcontinent. So, these are areas where there's an
enormous amount of room for a change in policy being forced in
Washington; where the kinds of problems that are right now
seemingly intractable, can be solved through that kind of new
        On the question that Megan raised; Jason, you may want to
say something about this.  There was a very high-level dialogue
that was going on 300 years ago between Western and Chinese
scholars on this question of the nature of man.  Leibniz was
engaged in a tremendous exchange with China, via some of the
Jesuit missionaries who were there in China for a period of more
than 100 years.  So, this common concept of the nature of man is
not something that is alien to leading thinkers in Asia; and I
think what China and even Russia are doing now, is really
reflective of at least an intuitive, if not completely
self-conscious idea of this unique character of human beings as
the only creative species.

        ROSS:  Xi Jinping — I forget the occasion of his making his
speech — but in some recent remarks that he made, he had traced
through the history of mankind.  He was detailing all the big
discoveries that made modern humanity possible; but he went all
the way back.  Fire, metallurgy; he talked about in the past 200
years, the incredible revolutions of steam power, of chemistry,
electricity.  So, there's definitely a recognition that something
very special happened in a scientific way coming out of Europe
from the period of the Renaissance; that's undeniable.  The
aspect of it that was universal, you bring up the work that
Leibniz was doing about 300 years ago to try to maintain and have
a dialogue with China; to have an opportunity for European
science to make inroads into China, to uplift people's living
standard there and to find more collaborators to work on things
with.  And also at the same time, his view that Chinese natural
philosophy, or natural theology, or an outlook on the world and
on social relations, that there was a potential for the rest of
the world to learn a great deal about that from China.  His view
was that if one were to ignore Christianity, which he saw as
given as a revealed religion based on — in other words, it
wasn't a discovery that anybody could have made.  It occurred
through a personality who was in the Western world.  That leaving
that aside, China was superior in its moral and cultural outlook.
        The attacks on it today are pretty astonishing.  People
saying, "Oh, look at China's economy; it's faltering.  Look their
growth rate is only 10 times ours; it used to be 20 times ours.
They're going down."  Meanwhile, it's just negative interest
rates; it's obvious where the growth is coming from.  Also, the
way they have to play up the idea of China being a threat; it
sort of seems like a psychological case of projection almost.

        STEINBERG:  Sure, yeah.  I think it was pointed out that in
the case of Russia that the U.S. defense budget, when you count
in all of the defense expenditures, is over $1 trillion a year.
There's a $1 trillion program to completely overhaul and
modernize our nuclear weapons arsenal; and that's in the
Department of Energy budget.  That doesn't even show up in the
$600 billion Pentagon budget.  That's $1 trillion that's going
into preparation for the insanity of being able to launch, fight,
and win a nuclear war.  Russia's entire defense budget is $84
billion; so it's literally less than 10% of the U.S.'s.  And
China similarly; it's a fraction of what the U.S. is spending.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, as Stephen Cohen said, Russia knows how to do
counter-terrorism; we don't know how to do it very well.

        ROSS:  We're certainly not acting on it if we do have that

        OGDEN:  And I think there is an element, as Mr. LaRouche was
emphasizing, of President Putin's own unique insight as a world
leader.  Going back to the very beginnings of his Presidency,
with what he did in Chechnya to defeat the threat of Islamic
terrorism there; he said the threat here is that Russia is
Balkanized.  That we become the new Yugoslavia.  And what would
that imply for the civilization of the world?  But even going
back to the fact that Putin's background is as an intelligence
officer, he very well knows that the source of this whole Islamic
terrorism threat has its roots in the Al-Yamamah deal and the
efforts that were made by Prince Bandar and Margaret Thatcher at
that time to deploy the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the
Soviet Union.  The Al-Yamamah deal was a Cold War deal; and the
fact that this has not been dismantled, means that this is still
an active threat.

        STEINBERG:  The other thing that sort of begs that same
question is, is it that we're not good at it?  Or really on the
other side?  I think you've got to look at the case of this
shooter down in Orlando — Omar Mateen; and consider the fact
that he was employed for 7-8 years by a British company called
G4S, which is the third-largest private corporation in the world,
behind Walmart and some Asian supermarket chain.  It's a
mercenary company; it's a "private security company".  They're
involved in mercenary activities all over the world.  They were
in Iraq as part of the so-called "contractors" involved in the
occupation.  In Israel, they man the checkpoints; they provide
the technology.  They are the security for the illegal Jewish
settlements in the West Bank.  Here in the United States, they
have the contracts to provide the security for 90% of the nuclear
power plants in the U.S..  They're a major contractor for the
Department of Homeland Security.  And they had this ticking time
bomb on the payroll; even when he was under investigation by the
FBI for a period of a year, his job was never in jeopardy.  You
almost get the sense that these British companies maintain a
small army of people who are severely mentally disturbed; who can
be triggered at any time that there's a necessity for a pretext.
        Remember that in January of 2001, Mr. LaRouche gave
testimony in opposition to John Ashcroft's confirmation as
Attorney General; because he said the character of the Bush
administration was that they would look to create a Reichstag
Fire incident to go for dictatorship.  That was seven months
before the 9/11 attacks that that warning was issued; and it was
absolutely prescient.  So, I think what Dr. Lin said in her
article, that the U.S. and the British — although she focussed
on the United States — have used these jihadists as tools in a
policy of regime change that has destabilized the Middle East and
a lot of other parts of the world.  We are part of this jihadist
structure; the British — pivotally so through things like
Al-Yamamah — but for the last 15 years with the Bush
administration and now Obama, we've been part of that same
equation.  So, this is something that we've got to face the cold
hard truth of if we're ever going to deal with this problem.

        OGDEN:  And you see this rabid opposition to even the
declassification of the 28 pages and the 9/11 Report.  What
Brennan is doing right now to run cover for the Saudis, is

        STEINBERG:  And who did Obama meet with today?

        OGDEN:  Prince Salman; exactly.  Well, I think with the
activation of this Walter Jones bill, this is definitely going
one step further; and I think a lot of people have begun to
recognize that you have to call out Obama for what he's done on
this front.  We've celebrated the courage that Senator Mike
Gravel had on this when he exposed the Pentagon Papers in the
1970s; and I think that this continues to inspire people.
Obviously, it has inspired Walter Jones.  The depth of the
resolution is, I think, beyond your average fare for
Congressional "Whereas" clauses.  What it says in terms of citing
George Washington, in terms of citing the Supreme Court case in
support of Mike Grave; and just generally making the point.  And
also not pulling your punches on the Saudi aspect of this; it
names explicitly the Saudi government and the role that this has
played.  And Bob Graham has repeatedly warned — and I think this
every single time there is an attack of this nature, it has to be
repeated — the fact that the 28 pages were not declassified,
means that the logistical support network that was in place
before 9/11, which enabled the 9/11 attackers to do what they
did, was not dismantled.  And for all we know, is very well still
in place; and a lot of the connections.  The Sarasota aspect of
the cover-up by the FBI of the 80,000 pages, this speaks to the
fact that this attack happened in Orlando.  Then, there's the
entire southern California aspect, which was documented in the
investigations that went into putting together the 28 pages.  I
know you've said a lot about this already, Jeff, but all of these
points have to continually be touched upon.

        CHRISTIE:  I would just add, I think that that as a flank is
very crucial; because it goes right to the gut — not just of
Obama and the cover-up — but more simply of the Bush crowd and
their illegal wars that we've launched since under the guise of
so-called terrorism after 9/11.  Targetting nations that had
nothing to do with it, but really had to do with the geopolitical
games against Russia, China, and India.  But as Mr. LaRouche
mentioned on the occasion of the Orlando incident with this
Mateen shooting up the club; Mr. LaRouche brought it back to
Al-Yamamah.  That you have to see it in a much larger context;
these are not isolated cases.  So, I think the flank of the 28
pages goes right to that whole structure that has been brought in
since the Al-Yamamah deal, which has been connected to the
various aspects of the financial system and so forth.  What Mrs.
LaRouche said is, if you look at everything, we are at an
absolute {punctum saliens} moment; where you have — as we
discussed at the opening of the show — the question of vote on
the Brexit on the 23rd, which is already having huge
implications.  Obviously, we don't know all the details, but it's
highly likely that this assassination of the British Member of
Parliament was related to this.  You have the Brexit vote, you
have the financial collapse; now admitted that they're going back
to the crazy mortgage fraud that had threatened to bring down the
system in 2007-2008.  You have the German bonds trading at
negative interest rates; Japan's central bank putting out
negative interest rates.  You just have all of this coming
together.  The war games and the desperation by the British.  And
what Mr. LaRouche said is that we have a situation that is
unpredictable.  And I think what that means for all of us and our
fellow Americans, is to say that this really is open for what we
decide to do.
        In other words, there may be various players who might have
all their different ideas of what to do in this moment of crisis;
but we have to have the sense that we know what to do because of
what Lyn and Helga have done over these decades.  And this is an
opportunity now to take the leadership and demand that our
program and policies be implemented.  But even more importantly
perhaps, is a way of thinking about it; and a way of creativity
being at the forefront of what we think of economics, of what we
think of human relations in general.  So, we just seize on this
moment of the {punctum saliens}; that this is the time to exert

        OGDEN:  I think that's a very well-stated point to close our
show on.  Again, the {punctum saliens} — the pregnant moment;
the moment of decision.  As Jeff mentioned, by the time we meet
here next week, the Brexit vote will have occurred; a lot is
changing very rapidly.  We have a lot to watch from that.
        I would like to thank everybody for joining me here today.
Thanks, Jeff and Jason both; and also Dave and Megan for joining
us via video.  And thank you all for tuning in; please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com for critical daily updates.  If you have not
yet subscribed to the LaRouche PAC Daily email, you may do that
through our website.  And if you have not yet subscribed to our
YouTube channel, please subscribe to our YouTube channels to be
sure that you do not miss any of our regularly scheduled shows
here on larouchepac.com.  So, thank you very much and good night.

“Vi må atter blive sande amerikanere”.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 10. juni 2016

Jeg vil indlede vores diskussion med at påpege, hvad hr. LaRouche i de seneste dage meget klart har sagt: Vi befinder os i en ekstraordinært farlig periode i verdenshistorien. Det kan ikke ses tydeligere end af disse militærmanøvrer, der finder sted på de østeuropæiske grænser (Ruslands vestlige grænser). Disse kombinerede NATO-øvelser, der finder sted hele vejen op og ned langs Ruslands grænse, fra De baltiske Stater, ind i Polen og derfra mod syd. Dette er en kombination af fire forskellige, angiveligt uafhængige krigsspil, men det involverer live troppemanøvrer, af hvilke den største hedder ”Anaconda 2016”. Denne manøvre involverer 30.000 tropper fra 24 forskellige lande, inkl. 14.000 amerikanere, 12.000 polakker, 1000 faldskærmstropper og den virkelige krydsning af nøglefloden dér, Vistuta-floden; samt træning af natlige angreb, tungt militærisenkram, 35 helikoptere, 3.000 militærkøretøjer, flådemanøvrer osv.

Engelsk udskrift.


LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast; June 10, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's June 10th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you joining us for our weekly Friday
evening webcast here from larouchepac.com. As you'll notice,
we're taking a little bit of a different format than customary
today. We have a roundtable format, joined in the studio by Megan
Beets and Ben Deniston, from the LaRouche PAC basement science
team; and also Kesha Rogers and Mike Steger are both joining us
from the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee via video. So, we're going
to have a little bit of a freer kind of roundtable discussion
        I'd like to begin our discussion by just pointing out, what
I think has been said very, very clearly in the recent days by
Mr. LaRouche, that we're in an extraordinarily dangerous period
of world history. This couldn't be made more clear than seeing
these military maneuvers which are happening on the eastern
border of Europe (the western border of Russia). These combined
NATO maneuvers which are happening all the way up and down the
border of Russia, from the Baltic States, into Poland, and then
south from there. This is a combination of four different,
supposedly independent, war games, but it involves live troop
maneuvers, the largest of which is called "Anaconda 2016." That
one involves 30,000 troops from 24 different countries, including
14,000 Americans, 12,000 Polish soldiers, 1,000 paratroopers, the
actual crossing of the key river there, the Vistula River; and
the exercise of nighttime assaults, military hardware, 35
helicopters, 3,000 military vehicles, naval maneuvers, and so
        If you take that, together with the three other maneuvers
that are happening right now, you have approximately 60,000
troops that are engaged in military maneuvers all along the
border of Russia. As Helga LaRouche pointed out, this the
greatest troop and military hardware maneuver that you've had on
Russia's border since World War II — the mobilization by Hitler
of the Nazi forces prior to the invasion of what was then the
Soviet Union. Obviously, this many troops engaged in live
military maneuvers, not only creates a very strong possibility
for some accident occurring, which could trigger a rapid
escalation towards a very hot war, which could escalate very
quickly; but also it's very clearly a provocation, which is being
taken by NATO with Obama in the leadership, directly towards
Russia. And it's being seen as such in the context of other
things, by the Russian President and other leading members of the
Russian military. It's also being recognized as such by various
forces within Europe. {Der Spiegel}, one of the leading news
magazines in Germany, put out a story on Wednesday, saying these
war maneuvers along the Russian borders, are "going too far", and
"are playing at real war". Clearly, any war that were to break
out between NATO and Russia would very quickly lead to not a
limited, not a tactical, but an all-out strategic, thermonuclear
        If you combine this with Obama's upcoming to trip to attend
the NATO Heads of State Summit in Warsaw, Poland, while these war
games are actively taking place, along with his refusal to sit
down with President Putin to discuss the deployment of these
AEGIS anti-missile systems along the Russian border, which have
been characterized as a "Cuban Missile Crisis in Reverse," along
with the trillion dollar allocation that Obama has recently
signed off on, to modernize the U.S. military arsenal, including
these B61-12 nuclear warheads, and the long-range LRSO [Long
Range Standoff] cruise missiles; all of these, taken together,
along with the simultaneous provocations that are happening by
U.S. forces against China in the South China Sea.
        Any sane person should be asking themselves, "Why are we
driving the world towards the point of a war of extinction, when
we could be taking up Chinese President Xi Jinping's offer to
engage in a new strategic and economic architecture for the
planet, based on win-win cooperation?" This danger, and also the
very real possibility of a paradigm shift, were both put on the
table at a very significant seminar sponsored by the Schiller
Institute that occurred on Wednesday in San Francisco,
California. Both Kesha and Mike were participants. It was titled,
"Will the U.S. Join the New Silk Road? Global Scientific
Development, or Nuclear War?" Mrs. Helga LaRouche gave an
extensive and very thorough overview of this war danger in her
keynote address; and Mr. LaRouche, in his remarks, said very
clearly — this is the very beginning of what Mr. LaRouche said,
"The key thing I'm concerned about, is the threats to the
existence of the human species in the total area right now;
because right now, at this time, the existence of the entire
human species continues to be on the edge of jeopardy. And
therefore we have to attune ourselves to understanding what the
problems are that are involved in this, and what are the remedies
for which we can get an escape for humanity in general. Humanity
in general right now is under serious threat of jeopardy on a
global scale." So, that's very clearly said by Mr. LaRouche.
        Also, I consider very significantly, in response to a
question which was posed from former United States Senator Mike
Gravel, who was also a participant, a speaker in this seminar. He
posed a question to one of the other participants, Sergey Petrov,
the Consul-General of the Russian Consulate in San Francisco, to
which Mr. Petrov said that there is no such thing as a limited
nuclear war, as some as some people would be delusional enough to
believe. What the Consul-General of Russia said at the Schiller
Institute gathering in San Francisco, is the following: "I share
the understanding that we are very close to a major conflict. And
I add that there is no possibility of a 'limited nuclear war.' If
that starts, it will be the end of the world."
        I think the starkness of this statement, combined with what
Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. LaRouche both had to say, really
underscores the sobriety with which we have to approach the
discussion which we will have here today. Since both Kesha and
Mike were participants in that seminar, I'm going to leave a
little bit of the further discussion of the proceedings of that
event until a little bit later in the show. The seminar also
involved Mr. Howard Chang, an internationally renowned expert on
water projects.
        But before we open up the discussion, I would like to play a
short — approximately 10 minute — excerpt from the keynote
speech that Mrs. Helga LaRouche gave. This is the concluding
excerpt of her remarks. She asked two questions: (1) How did we
get here?; and (2) What is the solution to the crisis we now
face? I just want to underscore, what you'll hear Mrs. LaRouche
say in this excerpt, is what Mr. LaRouche reiterated, and I think
is the subject that we have to pay attention to here today: that
both the LaRouche movement in general, and Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche
as individuals, {have played the crucial, central, historical
role} in not only creating the possibility for a solution to this
crisis, going all the way back to their proposal for the Eurasian
Land-Bridge: the New Silk Road, in the aftermath of the collapse
of the Soviet Union; but also continued to play the crucial role
in providing the possibility for humanity to escape this crisis.
        This seminar in San Francisco was a crucial element of that,
but it's part of an ongoing series of interventions
internationally, which include a very prominent conference in
Europe that the Schiller Institute is sponsoring, coming up
within the next two weeks. So, we'll have more discussion on all
of that after we hear this short except from Mrs. Helga
LaRouche's keynote speech.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Okay, now, let me introduce the third
[subject I want to talk about]. The solution to all of this would
be a piece of cake. It is already there! A New Silk
Road is integrated. We called it at that time, first, the
Productive Triangle; in 1991 we called it the Eurasian
Land-Bridge: the New Silk Road, which was the idea that when the
Iron Curtain had fallen, [to integrate] the populations in the
industrial centers of Europe with those of Asia, through
development corridors. This New Silk Road program would have
changed the world in the direction of a peace order already in
'91, but, unfortunately, you had Bush, Sr., you had Margaret
Thatcher, you had François Mitterrand, who all had completely
different ideas. They [wanted to reduce Russia] from a superpower
into a Third World, raw-material-producing country, and they
imposed the "shock therapy" in the Yeltsin period. They
dismantled the Russian potential in three years , and
they had no intention to allow Germany to have any kind of
economic relation with Russia. So it did not happen.
        You had the '90s, which were genocide against Russia. You
had all of the consequences of the Bush period. You had the eight
years of Clinton, which was a certain interruption; but then with
Bush, Jr. and Obama, you went back to the old project of an
American Century doctrine and the idea of a unilateral world.
        Fortunately, in 2013, President Xi Jinping announced a New
Silk Road to be {the} strategic objective of China. In the almost
three years which have passed since, this idea to end
geopolitics, to establish in the tradition of the ancient Silk
Road, a win-win cooperation among all nations on the planet, is
progressing extremely quickly. Remember, the ancient Silk Road
was a fantastic cooperation in terms of exchange of culture,
goods, paper, technology, porcelain, silk, silk-producing, and
many other cultural manifestations. It led to a tremendous
benefit for all the countries which participated, from Asia to
        The New Silk Road, obviously, is doing exactly that. The
amount of projects which have been concluded between China and
ASEAN countries, China and Latin American countries, China and
Europe, China and African countries, China and East European
countries, and now, in a very clear fashion, the economic
integration between the Eurasian Economic Union, headed by
Russia, and the New Silk Road, [is progressing very well. An
alliance] has been formed between Russia and China, with India
being the third factor in the situation. Many, many other
countries have been joining.
        Contrary to what you read and hear in the mass media, China
is not doing badly. They are shifting their economic orientation
from an export orientation, because the export markets in the
trans-Atlantic sector are shrinking. They are now going more in
infrastructure investment in many countries in the world, and to
develop the inner region of China. [To raise the] consumer [to a]
higher standard of their own population, since they have lifted
600 million people out of poverty, [into a] decent living
standard in China. This is indeed the absolute correct policy, to
say we will uplift the remaining people who are still poor, and
also make them participate in the Chinese economic miracle.
        Xi Jinping has [offered] to President Obama that the United
States [should] not only by helping to ,
which I think is the moral obligation of the United States, given
the fact that they were the key reason why these countries are
now in such disarray; by participating in the building of Africa,
which I think the West has an absolute moral obligation. The
reason why you have millions of people as refugees, not only
risking their lives, drowning in the Mediterranean, dying in the
Sahara, which has even more victims than even the Mediterranean.
Fifty years of IMF policy has denied economic development to
Africa! The reason why people are taking a risk of a 50% chance
that they will die, to cross the Mediterranean, is because they
are running from war, from hunger, from epidemics, and this is
the result of Western policy denying this continent economic
development! We have a moral obligation to join hands to develop
southwest Asia, to develop Africa.
        The United States also needs a Silk Road. If you look at the
figures of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity has
collapsed over seven years in a row. All the indexes are going
down. The United States population is in a terrible condition, or
at least in the poorer parts; while the rich become more rich and
Wall Street is having a heyday with cocaine parties and plotting
destruction for the rest of the world.
        The United States needs an infrastructure project. The roads
are bad, the traffic is ridiculous. People spend hours and hours
every day in commuting, risking to disappear with their cars into
a pothole. They have no rail system. China has built 20,000 km
fast train system up to the end of last year; they plan to have
50,000 km by the year 2020, uniting every major city in China
through a fast train system, which are fantastic — they're
smooth, they're fast, they're quiet. How many kilometers of fast
train systems has the United States built? Zero!
        So, for the United States to build its own Silk Road, to
connect with the global development perspective is a question of
its own best self-interest. We have to get the United States off
this confrontation course, and simply say, we have to shift this
policy and all this trillion-dollar investment in modernization
of nuclear arsenals and the largest military budget in the world,
trying to maintain an empire which is collapsing anyway.  Rather,
shift, get rid of Wall Street, impose Glass-Steagall, get back to
a policy of Alexander Hamilton, a credit policy; invest in
infrastructure and go in the direction of a win-win cooperation
with the other nations of the world — with Russia, China,
European nations, India; build up Latin America, build up Africa
and Southwest Asia.
        This is really the choice before the United States. I know
this is very difficult for you to think how this should be done,
but you know, think about Kennedy; think about the kind of
optimistic country the United States used to be. Think about the
idea that America was built to be "a beacon of hope and a temple
of liberty," where people from the whole world would go and try
to be free. The U.S. singing the National Anthem, "the land of
the free." Is the United States the land of the free today? I
don't think anybody who is in their right mind would say that
        Go back to the values of the American Republic, as it was
founded by people like Benjamin Franklin, or George Washington;
go back to the policies of Alexander Hamilton, Franklin D.
Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King. I think if the
United States could mobilize itself to bring back that nation,
the whole would world would love to be friends of the United
States again. Right now, I can tell you, the rest of the world
has almost given up on the United States, and when they look at
the election process, the choice between a very, very irrational
Donald Trump and unfortunately a very, very predictable Hillary
Clinton, given her statements about confrontation against Russia
and China. I think you have to really mobilize now. And I think
the 28 pages, Glass-Steagall — these are flanks which can derail
the situation long before this election is going to take place.
        We have to have a completely new world. Remember, mankind is
not a beast, and mankind is not bound to do what seems to be
inevitable. Mankind is the only species capable of reason,
capable of free will, of defining and designing a beautiful
future, and then going to implement that. The last time was with
Kennedy, the Apollo Project. I think we can absolutely do it
again! I think you have a great possibility in front of you. I
would encourage you — be American! Be true Americans again, and
the whole world will be the most happy and embrace you!

OGDEN:  So, that was a short excerpt from Helga LaRouche's
opening remarks at the San Francisco seminar; and the full
proceedings of that seminar will be made available as they are
processed.  The first panel is available on YouTube now.  And as
I said, both Kesha and Michael Steger were participants in that
event; so maybe I can just throw the discussion open to one of
the two of you guys right now, to follow up on what we just heard
from Helga.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Sure, thanks Matt.  One of the most
interesting, one of the key aspects of this whole process and
what our organization does, was demonstrated at the discussion
process in San Francisco on Wednesday.  You have key people in
their areas:  Obviously, Senator Mike Gravel represents what is a
true American political tradition; to recognize that you fight
for what's true, you go against popular opinion and peer
pressure.  And he was very clear on that question; you don't go
along to get along.  As Lyndon LaRouche often says, "You can't
fight politically and go along with the popular opinion."
        Dr. Howard Chang is a leading civil engineer; obviously the
Consul-General of Russia was someone who spoke on behalf of his
country.  But the key question is that the standards our
organization represents in this existential crisis is something
unique; it gives these individuals an opportunity to wage a
political fight at the level necessary that inspires them towards
what mankind can accomplish, and also addresses the real crisis
in the world today.  It's far too often that people who want to
address the economic crisis, people who want to address the
increasing and escalating war danger, fall far short of the
necessary to want to work with us.  And two, to recognize the
quality of method which is necessary to address these problems.
These problems are of great scope and magnitude; it's not fixing
a pothole, although we have many potholes to fix as Helga points
out.  And apparently, the Chinese won't even be allowed to build
— they wanted to build a small segment of high-speed rail
between Los Angeles and Las Vegas; very easy.  Actually, east of
Los Angeles in the desert.  And I guess apparently they won't
even be allowed to build that in the United States.  So, we can't
build any high-speed rail; it's just been outlawed basically.
This just came out.
        But the size and scope of these problems cannot be — steps
cannot be taken that simply alleviate one's guilt; or the tension
on one's own identity regarding the dangers of nuclear war, or
the increasing crisis that the economic collapse presents to many
Americans.  Too many people want to look for a quick solution; an
easy mechanism that "Maybe I can vote for this person, or that
person."  At this point, I think most people realize they can't
vote for either of these people; yet you'll still find them
consumed to discuss "Well, who do you vote for, though?"  They're
not willing to recognize that there's a higher method which is
required to act to address this kind of crisis.  And I think if
you look at Lyndon LaRouche's comments at the discussion, he
makes this somewhat clear in his remarks.  Because there is
something unique towards mankind's ability to advance.  Mankind
does not advance — unlike any other animal species on the planet
— simply because it doesn't like the problems it sees.  It's
able to advance and evolve because of a unique creative capacity;
essentially to become more beautiful, to become more creative. To
make the discoveries about the Universe that have not been
discovered before.  And that commitment, that approach is
oftentimes what's lacking; and as Helga said, we need real
leadership in the United States, we need leadership in Europe
today.  The problem can be solved so easily.
        The New Silk Road, the Eurasian development projects are so
extensive, they're ongoing; there are collaborations between
China, India, and Russia.  And then the nations of central Asia,
of Southeast Asia; the strategic intervention in the war domain
in Southwest Asia; all of these are now being addressed in a
fundamentally different way than they were by the United States
and NATO for the last 15 years since the 9/11 attacks.  Which has
just been ongoing war and destruction.
        So, there's a comprehensive picture that the United States
and Europe could participate in.  So, why aren't we?  Why don't
we take those steps?  Simply raising red flags that we're near
nuclear war, or simply complaining and trying to figure out which
of the lesser evils you vote for, are just obviously
insufficient.  So, why does that remain the discussion?  The
discussion has to take on a higher standard; and I think that's
what Lyn has already recognized over these 50 years.  Because if
you think of it, 50 years ago, there was a quality of leadership
of this nature.  John Kennedy recognized that the way you uplift
and strengthen a country is to set out on a mission that's never
been accomplished before; but it wasn't just the Moon.  It was
the largest water projects, and the development of Africa.  John
Kennedy's view of the world and of the Universe had a great scope
and magnitude to it, to help uplift the population; it wasn't a
practical campaign.  Someone like Martin Luther King had a
similar outlook; and you saw that inspire people like Bobby
Kennedy and Malcolm X, but there was a resonance.  You saw the
same thing from the great scientists like Krafft Ehricke; the
visionaries in the space program didn't look at it as kind of fun
engineering projects.  They saw it as something of a cultural
advancement of the human species. And there was a resonance with
this quality of leadership politically, that unfortunately, I
think what was made clear by the seminar, is that many people are
attracted, they gravitate towards this quality of leadership if
they have a sense of honesty; but that the ability to demonstrate
this method, to act upon that quality of the human mind and human
creativity is a challenge for much of the population in the
United States and Europe today.  And the standard that they have
to come up to, is not just acknowledging the dangers, but a
standard of operating to embolden and strengthen the population
to solve these problems and to move our civilization upwards.
        And I think that really was the culminating nature of the
discussion on Wednesday at the seminar; and it really is to bring
more people into this quality of an organization.  Of what we are
as a political organization, but that we are must become what the
nation is.  And that requires our population must become better;
they must become more courageous, more intelligent, and more
beautiful if we're actually going to address these problems.
Because they're not going to be addressed from any simple
mechanisms; and I think that really was the fight we waged here
for the seminar, and I think the only way to deal with the
current crisis you presented at the beginning.

KESHA ROGERS:  I want to continue with that theme, and add that I
think what we have to look at is the unique role of Mr. LaRouche
over these years to identify a science of physical economy; which
characterizes him in a way that was the understanding of both
Krafft Ehricke and other leaders from the standpoint of the
rejection — shall we say people that Michael brought up, such as
John F Kennedy, such as Lincoln, Martin Luther King.  A rejection
of a limits to growth policy.  And this is what Mr. LaRouche has
organized as the founding principle of his economic policy in
terms of what is the essential role of the advancement of
        During the presentation, I had an opportunity to actually
work with Michael and others there for the conference that was
just held in San Francisco.  And I presented on the unique role
of Krafft Ehricke, the German space pioneer; and what he
represented from the standpoint of putting forth the epistemology
and the philosophy on human nature's identity in terms of
creating an open world system.  Which was this idea that you
reject the Club of Rome meadows and foresters limits to growth
population reduction; the Malthusian policy that human beings are
nothing more than small lily pads, mindless beings.  That they
have no conception of advancing human creativity.  And this is
what was the unique role defining Krafft Ehricke from the
standpoint that he knew that is was not just a matter of
promoting technological advancements; but what do these
technological advances do to improve upon the conditions of human
life and the progress of mankind overall.
        And this has been something that Mr. LaRouche understood is
crucial in his science of physical economy, from the standpoint
that you're not just looking at technological advancement from
speaking of just one leap.  But you're talking about a succession
of leaps in economic progress in society.  And during the
relationship that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche developed with the
identity and role of Krafft Ehricke as a scientist and genius of
his time, is really exemplified in what Mr. LaRouche continued to
develop around his policy for a Moon-Mars colonization program. I
think that people who have not actually studied the significance
of Mr. LaRouche and why he became a threat to this zero-growth
policy, because he continued to push the limits, push mankind
beyond the so-called limitations that have been put on mankind;
just as Krafft Ehricke understood that our extraterrestrial
imperative was to actually remove all limitations and barriers
from the progress of mankind.  And the best way to do this was
through the advancement of man into the colonization of space.
        And I think it's important to note, that some people start
to put themselves into this smallness of thinking, in this
mindless thinking.  "Well, how are we going to travel into space
if we can't actually solve the problems here on Earth?"  And Mr.
LaRouche made it a priority to actually organize an understanding
of what real technological advancement is; this was exactly the
thinking of John F Kennedy in the progress of the commitment of
the Moon landing, of sending a man to the Moon and bringing him
safely back to Earth.  That this was going to lead to
technological advancements that would pay themselves off several
times over; but what was going to be essential for it, is that
you had to have breakthroughs as Mr. LaRouche called for, in
several categories of technology that was actually going to be
essential for bringing about an increase in the productivity of
society.  You take the example; you look at this massive
undertaking of what Krafft Ehricke did in the design and
development of what took men to the Moon, in terms of the Saturn
V rocket.  It wasn't something that was just thrown together on
the cheap; you couldn't have just Wall Street and Elon Musk going
in there and saying, "OK, let us just throw a spacecraft up."
This took some real engineering; it was a total transformation in
terms of the economic conditions of society.  Thousands, millions
of people were put to work; the spin-off technologies that went
into it.  Mr. LaRouche called for the advancement of four
categories of technology, in thermonuclear fusion and related
plasma technologies; or development of electromagnetic radiation
of high energy density.  Basically promoting new synthetic
materials or the production of the colonization of Mars; that you
were going to actually have to have flotillas in developing
low-Earth orbit.  And putting materials on the Moon to actually
lead to the colonization of Mars.  How are we going to get there?
We had to have engineers, we had to have astrophysicists.
        The technical considerations are all laid out very
prominently, but I think what it really represents is a
transformation of the human species; and that's what Mr. LaRouche
was very crucial in, saying that you had to actually have a
different identity of who we are as human beings.  That we are
actually distinct from the animal species; and that no
limitations can be put on mankind to keep them in a state of
bestiality.  And the question of technological advancement is,
are these advancements being made in a so-called barbaric society
that wants to keep human beings down and keep them enslaved; and
promote a policy of limitations on growth and population
reduction so these policies would not be advanced.  Or, are we
talking about a cultural Renaissance, where these advancements
are made as Krafft Ehricke understood, from the standpoint of a
new conception of mankind.  This is what has really brought
together the minds, and why Mr. LaRouche sees Krafft Ehricke as
extremely fundamental to how we overcome the threats facing us
today in society.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think that's something that certainly you
elaborated very clearly in your speech at the conference, and I
think as we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche yesterday;
everybody who is on this show was engaged in that discussion. Mr.
LaRouche put a very emphatic emphasis on the personality of
Krafft Ehricke and his courage in fighting for a vision which was
not a popular vision even among the people in the space
community.  And Mr. LaRouche asked that more research be done on
this; and I know that both you, Ben, and Megan have been immersed
in this a little bit in the recent few days and weeks.  So, maybe
you want to give people a broader idea of some of this.

MEGAN BEETS:  Well, I can say something briefly.  I was just
looking back at comments that were made by both Helga LaRouche
and Lyndon LaRouche at the memorial conference that was held in
honor of Krafft Ehricke in 1985, following his death in 1984. And
both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche reflect something which I think
really does go to the essence of the importance of the
personality of Krafft Ehricke in what we were able to achieve in
the space program.  And what they both reflected was the fact
that his life made a contribution to moving the species as a
whole forward; but why?  It's exactly because he was not
motivated by the kinds of practical considerations that were
impinging on most of the population at the time; and both Lyn and
Helga reflected the fact that Krafft Ehricke was motivated by a
total cultural optimism.  That not only was it necessary, but it
was also possible to move mankind forward into the Age of Reason;
to move man into a paradigm where we completely left the cultural
vestiges of the beast behind us.  And if you look at Krafft
Ehricke's work, which ranges from extremely technical papers on
the use of liquid hydrogen fuel to fictional stories which are
envisioning the first manned mission to Mars; but all of them I
think are motivated by this passion and vision for a better
mankind as a whole.  And he came to the conclusion himself as a
young man, that the way to realize that had to be space travel;
had to be space colonization.
        Just to add one more thing, Mrs. LaRouche was reflecting on
a speaking tour that Krafft Ehricke did with the Schiller
Institute in the 1980s in Germany.  And what she reported was,
that at that time, the resistance from the Greenie movements was
so intense at some of these meetings, the police had to be called
in.  What Krafft Ehricke reflected on at the time was that these
Greenie movements were very reminiscent of the fascist movements
of the 1930s; and that's why the only way to move forward had to
be by addressing exactly what you just raised, Kesha.  The
essence of the cultural morality of mankind; is mankind a culture
of beasts, or is mankind actually representing a culture of what
Schiller would call beautiful souls?

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think highlighting the fight for that;
he fought for that.  He went against the opposition even within
the scientific community for that kind of idea; and I think that
also goes back to something that Michael was saying about what's
needed today.  It's people like that; it's people who are going
to fight for what's true.  Not because they think it's what their
neighbors will like, or because they think it's what will make
them popular; it's because they have an internal drive that they
know that's what's needed.  You pulled up this quote — it's just
one thing among many — I just thought it was indicative; this
quote of Krafft testifying in Congress in, I believe it was in
1960, the early '60s.  And really emphatically pushing the need
for nuclear power for space; he said, the Universe runs on
nuclear power.  The stars are run by nuclear power; this nuclear
power is an inherent part of the Universe and mankind is going to
be obsolete in his attempt to be part of the Universe more
broadly — go beyond Earth, fulfill this extraterrestrial
imperative — if we reject nuclear power.  That's one thing.
Already in the early '60s, he said, if we don't do this by the
end of the decade, we're going to be obsolete in terms of our
space efforts.  Nuclear power is one issue; one critical issue,
obviously, for mankind as a whole, for space development.  But
you see this visionary quality of fighting against the opposition
to these breakthroughs; and being the force that says, "No, this
is what's needed," against massive opposition.  The tragedy is
that the opposition has taken over.
        We had, under the leadership of Krafft Ehricke and people
working with him, we had a nuclear rocket pretty much built by
the early '70s; it was basically a few steps away from being
ready to go, and it was just cancelled.  It was not found to be
too difficult; it was not found to be some failure; it was not
found to be too expensive; it was just cancelled.  And we've had
this zero-growth policy take over at that crucial pivot point —
the late '60s, early '70s — when Lyn really came on the scene
and started to continue this fight.  Obviously, Krafft resonated
with that, and came to work with the LaRouches directly based on
that; but you see the failure of departing from this visionary
quality and this fight to move into the future.  But I think he
exemplifies what's needed from the US population right now;
you're not going to find solutions from the existing cultural,
social framework.  It's failed; that's expressing the failure of
        We heard at the beginning, one of the things that strikes me
in discussing this whole war danger and the fact that we're
taking steps towards nuclear war, which I think it's important,
it was stated clearly.  There's no limited nuclear war; there's
no small nuclear war, you don't take small steps.  If it happens,
everything's over; it's gone.  But what's potentially even more
striking than that actually being a reality on the table?  Who's
talking about it?  We have a Presidential election; are these
candidates raising this as an issue?  Is there any discussion
about this?  I think it just underscores the importance of that
quality of leadership needed; and exemplified by what was done in
San Francisco.  We're going to be having, coming out of the
Schiller Institute conference in Germany coming up; and what
really this movement represents in the United States.
        And I think this should also be an appeal to our viewers.
Really, this is a time when we need escalation; we need increase;
we need more support; we need more people to be these type of
creative leaders like Krafft Ehricke, like Lyndon LaRouche.
That's the only thing that's going to save the country at this

OGDEN:  Yeah, Michael made a point which I thought was very
significant.  That, at a time like this, when it's very clear how
huge the dangers are, you cannot allow yourself to be any less
than the magnitude of the crisis challenges one to be.  And the
magnitude and scope of thinking which is necessary to solve a
crisis of this sort, of a civilizational scale, must be huge in
those terms.  And I think one thing out of this discussion about
Krafft Ehricke, that occurred to me is, when you're thinking
about where the entire idea of the geopolitics of the last 70
years has been rooted; it is rooted in the zero-growth
technology, no development kind of paradigm.  The idea that there
are limited resources that a growing population is fighting over,
and these territories and so forth; that is the fundamental tenet
of the geopolitics that has dominated this paradigm which has now
failed.  When you talk about a New Paradigm, when you talk about
"win-win" as Xi Jinping says it, instead of winner take all, all
are winners.  That fundamentally requires, it begs a new attitude
towards our concept of growth; that there is no idea of limits to
growth, of fixed natural resources.  But that you have an
ever-expanding possibility of ever-increasing potentials of
growth.  I think as very demonstrated, China, in a certain way,
does understand that in the way that Krafft Ehricke understood
it; is a central element of their current policy, is not only the
One Belt, One Road policy, but it is also this exploration of the
Moon. Now just going to the Moon, as a sort of space race or
setting your foot on a foreign body or something like that; but
saying we're going to discover fundamentally new about the
Universe.  And as Mr. LaRouche has been emphasizing, this Chang'e
mission to explore the far side of the Moon and everything that
is there to be discovered.  We don't even know; we don't know the
extent to which we will discover brand new things about the
structure of the Universe when we explore this new territory.
That, I think, speaks to this idea that the idea of a New
Paradigm, a new "win-win" system, is rooted in overturning the
last 70 years of this Malthusian concept of zero-growth, zero
technological development, and fixed resources.
        And it's only natural that Krafft Ehricke understood it in
those terms.

        DENISTON:  Anything else just goes to the longer legacy of
the Zeus vs. Prometheus fight.  You talk about this zero-growth
paradigm; where did this come from?  The British; the British
royal family.  People like Prince Philip; people like Prince
Bernhard.  This oligarchical mindset.  These guys are so
explicit, their view of mankind is just disgusting cattle to be
managed.  Zeus would just pal up with these guys; they wouldn't
even need to introduce themselves.  They would just get together
like they've know each other for ages.  That mentality of this
imperial conception of the management of mankind as a bestial
species; that's where this zero-growth paradigm came from in this
recent period, but it stretches back through history.  You look
at the writings of Aeschylus on the Prometheus vs. Zeus fight;
the attack on Prometheus.  And you see that as a reflection of a
true negative principle of society at the time, which is carried
through to today.  This hatred of human progress; this hatred of
creative development; this desire to keep mankind suppressed to
this lower level.  What angered Zeus wasn't just that he had
something stolen from him; it's that he had a whole class of
people he was managing, that Prometheus then gave an ability to
uplift and realize their own humanity.  And for that, Zeus
punished him.
        It's the same fight today; but today, Zeus has thermonuclear
arsenals at his fingertips.  We're at a clear, and I think this
was very well expressed even in the discussions back in the '80s
that we're talking about, with the need to move to the Age of
Reason.  We're at the point where mankind has developed
technologically to the point where if we allow that type of
process to continue, you're talking about mankind annihilating
himself; and that's what we're talking about right now, with
these NATO deployments.  It's complete insanity.  But again, as
we're saying, it's not going to be solved in the negative, by
just saying, "Stop that. Don't do that."  It's going to have to
be resolved in the higher realization and actualization of the
true nature of mankind as a Promethean force; as Krafft Ehricke
represented.  Today, as much as then, this need for an Age of
Reason is the imperative; and space is emblematic of the Age of
Reason, the age of mankind, really.

OGDEN:  Well, I think it's important in the context of everything
that we've discussed, also to note that we really are on the edge
of a meltdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system.  It was
noted this week that now major European banks are beginning to
cease their investment into the ECB, because of the ECB's
negative interest policy.  They said, why should we be putting
money into the ECB if they're just going to be charging us for
putting our money there?  So, Helga LaRouche said, there's a lot
of European bankers who are sleeping with billions of dollars
underneath their pillows in the current days.  But this is, even
without the instability of what could happen in the build up to
the Brexit vote at the end of this month.  I know our
institutional question for this week, which we haven't addressed;
was on the subject of the Brexit.  And Mrs. LaRouche said, if
this means that Ireland and Scotland are going to leave the UK,
and the UK will break up; then sure, I welcome this.  But in
seriousness, we are on the verge of the meltdown of the
trans-Atlantic financial system; the productivity of the United
States is through the floor; unemployment in this country is
unbelievable, especially youth unemployment.  It's at levels that
are unprecedented in the modern history of this country.  And at
the same time, you have the possibility of an entirely economic
paradigm presenting itself in the form of the New Silk Road;
everything that's coming out of the BRICS.  We have the visit by
Narendra Modi to the United States this week; he spoke to a joint
session of Congress.  There's a lot that could just happen; as
Helga LaRouche said, it would be very easy.  It would be a piece
of cake for the United States to join this New Paradigm; and I
think that's the ongoing of the LaRouche Movement
internationally, is making that possibility very, very real.  It
requires a policy revolution in the United States to bring that
about; but as was clear from the seminar in San Francisco this
week — and I think will continue to be clear in our
interventions in New York City around the Manhattan Project that
Mr. LaRouche has initiated; and then this upcoming conference
that's being sponsored by the Schiller Institute in Europe in the
coming weeks.  The activities of the LaRouche Movement
internationally are crucial; and it's very significant that we're
at the breaking point in terms of several aspects of this.
        Mrs. LaRouche also put a big emphasis on the continued fight
around the declassification of the 28 pages, because of what this
would imply in terms of the potential to bring down the entire
Anglo-Saudi empire.  And also everything that was contingent on
the lies that were told in the aftermath of 9/11; and what that
has led to in terms of the perpetual war policies, the refugees
who are coming into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East.
        So, all of these things taken together, represent a
situation which is dynamic, it's changing very rapidly, and it is
fertile ground for the types of interventions that the LaRouche
Movement is making internationally right now.
        So, let me invite Kesha or Mike, if you want to say anything
more, in terms of reflections at the conclusion of this
discussion, you're welcome to.

        STEGER:  I'd say, let's get rid of Obama and join the New

        ROGERS: Yeah.  I think it's true; we are at the end of an
era of representation of barbarism, war, and these limits to
growth consequences that Krafft Ehricke was very well aware of.
We're seeing the emergence of a new system of cooperation, a new
collaboration and dialogue among civilizations that's being led
by Russia and China.  And I think the continued question being
presented by our activity is, will people actually join with
LaRouche and join with the nations who are representing this new
direction for mankind?  And that means doing what Krafft Ehricke
did, and breaking with all practicality, and as you said Ben,
popularity; and actually going out and doing that which is
seemingly impossible.  I think China gives us the light and the
inspiration as to human beings; that is our mission, that is what
we do.  We do those things which seem almost impossible.  And we
do those things that actually help to bring about the solutions
that are going to lead to a greater condition for mankind.  So, I
think that's what we're representing right now, and we're on the
brink of a total breakthrough; unlike anything that's been seen.
But also, as Mrs. LaRouche said in her opening remarks, this
breakthrough is going to come with rejecting the absence of any
discussion on the threat of this thermonuclear war and what
mankind really faces.  Because the question is, what kind of
society are we going to actually demand be brought into
existence?  What kind of future are we going to actually bring
about for those generations not yet born?  And Mr. LaRouche is
committed to that, and many more people as we've stated, need to
do the same.

        OGDEN:  OK.  Well, thank you very much, Kesha.  With that,
I'm going to bring a conclusion to this webcast here this
evening.  I'd like to thank both Kesha and Michael for joining
us; and also thank you to Megan and to Ben.  So, please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com; and as I think you can tell, we have a
very busy few weeks ahead of us, and a lot of responsibility. So,
thank you very much; good night.

LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 3. juni 2016:
Vi må rejse ud i rummet og virkeliggøre vores fælles bestemmelse

Ben Deniston gennemgår bl.a. de mange, internationale tiltag, med grafiske fremstillinger, der støtter alternativet til det anglo-amerikanske imperiums fremstød for global atomkrig, og Kesha Rogers fra Texas taler om afdøde tysk-amerikanske rumforskningspionér Krafft Ehrickes filosofi omkring menneskets indtagelse af rummet, og mennesket som et 'multi-globalt' væsen, der ikke er begrænset til blot én planet, m.m.

Engelsk udskrift. 


Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast
        June 3, 2016

        MEGAN BEETS: Hello! It's June 3rd, 2016. I'd like to welcome
all of you to our regular Friday broadcast here at LaRouche PAC.
My name is Megan Beets. I'm joined tonight in the studio by Ben
Deniston, and I'm also joined, via video, by LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee members Kesha Rogers, joining me from Houston Texas and
Diane Sare, joining us from New Jersey and Manhattan.
        To start things off tonight, I'm going to read the question
that came in to Mr. LaRouche from our institutional contact in
Washington, and then turn it over to you, Diane, to deliver Mr.
LaRouche's response, as well as some opening remarks, to start
our discussion off.
        The question reads: "Mr. LaRouche, the U.S. Senate passed a
controversial bill known as the Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act (JASTA) that would allow the families of 9/11
victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for its alleged
financial support of al-Qaeda. The bill now goes to the U.S.
House of Representatives for a vote. What are your
recommendations to the House of Representatives?"

        DIANE SARE: Well, I can report what Mr. LaRouche had to say
about that, specifically, and then more in the background. He
said that "We must state the case straightforwardly. It must be a
clean bill with no loopholes, i.e., loopholes which would allow
the Obama administration, or whatever administration that's
covering up for the Saudis, to claim that there's negotiations
going on with them that would prevent the families from being
able to sue." He said, "It must not only be passed, but with a
veto-proof majority. The issue is clear. The British and the
Saudis were behind the crimes of 9/11 and should be held legally
        I think this is extremely important with what I wanted to
say, in terms of starting off the discussion this evening, which
is that the American population is in somewhat of a quandary.
They're in an unfair position because, thanks to our terribly
controlled news media, they're operating without full knowledge
of the situation that they're in. They're thinking that we're in
a presidential election campaign where they have to choose
between Hillary Clinton, who is nothing but a lying, killer clone
of Barack Obama; maybe Bernie Sanders, who's really just a fraud,
and who has never met an anti-Russian policy that he has not
supported; or Donald Trump, who is an FBI agent with a glorified
        Actually, this is simply not the case. There's a much
greater dynamic in the world right now, which is that the
trans-Atlantic system is completely bankrupt. That means the
British Royal Family and their Saudi and American puppets like
Barack Obama, like the Bush family, are in a mad scramble to
somehow maintain their grip, even as their system completely
disintegrates. What Ben is about to present is the new dynamic of
the planet, which is absolutely huge. It involves over half of
the world's population and it involves over half of the world's
population actually moving in a progressive, future-oriented,
direction, which is something completely anomalous to most people
and most people's thinking in the United States today.
        So, what I just wanted to give a sense of is (1) the danger,
in terms of the urgency of yanking down Obama by exposing his
collusion with Saudi Arabia and Britain, the very people who
committed the atrocities on September 11, 2001 in our country, so
that we don't have thermonuclear war; and (2) that the United
States can be brought to join this greater paradigm, which is
actually what's affecting everything inside the United States,
not the local affairs as you see them.
        I'll just say, people may recall that our Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter a couple months ago actually said that we should
quadruple our defense spending in Europe. He said that we had to
be prepared for a threat from Russia — which is not threatening
us. But, what we are in fact doing is aggressively moving against
Russia, by supporting NATO military drills in the Baltic nations.
Germany has sent 1,000 troops into Lithuania for these drills.
NATO is erecting anti-ballistic missile systems. They have
already been placed in Romania. Now we're talking about placing
them in Poland. These systems can easily be converted to carry
{offensive} weapons; they're not just {defensive} systems. You
can equip any of these rockets with nuclear warheads.
        Putin has addressed this very directly. I'll just share what
Putin had to say about that. He talks about these compact launch
pads. "At the moment, the interceptor missiles installed have a
range of 500 km (310 miles), soon this will go up to 1,000 km
(621 miles), and worse than that, they can be re-armed with 2,400
km (1,491 mile) offensive missiles even today, and it can be done
by simply switching the software, so that even the Romanians
themselves won't know. How can this not be a threat to us? It
certainly is. That is the reason why we have to respond now, and
if yesterday some areas in Romania did not know what it is like
to be a target, today we will have to take action to ensure our
security. Let me repeat, these are response measures, a response
only. We were not the first to take such steps. The same will be
done with regard to Poland. We will wait for certain actions to
be taken in Poland. We are not going to do anything until we see
missiles on the neighboring territory. And we have the necessary
resources. You saw, the whole world saw our capabilities in term
of our medium-range sea- and air-based missiles." He's referring
to what Russia just did with regard to Syria, the phenomenal
accuracy of missiles launched from the Mediterranean and
elsewhere on wiping out ISIS targets. "We are not violating
anything, but our ground-based Iskander missile systems have
proven themselves as superb."
        This is what Putin is now saying, and then our Defense
Secretary Aston Carter went on to give a raving speech in a U.S.
Naval Academy Commencement Address, where he talked about the
great technological superiority of American weapons, which is
simply not the case. Kesha will elaborate further [that] since
Obama has dismantled out space program, we simply do not have the
science and research to produce accurate and effective defense
weapons systems. It's simply a fraud. I'm sure we are spending a
lot of money. It's probably like our health care system, where
we're spending more money than anyone else on the planet, and
doing the worst job of producing anything.
        I'll just say that there was just this study that came out
from a fellow at Dartmouth College, and the Bush School of
Government at Texas A&M University. Secretary of State James
Baker III, at the time when negotiations were being held with
Gorbachev for the reunification of Germany, was {lying to
Gorbachev at that time} [in 1990] — that the United States was
already engaged in plans for expansion of NATO, even as we were
telling Gorbachev that we were not, in terms of the conditions to
reunify Germany.
        So, it is no wonder that Putin is responding in this
fashion. The aggressor is NATO and Obama, as tools of a bankrupt
British Empire system. And what Americans need to know, and what
the world needs to bear in mind, is the strength of the new
paradigm, which is actually huge. It is the actions of Putin and
Xi Jinping which are the reason why we've not plunged into
thermonuclear war earlier. I think, as you'll see, they
definitely have the upper hand in this situation. This is
something that Americans should actually be acting in concert
with, as opposed to the myopic focus of the current U.S. election

        BEN DENISTON: Thanks Diane. We were discussing with Mr.
LaRouche and Mrs. LaRouche yesterday, and had some discussions
earlier in the week, and I think maybe just to reference what
Mrs. LaRouche defined as just two stark directions the world is
going in. On the one side, as you're saying, you have this
insane, frankly imperial-style push, still, as long as you have
Obama as this Puppet-in-Chief for the British, they're going for
this threat of war drive. Every step they take is just further
and further to insanity.
        I think part of what we're facing in the United States is
people are not going to understand what's really going on unless
they look at the global picture, and unless they look at the
global picture from the right perspective. I think you're
absolutely right. These elections are a joke unless you see them
in the context of where the world's actually going right now.
Obviously, the United States plays a critical role, but you're
not going to define what the United States does, or where the
United States goes, from within the United States. People have to
look at what's happening in the world, to know how to act here in
the United States to actually achieve something.
        So, we want to take some time today and just put a little
bit of depth — and I think we're going to be doing more of this
in additional shows, additional segments in the future — but we
want to put some depth on this new paradigm that is emerging. I
just want to reference some of the developments, some stuff
recently, some stuff from the months and years, but look at it
together as one picture of an emerging — I would really call it
this "win-win" paradigm to reference the refrain and the concept
of China's President Xi Jinping, where he said that what China is
pursuing is a "win-win" policy.
        What we've seen recently, over years, but also just in the
recent days and weeks, is a real consolidation of other nations
coming around that policy, coming around the idea of a win-win
principle. Maybe different nations are approaching it in
different terms, or they have different words for it, or
different expressions, or maybe stated in different languages,
but I think there's a clear unification around this principle —
that we have to move beyond the idea that every nation is
competing for some finite set of resources, and the gains of
another nation are somehow implicitly and inherently going to be
a loss for your nation. In other terms, sometimes, this general
"geopolitical view," as some people discuss it and think about it
— the idea that the world is this big game being played and you
have to ensure that you get the biggest slice of the pie, and any
gains made by another nation are somehow going to be detrimental,
because that's less potential gains for you.
        You've seen a very clear and explicit break from this, not
just in words, not just in statements, but in actual action from
this new paradigm, centered around China, China's alliance with
Russia, and increasingly, cooperation with India. And you're
seeing a clear commitment to the idea that the future of mankind
depends on cooperation in common progress, in common development
— that progress and development in joint cooperation between
nations benefits both parties and other parties involved in, in
the nearby area: this idea of win-win cooperation. It's not
win-loss cooperation. Just because you win doesn't mean the other
guy loses. We need to rise to a real mature understanding of how
mankind progresses, what the nature of progress is for the human
species — that mankind creates wealth, creates progress, by
creative development, and the only way we're going to have a
stable, progressive, future-oriented world — or any world at
all, frankly, at this point, at the level of thermonuclear
technologies — is a policy based on this principle, this
recognition: that we can no longer tolerate the suppression or
the denial of progress of other nations, and we must embark on
policies that ensure cooperative development among nations.
        These are nice ideas. We could talk about this. Everybody's
heard politicians saying these kind of things. Maybe not in the
U.S. so much even, these days. The point is this is actually
happening. These are not just "nice ideas." This is where the
world is going. This is happening now. This is the dynamic taking
over the world. This defines what we have to do in the United
States to ensure that we can be part of this process.
        On the first graphic here we have displayed [Fig. 1], a lot
of this centers around China's pivotal role with their One
Belt-One Road program, comprised of a land-based revival of the
Silk Road orientation, as a real development corridor, bringing
development into the interior regions of Asia and Eurasia, but
also coupled with their Maritime Silk Road initiative. This has
kind of been a keystone of an expanding development of Asia as a
whole, bringing in more and more nations, again, not in a
competitive way necessarily, but in a way of a win-win policy.
        I do want to illustrate, just give a quick sketch, on some
of the developments that have been occurring. But I'd like to
premise this by just referencing some of the recent statements by
the leaders of these nations. Again, Russia, China, and India
coming along as a critical third partner in this whole process.
        Just to highlight a few things, the President of India was
in China just this past week; and while he was there, he gave an
address on India-Chinese relations. And just to quote what he
said, he said: "India and China are poised to play a significant
and constructive role in the 21st Century. When Indians and
Chinese come together to address global challenges and build on
their shared interests, there is no limit to what our two peoples
can jointly achieve." He went on to say, "Both sides should work
with the aim of insuring that we do not burden our coming
generations, by leaving our unresolved problems to them." So,
that was the President of India speaking in China.
        Also earlier this week, you had a former Chinese ambassador
to Russia travel to Moscow and speak about Russian-Chinese
relations. And he just said quite frankly, bilateral relations
between Russia and China are now at a 400-year high. You hear
politicians in the United States, you're lucky if they talk about
a 4-year perspective or a 4-year analysis; let alone a 400-year
assessment. This former ambassador to Russia from China said
there's obviously differences; anytime you have two major
nations, you have differences. But he said, these are of a
secondary level; and he said it's his assessment, as somebody who
deals with top-level relations between these two nations, that
the Presidents of the two nations — Xi and Putin — have a clear
conceptual understanding, a clear conceptual agreement. So that's
significant; again, reflecting this orientation.
        Just this past Tuesday, the Premier of China was speaking to
media editors and newspaper editors for various Asian
publications; and then speaking to an Indian editor, he really
emphasized that Chinese-Indian cooperation not only benefits
China and India, but all of Asia. So again, here's the Premier of
China, you had the President of India saying similar things; the
Premier of China saying similar things. It's a reflection of
Russia being a part of this. These are clear statements just in
the recent period of this move towards this integration
perspective. China's Premier also said — as an interesting note
— that China welcomes India's leadership and role in this new
development project linking India, Iran, and Afghanistan; we can
see this on the next image here on the map [Fig. 2]; centered
around Iran's Chabahar port. This new proposal for water
transport, shipping, the development of this port; the
development of the rail lines and related industry, and
stretching up into Afghanistan. So, this is a new development
project that India's partaking in; Iran's partaking in; and is
going to bring critical development also into Afghanistan. And
this is just typical; this kind of project — if you look at it
in the old paradigm, maybe China could say this threatens our
interests, because it's insuring other nations are gaining more
power and that might be more threatening to our geopolitical role
in the region. But no, this is a different paradigm; this is a
new paradigm.
        That kind of thinking applies in the US and London still; it
still dominates the trans-Atlantic. But you go to Asia, and the
Chinese Premier is saying, great; this is excellent. We encourage
India's role in this type of development; we want more of this.
So, I think this project is just one of a number of projects that
I think are moving closer and closer to what the LaRouches
defined with their Eurasian Land-Bridge perspective. A lot can be
said, but just to highlight a few things. You have this Chabahar
port project, linking India and Iran into Afghanistan. You have
the One Belt, One Road, including the New Silk Road program going
through the heart of the Eurasian continent. You also have just
within the past year, the completion and upgrading of some of
these rail lines; where now you can travel directly from China
all the way to Germany, faster than you could by shipping route,
by direct rail connections through the whole heart of Asia into
Europe across Eurasia. You have the prospect of regular upgraded
rail connections and transport from China down into Iran, now
that the Iran sanctions are lifted; and we have the prospect of
Iran playing a larger role in the development of this region.
        These are just a few examples of building off of China's One
Belt, One Road, further related development projects; just
reflecting the overall orientation towards growth, infrastructure
investment, scientific investment, development throughout the
Eurasian continent, led by these nations.
        I think also indicative of this whole New Paradigm
orientation, very interesting and illustrative of what we're
talking about; you also have in the last two years, the creation
and emergence of another economic development bloc — the
Eurasian Economic Union — highlighted here in yellow. Of which
Russia is the largest component of this economic agreement, this
new economic zone which includes Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus,
Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan. So, this is kind of central north Asian
bloc of economic development.

        So again, if you're thinking like a British geo-politician,
you might think this is a competition to China's One Belt, One
Road program. Here you have Russia coming in, working with these
other nations in the northern regions, trying to expand their
economic development; while China is leading the way with their
One Belt, One Road program. But in Asia, in the New Paradigm, in
the way these leaders are thinking in a real sane, human fashion,
they're not thinking about it in those terms. You had President
Putin recently explicitly saying that they're looking towards
integration and cooperation with the One Belt, One Road program
explicitly. He said they're even working on specific projects as
part of the Eurasian Economic Union, which will directly
integrate into the New Silk Road, the One Belt, One Road program.
It's not competition; it's not a geopolitical perspective. It's a
perspective of win-win cooperation of development, or progress;
and this is what has the trans-Atlantic powers, these
geopolitical mindset people all freaked out.
        Just to highlight a few other things, you have space. You
have a Renaissance of space exploration in Asia, while the US is
decaying under Obama's cancellation of the manned space program
and his cuts and his complete lack of leadership in space; you
have rapid progress being made in Asia. Just within the recent
period, you have two new space launch centers, advanced space
launch centers now open in Russia and China; as indicated here.
        You have major water projects; massive south water north
projects, which is remarkable. They've made manmade rivers of a
large scale, directing water from the abundant waters of the
south to the water-starved regions of the north. And they've made
major steps in managing and developing their water system as a
nation as a whole; and they've got plans to further that with
some of the more challenging aspects going further west with some
of the western routes. So, they've already accomplished certain
parts of this; and they're taking further steps.
        But again, they're looking at positive developments for the
whole region; they're recently said that they're looking towards
helping the development of the Mekong River valley down in
Southeast Asia. Where you have the Mekong River running through
Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam — this region here — and
there's been recent droughts, major water shortages and
difficulties; largely just from lack of development, lack of
doing what the US did under Franklin Roosevelt with the TVA
[Tennessee Valley Authority]. Lack of developing basic dams,
irrigation reservoirs, water management systems to actually
manage this river valley as a whole to insure regular, steady
water supplies are available to the people. So, China's saying
they want to look into helping to facilitate that process as a
new project.
        You have India now re-raising the prospects for another
massive water transfer program — their river inter-linking
project; where they can actually interlink some of the major
rivers and again manage their water system as a national
territory as a whole in a much more efficient and much more
productive program.
        And I'd just like if you look at these projects together,
and this is just a sample of some of the stuff that's either in
process, or is becoming likely, or is being coming discussed and
could be a future orientation. If you look at this together,
you're looking at the greatest and development and management of
the water cycle in this entire East Asia, South Asia, Southeast
Asia region, to be the greatest management of water that mankind
has ever undertaken in the history of our species on this planet.
        So, these are the kinds of things you see happening, in a
win-win cooperative paradigm. And I want to end with just one
last project; something very close to Mr. LaRouche specifically,
because he's played a major role in supporting this. Which is the
Kra Canal proposal; and this is a canal for water transport
that's been proposed to cut through the Kra Isthmus in Thailand.
To facilitate greater trade between, as you can see here, the
South China Sea and obviously stretching into the Pacific and
China and Japan and Korea and into the Indian Ocean. From which,
India is obviously a major player there; but then also, those
routes obviously go up through the New Suez Canal — constructed
by Egypt in a remarkable amount of time — and up into Europe.
These major anchor points of world trade — in the Pacific with
China, Japan, Korea on the one side; and then in the Indian Ocean
and over into Europe on the other side. This entire trade process
suffers a massive bottleneck currently, as all this trade has to
currently go through the Malaccan Strait; which is this narrow
passage between Malaysia and Indonesia.
        Right now, something on the order of one-fourth of all
global trade goes through these narrow straits; not one-fourth of
the trade in this region, or one-fourth of the Asian trade.
One-fourth of all trade globally goes through this region. I've
seen different estimates, I'm not sure; that might be one-fourth
of total ships or one-fourth of tonnage, or one-fourth of value,
I'm not sure exactly. I've seen other estimates say that it's 40%
of global trade; I think it probably depends upon exactly how you
count. But this is a major chunk of all trade occurring on the
whole entire planet; going through this one congested, some parts
very shallow and narrow, region down around Singapore in the
Malaccan Straits. And this has been known now for many years to
be major bottleneck constraining cheap, efficient, rapid trade
between these sections of the world. So, in the '80s, Mr.
LaRouche became very involved in this proposal to make a new
canal through this relatively narrow passage; this narrow isthmus
in Thailand. And enable a dramatic increase in the volume;
reduction of the cost; increase in the speed of trade through
these regions. Despite having been fought for for many years, now
in this new paradigm, this is now being put on the table again.
        You just had an official advisory board of the Thailand
government endorsing this program. China has made it clear it
would like to do this program, and maybe even finance the whole
thing if it goes forward. You have official experts in the United
States recognizing the importance of this program as kind of a
keystone; relieving this bottleneck, and another major component
of facilitating this vast expanse of economic growth, trade, and
development in this whole region.
        So, this is a very exciting, singular project, but it's
emblematic and I think an example of the whole perspective we're
talking about. And again, I think the theme is win-win. You have
China, you have Russia, you have India; they've had conflicts,
they've had wars, they've had tensions. But you have leaders now
in these nations — typified by Xi Jinping, typified by Putin,
Modi's role in India. They're now saying, we as mankind, as
nations, as participants in humanity, need to move beyond this
geopolitical approach to our existence on this planet. We have to
move to a policy where we recognize growth, development,
progress; all these things we're talking about here are necessary
for everybody. Not just for us. We can no longer tolerate the
suppression of this kind of development for others; we have to go
to a global system centered around this kind of development. And
again, that's not just being talked out, as you saw here, as you
see what's going on with these developments.
        Again, this is just a sketch; you could spend weeks going
through what's happening in the world. And by the time you got
done, you'd have a whole other set of things to catch up on;
because a lot would have happened since the time you started. But
this is now the center of what's happening in the world; and this
defines how we need to think about what's happening. This is what
has these London-Wall Street imperial faction people freaked out.
Because how have the British existed? Well, it existed on
geopolitics; they've been the geo-politicians. They've been
existing based upon looting; if there's nations they can't loot
directly, I'm sure there's perpetual conflict between different
regions. And especially under Obama, the United States has come
under this geopolitical imperial orientation.
        And to just come back to what you said Diane, the opposition
from this imperial faction couldn't be clearer. They're taking
step after step towards what would be thermonuclear annihilation
in response to this emerging New Paradigm. This NATO summit
coming up; the exercises being started now by NATO. Putin
couldn't be clearer or saner in his response; saying, we've been
talking about this for years. You guys are making clear overt
military threats to us with your expansion of NATO, with the
development of more advanced weapons systems closer and closer to
our borders. What do you expect us to do? We have to respond for
our own safety, and for the safety of the world, quite frankly.
        So, I just think the situation couldn't be more stark; but I
think especially here in the United States, we have to uplift the
level of discussion to this global perspective. What's happening
in Asia now, what's happening between Putin and Russia and China,
increased collaboration with India; that is now increasingly
becoming the defining factor for the world situation.

        ROGERS: I think that what we're seeing going on in the world
right now, and what you just laid out, really puts the
perspective on the table of the decades-long fight of Mr. and
Mrs. LaRouche now coming to fruition. I thought that it was
important that you brought up Mr. LaRouche's fight around these
development projects; around the Kra Canal in the '80s. And the
fact of the matter is, at that very time, he was also fighting
for the development of space exploration; around the "Woman on
Mars" Mars mission, and the importance of mankind in space.
        Now, I think what we're seeing right now can really be
characterized from the standpoint of what the German-American
space pioneer Krafft Ehricke described as the emergence of
mankind into a poly-global world. And I think when you think of
this conception of a poly-global world, where mankind is not
confined to the limited resources of one globe, but moves out
into the expansion of space; that's what we're seeing happen
right now. What Russia and China represent is a move away from —
we're not just talking about one globe; we're talking about one
globe that has been dominated by a British Empire, a policy of
murder. A population reduction, and defying this conception of
the creative nature of human beings and the human mind. When you
think about Russia and China are doing to pull together over 50%
of the world, this is quite remarkable; and it can only be looked
at from the standpoint of a new species of mankind. It's a real
force of good versus evil; and the evil is completely being
destroyed and losing. Because the drive right now for
thermonuclear war being pushed and perpetuated continuously by
the stooge Obama in the White House; who's been pushing the
murderous policy to protect the British Empire, protect the
Saudis. And to continue to push a policy that's going to lead to
not just a continuation of a confinement to one world; but a one
world where people are on the verge of being exterminated and
blowing themselves up, unless we change our attitudes now. And I
think the matter is, is what Diane and you both presented; which
is that we have a real clear choice and opportunity before us. I
think it's very important as to the very important fight that our
international organization is leading right now, that we have to
put an end to Obama, to this drive for thermonuclear war, and to
NATO and what it represents in terms of its escalations and
provocations of war towards Russia and China.
        But I think to continue to look on the optimistic, positive
side, which most of the world is moving toward, we have to give
the United States and American people a sense of what we must be
participating in, in terms of our mission to join in this drive
toward peaceful cooperation and progress. I think it's very
important to note that today is the 51st anniversary of the first
American to walk in space — Ed White; which was June 3, 1965.
        As I was stating, you take the conception laid by the German
space pioneer Krafft Ehricke; what he conceptualized was not
something that was confined to one people or one nation. But that
was going to be the intention that was going to unify all people
in a common interest that our destiny and mission as mankind was
to break with the confines of Earth that put limitations on man,
and that bestialized human beings and pit human beings against
each other; to find our common interest in the development of
space. And you're seeing more and more people starting to
recognize this intention and this need for cooperation. It was
just reported today that at an international air show in Germany,
the head of the European Space Agency, Johann-Dietrich Wörner,
actually made the point of manned missions being indispensable
for space and planetary research. He said because human
astronauts can access and act independently — unlike robots. He
also talked about the need for building permanent lunar bases;
and he called this a Moon Village. And he said that this Moon
Village can be constructed with a lot of material already
existing on the Moon; and that the Moon Village would be a
stepping stone to reaching other planets such as Mars and so
        Now, I wanted to say in that context, that I attended an
event last night, and the speaker was speaking on the Curiosity
mission; which most people remember landed on Mars in 2012. What
I brought up at that time was that the excitement around the fact
that — as Mr. LaRouche conceptualized it — that the mind of man
and the extended sensorium of man had now been put on Mars; but
that there are limitations to that. And the speaker recognized
those limitations and he said something to the effect of what Mr.
Wörner said in Germany; which is, we have an obligation as
mankind to actually go out into the reaches of space. To colonize
the Moon; to colonize Mars. And to build these colonies because
of the limitations that are put on mankind. And he said that we
have to look at it from the standpoint that this is our destiny.
        This is exactly what Krafft Ehricke recognized as he
presented a principal work called {Lunar Industrialization and
Settlement; Birth of Poly-Global Civilization}. In the work, he
summarizes "the major aspects of lunar industrialization and
settlement, and identifies that scientific and evolutionary facts
leading to a definitive justification of why man must
industrialize space. Changing our present closed world into a
present world. He also establishes the philosophy of the
extra-terrestrial imperative as a defense of justification for a
long-term based on mankind's ability to transcend the limits of
one small planet." And that is what Russia and China are
representing; the transformation and transcendence of this one
small planet being controlled by an imperial policy which is
ready to be ended and to be destroyed, {if} we do the right thing
and we take the right actions.
        If you look at this from the standpoint of the continued
aspect of what you presented, Ben, as the objective of what China
put forward as a win-win strategy of cooperation. They're
continuing to do that, as the Chinese space leaders have just put
forth an additional perspective to that win-win strategy of
cooperation, international collaboration on the future Moon
missions. The first Chinese astronaut presented that a study is
being conducted to justify the importance of lunar exploration;
and Russia and the European Space Agency are already discussing
collaboration on lunar missions. The intention is that there
would be astronauts sent to the Moon by China by 2036; and he
presented this speaking at a conference on manned space
exploration in Russia. I think that that is quite extraordinary,
because when you look at the fact that Obama has continued to
push a murderous policy against our space program, and to
continue to drive and perpetuate an extermination war for
mankind. The question is, why are the American people still stuck
in a completely insane world of lies and fraud; thinking that an
election actually has some real bearing on the future of mankind,
when it doesn't?
        What is going to determine the future is that the United
States has to join with this perspective of a poly-global world,
a world not confined by limitations; as Krafft Ehricke laid out.
I think what we're going to witness — and Megan has presented
this on many occasions — within the next two years with China's
mission to the far side of the Moon, puts a real perspective on
the development of space. And building the permanent colonies;
but more importantly, it puts a perspective on that which is
going to determine what the future of mankind is going to be.
It's not going to be this election; it's not going to be this
bankrupt British Empire and Wall Street system. It's going to be
the emergence of a new human species that — as Mr. LaRouche has
defined — is actually focusing on what type of future do we want
to create and must we create for our children and grandchildren.
And that's the way that Russia and China and 50% of the world is
joining them; they're not taking up these projects just because
they want to build infrastructure and new projects. No lower
intention of our perspective as a species can be taken up, except
for the one which actually transforms the conception of who we
are as a human species. That's what this political election is
missing; that's what we've been missing in society as we've sat
back with our eyes closed, blindfolded. Doing nothing about the
injustices, the murderous policy, the war and so forth that has
been dominating our society for far too long. Now that you're
seeing that this drive for evil is about to end now, we should be
a part of participating in that perspective for mankind; which is
the alternative that's being presented right now.

        SARE: Well, I think that's great. And to return to what was
brought up at the very beginning, one of the flanks on this
matter is the question of the Saudi role and Obama's protection
of them in the 9/11 attacks. If you think about all of the wars
that the United States has been engaged in since September 11,
2001, if that could be addressed in a sharp fashion; and if Obama
were to be brought down, jailed, impeached, indicted. That
obviously would have a dramatic impact on what the future of the
United States looked like, and the potential for our nation to be
a welcome partner in this phenomenal change of direction for the

        DENISTON: Yeah, that's definitely the critical flank we
have. And I know, Diane, that you've expressed the importance of
this obviously in New York in particular; obviously the major
epicenter of these attacks. But the other aspect of this is,
Obama has to go; the idea that we're going to wait for the
election or something. This is bigger than that; this is about
freeing the United States from this 9/11 dynamic as a whole. You
look at this British-Saudi operation; it wasn't just something in
and of itself. It was the event that was used by these British
assets, who were created well before the event and had been
operating well before the event, for these types of activities.
Something that LaRouche has been going after since the '80s in
terms of these covert, irregular warfare-type operations the
British have created; including these Saudi fundamentalist
        I was just looking back at Putin's statements recently; how
he was referencing the threat Russia is being faced with in
regards to this NATO advancement. And he again referenced the US
pulling out of the ABM Treaty in 2002. What was the ostensible
reason for us doing that? 9/11. Now are we worried about
ballistic missiles coming from the mujahideen in Afghanistan? Is
that why we had to pull out of the ABM Treaty; because we worried
about Osama bin Laden out of some case we can't even find,
operating ballistic missiles? It's been the cover to really
pursue this whole insane perpetual war policy; this police state
policy in the United States. The things you hear — "It was Bush,
not Obama. So, how are you blaming Obama?" Obama is actively
covering up for the worst atrocity committed against Americans on
American soil in American history; and he's protecting that. And
he's protecting the continuation of that as a process to ensure
that the United States continues to act in this post-9/11 mode.
        So I think breaking this issue, like you're saying, there's
nothing else that needs to happen but that at this point.

        BEETS: And on that, I think people are beginning to wake up
to the war danger, which is becoming impossible to ignore
especially in places like Europe. You had on Thursday night, a
significant television segment on German TV which was titled "The
Backers of 9/11; The Secret of the 28 Pages". Which centered on
an interview with former Senator Bob Graham; going through
exactly how the Bush and Obama governments have covered up what
was clearly known to be Saudi government involvement in funding
9/11. And poses the question that not only do the past 15 years
have to be re-examined and understood from a new perspective; but
also raising the question of what this means for Germany. And I
think that's very important from the standpoint of what you just
raised, Diane. What are the flanks; what are the things we can
pull? And we have this petition featured on the LaRouche PAC site
right now, which is beginning rapidly gain signatures
internationally; which is called "The Warsaw Summit Prepares for
War; It's Time to Leave NATO Now". And I would encourage
everybody to get on the site, sign it, and circulate it. I do
think this discussion has been very important, because it really
does pose the question to the American people: Are we going to
continue in this perpetual state of childhood, adolescence?
Closing our eyes and sleepwalking into what would be the biggest
disaster for mankind in all of history — complete extinction
warfare — will we permit that? Or will we choose a more
beautiful and better future? Which I think you laid out
beautifully, Kesha. And it reminded me, I just finished the
memoirs of the astronaut Michael Collins last night; the third,
sometimes forgotten member of the Apollo 11 crew. And he says at
the end of the book, I wish every member of government could get
out into space and look down onto our planet; because borders
completely disappear. And you begin to realize that the so-called
"conflicts" between people on Earth amount to nothing and that we
have a common destiny. So, I think what you laid out there,
Kesha, really is what people need to be thinking about.
        We need to forget our commitment to this dangerous insanity
and silliness; and decide that we're committed to building a
        So, unless there's anything else, we could leave it there
for this week.

        DENISTON: We have a lot more coming. I know there's going to
be a rather exciting conference in the San Francisco Bay area,
coming up in the middle of next week; June 8th. So, I think we'll
look forward to getting reports on that, and more focal points of
focus on getting the United States shifted to the direction we

        ROGERS: If you're in the area, you should attend this.

        DENISTON: Absolutely. It's to be seen as another follow-on
after the excellent conference we had in Manhattan just recently.
There's a lot going on; we're going to be doing a lot more. And
again, this petition; we can post a link to it in the description
below. People should be circulating it, signing it; getting as
many signatures as possible. This is certainly a critical flank
right now in the build-up to the upcoming NATO summit.

        BEETS: Good. Thank you Diane and Kesha; thanks Ben. And I'd
like to thank all of you watching; so stay tuned to

USA må gå sammen med Kina
om at finde sin bestemmelse
på Månens bagside.
LaRouchePAC Internationale
fredags-webcast, 27. maj 2016,
med Lyndon LaRouche m.fl.

Dette er et øjeblik, i hvilket vi absolut må mobilisere, for verden … har nået til et beslutningens øjeblik … der vil afgøre menneskehedens retning for de næste 50, 100 eller flere år. Det er nu, vi må beslutte, hvorvidt vi aktuelt befinder os i en nedtælling til Tredje Verdenskrig mellem atommagter, som det ønskes af Obama og hans britiske ‘controllers’; eller, om denne periode er begyndelsen til et absolut nyt, globalt system, baseret på et fuldstændig nyt princip, hvis standard er gensidigt samarbejde og gensidig gavn, til menneskehedens fremme som helhed. 

Engelsk udskrift.  


The United States Must Join China to find its Destiny on the Far Side of the Moon.

Webcast, May 27, 2016:

        MEGAN BEETS:  Good evening.  This is Friday, May 27, 2016.
And I'd like to welcome all of you to our regular Friday evening
broadcast here at LaRouche PAC.  My name is Megan Beets; and I'm
joined in the studio today by Ben Deniston and by Lyndon
LaRouche.  We're joined via video by three members of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee:  Michael Steger in San Francisco,
California; Kesha Rogers in Houston, Texas; and Diane Sare,
currently in New Jersey, but joining us from our Manhattan
        This weekend in the United States is Memorial Day weekend;
which is a holiday which was created after the Civil War to honor
the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers, including those soldiers
who fought in World War II and gave their lives to the defeat of
fascism in the 20th Century.  This is a moment in which we
absolutely mobilize, because the world sits now, and has reached
a point of decision — a {punctum saliens} which will determine
the direction of humanity for the next 50, 100, or more years.
It's now that we must decide whether we are currently going to be
in a countdown to World War III between thermonuclear powers, as
is the want of Obama and his British controllers; or whether this
period is the beginning of an absolutely new global system, based
upon a completely new principle.  The standard of which is mutual
cooperation, mutual benefit for the advancement of mankind as a
        If you take a step back, and you look at the world as a
whole — which can sometimes be difficult for Americans, in
particular, to do — if you look at the global situation as one,
the tensions between these two potential futures couldn't be more
clear.  For example, on the one hand, you had an incredible
development this week in Iran; on Monday, May 23, President
Rouhani of Iran declared May 23 to be Chabahar Day.  This
declaration was made to mark and to celebrate an historic
agreement which was signed in Iran between the President of Iran,
Prime Minister Modi of India, and the President of Afghanistan;
who had gathered to sign agreements toward joint cooperation and
collaboration, a $20 billion investment to build up the port of
Chabahar in southeast Iran, which opens up to the Arabian Sea.
        This project is a great victory for the cause of the World
Land-Bridge, which Lyn, you and your wife Helga have organized
for, for quite some time.  And this crucial project will
integrate India, Afghanistan, and Iran, and potential future
partners like Pakistan and China; and it opens up new shipping
routes, new trade routes, and new potentialities for the
development of potentially the entire south Eurasian region, to
integrate it up into Europe.  Just to add one more detail, very
importantly, this gives landlocked Afghanistan, which as we know
has been decimated by the policies of the Bush and Obama
administrations, access to the Arabian Sea.
        Aside from the details, more importantly, is this spirit of
cooperation which was expressed by President Rouhani at the
signing celebration; where he said, about the Day of Chabahar,
"This is a very important day for Iranians.  And from now on, it
is going to be even more important; because today is going to
mark the day of cooperation among the three of us — Iran, India,
and Afghanistan."  He said, "Today's document is not just an
economic document.  It is actually a political and a regional
one, and its message is that countries need to utilize the
opportunities provided by the region in order to develop, and
also expand cooperation."  And then, at the same ceremony,
President Modi noted the long unified history of India and Iran.
        At virtually the same time that Modi was in Iran, the
President of India was in China on a four-day visit, where he
spoke at Beijing University on the topic of "India-China
Relations; 8 Steps to a People-Centric Partnership".  He said,
"India and China are poised to play a significant and
constructive role in the 21st Century.  When Indians and Chinese
come together to address global challenges and build on their
shared interests, there will be no limits to what our two peoples
can jointly achieve."  He also noted particularly that China and
India are young countries, full of young people.  And he said
that "Both sides should work with the aim of insuring that we do
not burden our coming generations by leaving unresolved problems
to them.  Both India and China are young societies, and our youth
share common aspirations and perceptions."
        Just to quickly add another part of the picture, are the
interesting and potentially very important actions of President
Abe of Japan; who in the recent period, has begun to move towards
agreements for cooperation both with President Putin in Russia,
and also with China, against the explicit orders of Obama and the
British, who demand that Japan maintain the historic geopolitical
conflict and enmity with both of those nations.  So, this is a
new world which is developing; but on the other hand, Obama is
still in office in the United States, because the American people
and the Congress have refused to throw him out.  And Obama today
is visiting Hiroshima; the first US President to make that visit
since the completely unnecessary bombing of that city over 70
years ago.  Leading into this visit, Obama not only refused to
apologize for that bombing that killed over 100,000 people; but
he also defended the actions of Harry Truman, saying that
sometimes Presidents in warfare have to make tough decisions.
        That characterizes exactly why [Obama’s] in Asia; to attempt
to drum up among the Asian nations against China.  Now, this
won't work, but it only fans the flames of any potential war and

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  Lyn, I don't know if you have any direct
thoughts on that, but I think the immediate counterpoint to that,
as you're saying, under Obama, is this build-up to the war danger
as the direct threat.  I think what we're seeing with these
developments in central Asia, these agreements, is just another
step in this new strategic bloc centered around really Russia's
and China's leadership.  As we were discussing earlier today,
completely in tandem with that, is the escalation of the threat
of war; Obama being kind of the face of it.  But really coming
from the British as an attempt to break down this threat to their
empire, centered around Russia and China.  It's notable just to
emphasize, we're going, in July is going to be this next NATO
summit; where they're going to try and solidify the establishment
of putting four new battalions, of about 1000 troops each, up in
Eastern Europe right on the border of Russia.  It's been noted
that this is potentially the largest forward basing of a military
presence on Russia's borders since when?  Since the Nazis in
World War II.  So, you have this explicit clear escalation; and
that's coming up in July.  That's the intention for this.  And
that's in the context of the entire NATO policy perpetually to
move closer and closer to Russia's borders; a policy that we, the
United States, promised we wouldn't do.  We made that promise to
Russia as the Soviet Union began to collapse; and we've
completely reneged on that, and pushed it further and further and
further.  And now this is really coming to a breaking point; and
Lyn, your wife Helga, from her reading from Europe, she's been
saying that she thinks there is a real growing recognition.
We've been saying it; we know it's happening.  You've been
sounding the alarm on this; but she thought it was interesting
that even conservative elements in Germany for example —
elements that might not usually be so vocal on this — are coming
out and warning that we're on the path to war under this current
policy.  Particularly, an article in {Die Welt} recently, which
is generally one of the major conservative papers in Germany; so
you wouldn't expect this concern over this war drive.  But her
assessment was that that being raised now was reflecting a kind
of breaking open of recognition and potential freak-out around
the fact that this thing is heading towards a real potential
conflict; and this is not something you walk away from.  You're
talking about thermonuclear war; you're not talking about any
kind of conflict mankind's ever had before.

        LYNDON LAROUCHE:  Well, the crucial issue here is not detail
as such; the crucial thing is what creates a higher standard of
performance of the human individual in society.  Now, that thing
is not treated seriously in any ordinary sense; they don't
recognize it.  They don't recognize the need to change the
productivity of the per capita personality of society; that is
not recognized.  What is recognized is, how cheap is the labor;
and no matter how poor the quality of performance of the labor,
how cheap is the labor.  We see this in the United States as a
trend; a backward trend.  We see it very clearly; the United
States is degenerated.  It was degenerated; it was done under the
influence of the British.  You had people like the Bushes and
Obama; these people are a destructive force.  Their very
existence destroys the productive capabilities of the human
population.  So therefore, you have to get rid of these guys and
replace them with people who are competent; which has not been
done.  So what you see, the degeneration of the quality of labor
inside the United States is typical of this kind of phenomena.
So, this is something which is more British than it is American.
But it's been stuck in the United States.  And therefore, all
these ideas that you can measure things simply is wrong; it
doesn't work that way.  Mankind creates by mankind itself creates
a capability of creation; and that's what's important.
        Now then, you have to support that which you have
discovered; that's what the problem is.  And the usual procedure
and interpretation is worthless and actually destructive.

        DENISTON:  You look at what gets presented as ostensible
value in economics discussion today, it's ridiculous.  Economic
value is a product of the human mind; resources are creations of
mankind that create wealth, that create value.  It's not going
out finding resources or exploiting labor forces, getting the
cheapest labor; that's not the substance of what enables — in my
mind, the core issue is what is the science of mankind's relation
to the universe.  It's kind of a general way to put it; and I
think that maybe passes over a lot of people's heads.  But you're
looking at how is it that mankind exists in the universe?
Mankind doesn't exist in a fixed way, mankind can intervene to
change that relationship.  If we're not looking at that, then
we're not talking about mankind.

        LAROUCHE:  Well, mankind has to be changed; that's a
necessary factor.  And mankind is changed how?  By being exposed
to responsibility for doing things which were not able to be done
by human beings at an earlier stage.  And therefore, the question
is the improvement of the quality of the personal individual in
society is the crucial element.  You find you have the people
working for Wall Street; they're worthless.

        DENISTON:  That's a nice way to put it.

        LAROUCHE:  They are actually worthless people.  And most of
society in the United States today is full of worthless people;
because they have been degenerated below the level of what
humanity was capable of doing earlier.  Now they go back to a
lower level; you see the high death rates among employed people
during the recent course of time.  Therefore, the process of the
government has become a force of destruction of the human
individual.  That's why the problem becomes apparent; because you
recognize, "Wait a minute! You're saying that my existence is
inferior?"  "Yes."  Why is that the case? Because society wants a
lower standard of productivity; things like the space program are
gone.  The removal of the space program from the achievement of
the original space program, which was done in Germany and in the
United States —

        DENISTON:  Krafft Ehricke and all his allies, yeah.

        LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  This thing is what was being crushed.  So
therefore, the human mind was being crushed; but the lesson is
that what were the technologies that we were introducing for
practice were technologies which inherently had a higher value of
productivity than anything else.  And that's what's overlooked.
        The idea of cheap labor; cheap labor is a disease.  What you
need is a higher standard of achievement of the human mind;
leading to a higher standard of development of the human mind.
That's what's important; that's the crucial issue.

        BEETS:  I think when we start to think about where in the US
do you have a population that could be moved to restore the
demand for such a human standard, you've put the emphasis on
Manhattan.  And I was wondering if Diane wanted to say a few
things; because we have a conference coming up there this weekend
that both you and Helga will be participating in.

        LAROUCHE:  All you have to do to destroy the human power of
creativity is to take California, southern California, the
universities and several institutions in California, and go from
what had been the case, to what was the case.  And when you had a
certain sexual maniac who took over southern California, you
understand exactly what the problem is.

        DENISTON:  A pretty pathetic movie star; a Nazi, a Hitler
admirer at that.  Schwarzenegger, yeah.  I mean, you talk about
degeneration; you raised California.  To me, the emblematic
family is the Brown family.  You look at Jerry Brown, you look at
Pat Brown, his father, Edmund Pat Brown; he was one of the last
echoes, reverberations of the Franklin Roosevelt orientation.  He
built up the state — the water projects, the educational system,
the schools.  When I started going to school, you could go to a
decent junior college for tens of dollars for a class.  It was
affordable; people could afford education.  And it's just been
completely destroyed.  It was all built up under this
Roosevelt-style administration of Pat Brown; then you look at
Jerry Brown — "Governor Moon Beam" as he was called in his first
term — a total degenerate.  Now they're talking about — Michael
Steger might have more to say on this — now they're talking
about permanently shutting down large sections of the
agricultural region in California because they're running out of
water.  The idiocy is astounding.  They're sitting there, a huge
coastline on the biggest ocean on the entire planet; and they're
saying, "We can't find any water; we don't have any water.  We
have to just shut things down."  And the fact that people go
along with that, is just insane.
        You talk about degeneration; look at what we used to have
under the leadership of Pat Brown.  We had some things in
between; we had this disgusting figure Schwarzenegger, who was a
total British agent himself.  And then this Jerry Brown thing is
just emblematic of the degeneration and the Green policy
takeover; what's happened to the population in the United States.

        LAROUCHE:  The lesson is, that there's a principle of
organization of productivity in terms of the human individual;
and that's what you have to focus on.  That factor.  Without that
factor, you have no progress.  As a matter of fact, mankind
ceases to be mankind; mankind is reduced to something which is a
pseudo mankind formula, but it's not actual.  It's something
which is mechanical; it's something which is simply constructed.
But the creative power of the individual, the creative power
which is acquired by the individual in society, is the thing
which makes it work.  It's not just, "This will make it work.
This will make it better."  No.  Mankind has to produce within
the ranks of mankind itself, the ability to achieve degrees of
productivity beyond anything beforehand; that has always been the
policy.  Since the beginning, shall we say so to speak; and it
was always like that.  When you lose that, then you lose your
very characteristic of the human species.

        DENISTON:  Be fruitful and multiply.

        LAROUCHE:  Multiply, I don't know; they're kind of lazy
these days.

        DIANE SARE:  I had one very specific comment on this,
actually, which is very interesting, from our earlier discussion;
and then when I heard what President Obama had to say in his
speech in Hiroshima.  Where he says, he talks about supposedly
the development of mankind; and this is Obama's take on man.
"Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very
first man.  Our early ancestors, having learned to make blades
from flint and spears from wood, used these tools not just for
hunting, but against their own kind.  On every continent, the
history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by
scarcity of grain or hunger for gold; compelled by nationalist
fervor or religious zeal."  Do you hear his stepfather and what
happened in Indonesia in that?
        And I was very struck, because if you take two other great
American leaders, who also gave us their take on the arc of
history, one is Martin Luther King, who people may remember in
his Mountaintop speech, he has the polemic, "If I could travel
with God to any other time in history, when would I want to be
alive?"  So, he talks about the Parthenon; he talks about seeing
Socrates, and Aristotle and Mount Olympus; he talks about the
emperors of the Roman Empire.  He says, "I would come up to the
day of the Renaissance and get a quick picture of all that the
Renaissance did for the cultural and aesthetic life of man; but I
wouldn't stop there."  And then he talks about Abraham Lincoln
and the Emancipation Proclamation; he says, "I wouldn't stop
there.  I would even come up to the early '30s and see a man
grappling with the problems of the bankruptcy of his nation, and
come up with an eloquent cry that 'We have nothing to fear, but
fear itself.'|"  And he says, "Strangely enough, I would turn to
the Almighty and say, 'If you allow me to live just a few years
in the second half of the 20th Century, I will be happy.'|"
        So, that was Martin Luther King; and then the other which
Kesha will be very familiar with, is the speech that President
Kennedy gave at Rice University, where he announces that we're
going to land on the Moon.  And he says, "No man can fully grasp
how far and how fast we have come.  But condense, if you will,
the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in the time span of
but a half century.  Stated in these terms, we know very little
about the first 40 years, except at the end of them, advanced man
had learned how to use the skins of animals to cover them.  Then
about ten years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his
caves to construct other kinds of shelter.  Only five years ago,
man learned how to write and use a cart with wheels.
Christianity began only two years ago.  The printing press came
this year; then, less than two months ago, during this whole
fifty-year span of history, the steam engine provided a new
source of power."  He talks about electric lights —
        In other words, what's the view of Kennedy; what's the view
of Martin Luther King of the development of man?  And then you
take the view of President Obama, which is exactly what you have
expressed here, Lyn, in terms of the total degradation and a
Satanic, destructive outlook.

        LAROUCHE:  I agree, it's real degeneration; definitely

        KESHA ROGERS:  Yeah, and I think it's important to note,
one; why we are gathered here today in the context in which we're
gathered.  As we've been expressing, what is the intention to
create a future state of society where a new species and a new
understanding of what mankind should represent comes into play?
The United States right now has to understand that we have a
unique opportunity to join with the nations of Eurasia — with
China, Russia.  Of the developments which Megan was laying out
earlier, that organize a new direction of a New Paradigm and
progress for mankind; which you have really stated can be brought
into cohesion with a new development of the United States.  This
is why you've put a focus on particularly Manhattan, which was
the center point of the Alexander Hamilton foundation of the
United States; and Texas and California are joining in that
        I think that people really have to get an understanding that
the United States can and must play a crucial role in preventing
what we were discussing earlier as the sabotage of the
orientation that is being put forth by leading nations coming
together and saying that there is a unique quality to mankind
which has to be preserved.  Which is the creative nature of human
beings; and this is what Diane was just expressing.  This has
been amongst leading figures of our nation, from George
Washington, Hamilton, to Lincoln and others, John F Kennedy, have
expressed this quite profoundly.  I think if we look at the fact
that two days on the 25th of May, was the 55th anniversary of
Kennedy's speech to the Joint Session of Congress; and in that
speech, he called for the very task of doing something that at
that point had never been done before.  Creating something
completely new, which was to land a man on the Moon and return
him safely to Earth.  He says, as he's calling for the US to take
that leading role in the space achievement, which he said, "in
many ways, may hold a key to our future on Earth."  That is still
what we face today.
        The new developments being proposed by China on the far side
of the Moon, are going to hold the key not just for China doing
something different for their nation; but for the future of
mankind on Earth.  Because what Kennedy had proposed, has been
hijacked by the likes of the British Empire and those who wanted
to stifle human progress in any way that they could.  So, I think
if we look at the direction the world is going in right now,
there is no reason for people to feel like they have to
capitulate to the stupidity that they're being bombarded with in
Presidential elections, in the media lies that are being told.
        The real issue right now is, what are we actually going to
create as a new direction for mankind?  And what Putin and China
and other nations in that direction are doing is crucial.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  I just would make the point from
California.  It's clear, Lyn, what you've been describing.  Once
you adopt a cheap labor policy, which was explicitly adopted in
California as probably the leading example; you then have no
reason to educate and provoke a higher sense of identity within
your population.  You lose a sense of that mission, and then you
become a slave to the practical, to the mundane, to the
day-to-day survival tactics; and you a kind of destruction of the
culture and life of the nation over these 50 years.  But what
makes it most clear is what you see in the current insanity of
the Presidential election; there's not a focus around this
particular issue, which is Hamilton.  It is what Hamilton drove
to shape the Constitution and the economic policies of the
country; and it is very much what was the spark of consolidating
the organization, and our intervention.  Specifically, around the
Manhattan Project and Hamilton's economic policies; and this
orientation.  Because there is no clear voice coming out of the
trans-Atlantic, except that perspective and that direction for
development.  We see it in Putin; we see it in China.  That
becomes the basis of civilization; that become the basis on which
the trans-Atlantic can turn back to this Hamilton tradition,
which is really the greatest expression of the trans-Atlantic and
economic development up until the modern period.  So really
becomes the fight defining the political fight in the United
States to reject Obama; because there is a loss of standard in
the American people.  There is a loss of victory, of triumph, in
the minds and the culture of the American population today.
They're accepting their own form of slavery.  And that really
becomes the challenge.

        SARE:  I can report from Manhattan that one of the flanks on
this situation — and I think given that it is Memorial Day —
all Americans should resolve ourselves, as Abraham Lincoln said
in his speech at Gettysburg, that "those who have died" like the
people who died on 9/11, as well as of course the people who
voluntarily enlisted and fought in the wars; World War II in
particular, "have not died in vain."  To that end, one; I would
just like to say for viewers of this website, tomorrow at
12:30pm, we will be live streaming a Memorial Day event from
Manhattan.  Which will begin with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and then
at 3pm, with Lyn yourself, Mr. LaRouche in a dialogue with the
citizens of Manhattan, to get another inflection point after the
Schiller Institute on April 7th.  It's clear that that was viewed
with some hope by international audiences; that there could be
signs of intelligent life in the United States, as it was viewed
with terror by people on behalf of the British Empire like the
Saudis.  It was not too long after that, that "60 Minutes" aired
the special on the 28 pages; on the role of the Saudis in
perpetrating the murder of 3000 Americans on September 11th, and
the role of the FBI in covering it up.  I would say that
particularly in Manhattan — although it is the case in other
parts of the country — but particularly in Manhattan, people are
not prepared now to put the genie back in the bottle.  They want
the truth; they would like the United States to be restored to
its Constitutional role as Alexander Hamilton intended, and not
as a cat's paw for the British Empire.  The Saudis, I think, are
aware of this; so I think people should also know that the Saudi
lobbyists are on a full-front, heavily funded deployment into
Washington DC to try and clean up their image with glossy
pamphlets and PR firms that are getting paid $200,000 a month, to
try and promote themselves as the most wonderful allies of the
United States in the war on terror and the leaders in the fight
against terrorism.  This is simply not going to fly.  As much
corruption as there is in Washington DC, it's a little much to
have people parading around as the purveyors of justice when they
publicly beheaded 47 people to usher in the New Year.
        So, I think we're coming to a point where it's clear the
United States is going to take a decision; and I find what Megan
referenced at the beginning — the shift that perhaps is
occurring in Japan at this moment — is also a potential shift in
the United States at this time.

        DENISTON:  In that context, I really think the 9/11 issue is
critical; and Obama's role in the whole thing.  As we've been
saying, people have to get their heads out of the gutter on this
election stuff; people view these elections like a sporting game
or something.  Root for their team versus another team.  We've
got an issue immediately before us of this guy Obama is a killer;
he has to be pulled out of office.  We cannot tolerate him
running the country.  And just typical of that is his commitment
to completely cover up the heinous murder of Americans on
American soil in our history; just cover that up.  No justice;

        LAROUCHE:  That was Obama; that's Obama's operation.  And
Obama's sitting there still; being an abomination.

        DENISTON:  That's his number one career asset, is being an

        LAROUCHE:  That's exactly it; and the point is that if
people don't recognize that, they're going to find themselves in
an Obamanation situation.

        ROGERS:  Last night on the discussion with the activists,
you were speaking about the space program, and you said that the
space program goes to the right of the human individual and it's
essential for human existence.  I think that's what we're dealing
with right now; the human individual under Obama, has been denied
rights, and particularly the rights to life.  Because you have a
murderous policy, and if you take what has been put forth under
the war drive, closer and closer to thermonuclear war, the policy
coming from Obama around the healthcare; just to name a few.
When you talk about what are the rights of the human individual,
that is being denied; and that is what people should be actually
fighting for.  The understanding has to become, how do you
actually know and understand those rights as a human being?  What
powers do human beings possess that go beyond just the
simplistics of life that people try to hold on to and depend on,
which gets to a higher state of existence?  Which is really
missing from the discussion of most of the ordinary discussion of
society today.

        LAROUCHE:  Well, the development of the science of human
discovery, which was presented by a great individual who was
originally German; and then became domesticated, shall we say, in
terms of the United States.  And he became the secret agent, so
to speak, for the progress of the human species throughout the
planet.  And that case, that example, is extremely important;
because what's important is not what mankind does, or what the
individual does physically.  That's not really that important.
What's important is the ability to create a discovery of a
principle of productivity which is far advanced beyond what
mankind has experienced so far; that's the point.  And that is
where the United States has lost most of its achievement; and
that's what has to be corrected.

        DENISTON:  And space forces that issue today.

        LAROUCHE:  Yeah; because without that, you cannot accomplish
what is required by mankind.

        BEETS:  Lyn, that's one of the most beautiful things about
the relationship of mankind as a unique species to the Universe
itself.  We're not the same as the Creator, obviously, but we
resonate with that principle of Creation; and our own development
is guided by the principles of organization of the Universe.  We
{have} to go into space in order to advance; and our progress in
space is going to contribute to the further development of that
Universe, and the further perfection and improvement of that

        LAROUCHE: You've got the history of discovery of the space
program; which was developed by Germans, working from the western
part of Germany and moving closer to the United States itself.
And they themselves created and generated a view of mankind which
provides us with an insight into the actual, efficient practice
of what mankind can do in terms of the stars.

        DENISTON:  And they were doing much of this before they were
even allowed to pursue it.  They were looking for support; they
were looking for people, even before World War I you had these
early visionaries.  And then up before World War II, they were
already thinking all these things; and they were trying to find
sane governments that would actually support this endeavor.

        LAROUCHE:  Like the Moon exploration, which was done

        DENISTON:  All the way back to Jules Verne and some —

        LAROUCHE:  But Jules Verne was not a real good contribution
to anything.  But what was actually being done, by the space
program, by the people on the Moon project, that was really
working.  And that was what actually turned into a mechanism in
order to create an insight into mankind's potential beyond what
mankind had previously understood to be the kinds of things that
could be experimentally achieved.

        DENISTON:  Always for me, the first thing that comes out is,
all of sudden, you're talking about mankind; you're not talking
one nation or one culture or one people.  You're talking about
what is it about us as a unique species on this planet that we
can pursue these things.

        LAROUCHE:  The main thing is, what about the people from
Germany, originally from their Moon project in Germany, actually
created this whole system.  And that whole tendency depends upon
that; it depends upon that precedent.  German scientists who
actually came into the United States; developed a program; and
applied the program; which gave the United States today the
ability to do what it has not been doing recently so far.

        ROGERS:  Yeah, and they had a sense of creative imagination
which was different than what some people get inspired by the
space program.  A lot of people talk about the science fiction
Star Wars, all of this stuff, that really doesn't characterize
the true nature of mankind to bring these ideas into existence.
For instance, Krafft Ehricke, von Braun, all of these great
German scientists, they had such extraordinary imaginations; and
they put forth the programs that were necessary to expand
mankind's existence beyond Earth, beyond the Moon, and into the
outer reaches of the Solar System in a way that nobody else could
do, in a way that could be accomplished and become real.  Because
they understood that man had the power to bring this into
existence; it wasn't just some far out science fiction thing, but
this was the destiny of mankind.  To conquer the Solar System; to
reach mankind's extra-terrestrial imperative.  And it's
completely different than what people get inspire by today —
Hollywood movies and Star Wars, and all of this stuff that is not

        STEGER:  Well, it's Bach; the real question is Bach.  Krafft
Ehricke, Werner von Braun, they set up Classical quartets in
these rural towns in Alabama where they were sent to do this
space research.  If you really think about what Bach propagated
as a quality of culture of the Universe itself; he took what
Kepler had initiated and continued it and maintained it so you
could get this level of scientific advancement.  It really is the
question of what drove Einstein.  What drove the questions of
what's governing the heavens?  Even going back to the ancient
world, this question of music and composition that Bach really
made clear, seems to have captured the imagination of man in a
way which makes space travel possible.

        LAROUCHE:  I think the key thing to look at is Krafft
Ehricke. Now, Krafft Ehricke became the maker of the whole space
program; he did it.  And the method he was using was to the same
effect; and therefore it was to the idea that there was some
process of the human mind, the creative powers of the human
individual mind.  This is what can be used, and must be used, as
the instrument for bringing the achievements which mankind will
find in due course.  And Krafft Ehricke is an illustration of
that point; if you look at the history of what he did, and then
you apply that to what has been going on still from Texas now.
The elements from there are still there.  But this was a
discovery which came from eastern Germany, which was carried
through the period of the war; which went into the southern parts
of the United States to build a program which was supported by
American officials and so forth.  And to presume Krafft Ehricke's
achievements; which were terminated because he had a very
complicated health problem, and he died under those conditions.
But the principle of the matter is still alive.  He had been dead
for some years, but the principle on which he was expressed and
which led and prompted other people who would listen to him; that
is still a principle which is important.
        So, it's not a practical principle; it's not something that
you can measure simply, as a yardstick or something of that
nature.  This was the achievement of a particular man, among
other men doing the same kind of work, which created the
possibility of mankind's systemic mastery of the Universe.

        DENISTON:  I think that's our reference point for today.
Anything less than that, and we're failing to achieve the
requirements for mankind.

        LAROUCHE:  Yeah, they're important.

        BEETS:  And I think that quality is what we have to
re-awaken within the United States; it's a specific reference
point from Germany, but in the United States.  And I think it's
important to recognize that you have all these beautiful
developments around the world, but unless we can shift the United
States, it doesn't matter.  We actually have to turn this and
re-awaken this true principle of the United States that you've
been expressing in order to make this shift to the New Paradigm.

        LAROUCHE:  And what you know, of course, from your own
experience, in terms of what we do with the Moon; the Moon
project, which is what our destiny is from the standpoint of
China right now.

        BEETS:  Yeah, if Americans realized that in two years, we
could join China on the far side of the Moon, I think they'd have
a far different outlook for the immediate future.

        LAROUCHE:  I think that's where we want to push people's
attention to that thing as a commitment.

        DENISTON:  Yes; always the unknown.

        LAROUCHE:  Unknown?  Who's unknown?

        BEETS:  Is there anything else from you three joining us by

        SARE:  To tune in tomorrow at 12:30pm.  If you're in New
York, you should be there.

        BEETS:  Good.  Well, I think that will bring this discussion
to a close.  I think it's a very good point to end on; and as
Diane said, tune in tomorrow on this website at 12:30pm and then
again at 3pm for this event being broadcast from Manhattan.  So,
thank you all; thanks Lyn.  Thank you all for joining us; and
stay tuned.

Senator Graham: FBI’s aggressive bedrag omkring 9/11

Uddrag fra LaRouchePAC fredags-webcast, den 29 april 2016

Senator Bob Graham fortsætter med at være meget kontant i sine beskyldninger omkring hvem der er ansvarlig for at dække over, det som han før har kaldt det "aggressive bedrag" af det amerikanske folk omkring spørgsmålet om, hvad der virkelig skete den 11 september 2001. I dette interview opfordrede Senator Graham ikke kun til frigivelsen af de 28 sider. Han opfordrede også til frigivelse af de titusinder af andre dokumentsider, der er blevet tilbageholdt fra det amerikanske folk og Kongressens efterforskere, og kaldte for en genåbning af 9/11 undersøgelsen. I dette interview gjorde Senator Graham som han har gjort før, men på en meget kontant og meget ærlig måde. Han placerede ansvaret lige uden for døren af FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), som han beskyldte, i utvetydige vendinger, for at lyve til Kongressen og engagere sig i dette "aggressive bedrag" af det amerikanske folk.

Lad mig indledningsvis læse nogle uddrag fra Senator Graham's interview. Senator Graham sagde:
”Grunden til at de 28 sider er så vigtige, er at de var konklusionen på Kongressens undersøgelse af hvordan 11te september operationen var finansieret. Hvem betalte for det? Og mens jeg ikke kan diskutere detaljerne i dette kapitel, peger det kraftigt på Saudi-Arabien.

"Hvad vi officielt ved er, at der var agenter for den saudiske regering, som støttede mindst to af de flykaprere der endte med at bo i San Diego. De blev hjulpet med økonomisk støtte, med anonymitet, med et sted at bo, med flylektioner og med beskyttelse. I et tilfælde, i over et år.

FBI har udleveret 80.000 sider [ærligt talt blev de tvunget til at udlevere MO*] til en føderal domstol, gennem en Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) sag, der involverer en undersøgelse der fandt sted i Sarasota, Florida af forholdet mellem Mohammed Atta, lederen af de 19 flykaprere og to af hans håndlangere og en fremtrædende Saudisk familie, som havde boet i Sarasota i seks år. De tog afsted to uger før 9/11 under betingelser, som blev beskrevet som presserende for at vende tilbage til Saudi-Arabien, hvilket skaber den logiske slutning, at de blev varskoet og besluttede at de ville være bedre stillede andetsteds end i Sarasota, når 9/11 indtraf."

Intervieweren spurgte da Senator Graham følgende. Hun sagde, "Tror du, at de på hinanden følgende administrationer har beskyttet den saudiske kongefamilie imod amerikanske statsborgeres interesser?”

Senator Graham svarede, "Ja. Og jeg tror, det har været mere end en tilsløring. Jeg tror, det har været det, jeg kalder aggressivt bedrag. Der er tilfælde, hvor FBI offentligt har publiceret udsagn, som jeg ved fra personlig erfaring var usande. De erklærede at de i forbindelse med Sarasota sagen havde afsluttet undersøgelsen, og at undersøgelsen havde fastslået at der ikke var nogen forbindelse mellem flykaprerne og den fremtrædende Saudiske familie, og at de havde overleveret alle disse oplysninger til både Kongressens undersøgelse og 9/11 Citizens Commissions. Jeg ved det som en kendsgerning, at ingen af disse tre udsagn er sande."

Så sagde intervieweren til ham: "Lad mig få dette på det rette, Sir. Du påstår at FBI bevidst løj om dette spørgsmål, og at der har været en tilsløring.".

Senator Graham afbrød hende, og sagde: ".. det er mere end en tilsløring. FBI misinformerede om hvad der er i deres egne registreringer i forhold til situationen i Sarasota"

Han blev spurgt: "Hvad tror du der skal gøres?"

Senator Graham svarede:. "Jeg tror, vi er nødt til at have en generel genåbning af efterforskningen af 9/11. Både Kongressens og 9/11 Kommissionens undersøgelse foregik under stramme tidsrammer, hvilket udelukkede den fuldstændige undersøgelse, der nødvendigvis må gøres, når 9/11 sagen er genåbnet."

Hr. LaRouche sagde, efter at have lyttet til dette interview, at dette er meget klart og tydeligt. Dette kan der ikke gøres indsigelser imod. Alt, hvad senator Graham sagde, var helt rigtigt.

Han sagde: "Retfærdighed skal endelig ske fyldest overfor de amerikanske borgere. Det kan ikke længere udskydes. Ingen kan sige, "Lad os bare udsætte dette, lad os udsætte dette, lad os udsætte det endnu en uge. Det skal ske nu.” Den sande historie er blevet tilsløret alt for længe”, sagde Hr. LaRouche, og han fortsatte:" Sen. Grahams udsagn om dette er klare og tydelige. Hans identifikation af FBI's aggressive bedrag er lige i øjet, og kan ikke diskuteres. Husk, at FBI juridisk er underlagt justitsministeriet, som er medlem af den udøvende magt, hvilket placerer hele denne operation lige på Obamas dørtrin. Den udøvende magt kan ikke handle uden præsidentens direkte ordrer.

Ethvert forsøg på varigt at fortsætte som nu," sagde Hr. LaRouche, "er en krænkelse af de amerikanske borgeres forfatningsmæssige rettigheder, og det i interessen af det der beviseligt er en fjendtlig fremmed magt, helt op til det punkt af hvad man kan sige nærmer sig forræderi. Faren er 3. verdenskrig, hvilket ville betyde ødelæggelse af ikke kun USA, men hele verden. Der går ikke en dag uden at der forekommer en provokation, et eller andet sted i verden af Obama mod både Rusland og Kina, der hver vil kunne tænde lunten til 3. verdenskrig. Vi kan ikke vente, vi kan ikke udsætte det. Vi kan ikke sige, 'Åh, bare et par uger mere, blot et par måneder mere.' 3. verdenskrig er på vores dørtrin, og 3. verdenskrig ville betyde ødelæggelsen af menneskeheden.

"Våbenhvilen i Syrien nærmer sig opløsningspunktet. Saudi-Arabien og Tyrkiets rolle i dette er klar og udgør en meget indlysende pointe, at det strategiske momentum, der er nødvendigt gennem de-klassificeringen af de 28 sider, ville forhindre denne krig. Dette viser dig blot et eksempel – et meget umiddelbart eksempel – men det er blot ét eksempel på den strategiske nødvendighed af at frigive de 28 sider og blotlægge saudierne og deres partnere i det britiske monarki for hvad de er og hvad de gjorde i tilfældet med 9/11 forbrydelsen"

* MO: Modus Operandi – måde at agere på

Principper og grænsebetingelser for et nyt rumprogram.
Fra LaRouchePAC Fredagswebcast, 13. maj 2016

Ogden: Hr. LaRouche understregede i en samtale fra tidligere på dagen, at folk ofte stiller alle de forkerte spørgsmål, og så overbeviser de sig selv om, at de kan finde frem til svarene på disse spørgsmål, selvom de ikke engang ved, hvad de egentlig vil spørge om. Der er intet bedre eksempel på dette end vores tilgang til undersøgelsen af universets natur og udforskningen af rummet. Som folk nok er klar over, har Kesha Rogers i meget lang tid og meget højlydt bragt dette på banen. Denne uge har hun sammen med Benjamin Deniston sammensat et politisk program, som blev offentliggjort på hjemmesiden LaRouchePAC.com, under en ny kampagneside, som lige er blevet lagt op. Kesha kan selv sige mere om det, men et af omdrejningspunkterne på den nye kampagneside er Kinas igangværende arbejde med at søge efter de rigtige spørgsmål. Hr. LaRouche lagde stor vægt på, at de næste to år er af afgørende betydning, da Kina indenfor denne tidshorisont vil begynde at udforske månens bagside. Dette er en del af det fortsatte kinesiske Chang'e-program. Og forudsat at vi kan undgå en eller anden altødelæggende krise – hvis vi kan afværge, at tredje verdenskrig bryder ud, eller en lignende katastrofe – vil vi ifølge Hr. LaRouche gøre opdagelser som resultat af udforskningen af månens bagside, der vil bryde med alt det, vi troede, vi vidste om månen, universet og vores forhold til disse.
Altså vil jeg gerne, Kesha, invitere dig til at uddybe disse problemstillinger.

Kesha Rogers: Klart, mange tak, Matt. Først vil jeg gerne oplyse, at det politiske program, som Ben og jeg har skrevet, »Principper og grænsebetingelser for et nyt rumprogram (Principles and Boundary Conditions of a New Space Program)«, kan findes her på siden (LaRouchepac.com – red.). Og dernæst vil jeg gerne invitere folk til at deltage i en kommende dialog med Ben og mig omkring dette program. Men jeg vil gerne vende tilbage til den diskussion vi havde før denne udsendelse med Hr. LaRouche, der omhandlede det samme, som vi gerne ville vise med dette skrift, nemlig at der ikke findes en deduktiv eller praktisk metode til at finde ud af, hvad vores solsystem er, eller hvad vi mangler at opdage om det. Vi mangler stadig at opdage, hvilken orden der ligger bag vores solsystem. Og den orden kan vi kun forstå, hvis vi også forstår indbegrebet af menneskets sind, og hvem vi er som mennesker. Den udfordring, der har været, de fejl, der er sket, og den mangel på kompetence, der har rådet omkring udforskningen af rummet, hænger sammen med dette. En ting, vi diskuterede, og som jeg mener, er afgørende, er vores manglende forståelse af, hvad et rumprogram egentlig er; et veludformet rumprogram. Man havde tragiske ulykker i den tidlige del af rumprogrammet, f.eks. den, der skete i forbindelse med den planlagte opsendelse af Apollo 1 raketten, hvor Gus Grissom, Ed White og Roger Chaffee på tragisk vis omkom. Og i det lys må man reflektere over, hvordan mennesker som disse, da de indskrev sig i programmet, var parate til at ofre deres liv for at fremme menneskehedens forståelse af dens rolle i solsystemet. Det er samme form for offer man ser soldater gøre, når de går i felten; de ved, det er med livet som indsats. Men det leder tanken hen på, hvad vi endnu ikke forstår, og hvad det er, vi kommer til at opdage.

Og derfor mener jeg, det er så vigtigt at se på det nye kapitel, som Kina er ved at skrive menneskeheden ind i, i forhold til solsystemet og galaksen. De er ved at bringe menneskeheden som art, der rejser i rummet, op på et helt nyt niveau gennem deres udforsknings- og udviklingsprogram i forhold til månen, specielt bagsiden af månen. Og når man ser på dette, kan man se, hvordan mange prøver at forstå den rolle, vi har i solsystemet, og den rolle, som rumfarten spiller for menneskeheden, gennem deduktive metoder. Og det fik mig til at tænke tilbage på Krafft Ehrickes ide om, hvorfor rumfart er så vigtig. Han var ophavsmanden til ideen om, at det er af eksistentiel betydning for menneskeheden at forstå sig selv som en interplanetarisk art, hvilket han kaldte menneskehedens »udenjordiske imperativ«. Følgende citat stammer fra ham: »Ideen om at rejse i rummet bærer en enorm betydning, fordi den udfordrer menneskeheden på så godt som alle områder, både i forhold til dens fysiske og åndelige eksistens. Ideen om at rejse til andre himmellegemer er et tegn på det menneskelige sinds højeste form for uafhængighed og livskraft.«

Og jeg mener, det er det, der overgår menneskeheden lige nu; at vi bliver udfordret på alle områder. Det er det, der sker i forbindelse med eksistensen af vores rumfartsprogram; at vi bliver udfordret på alle områder, fysisk og åndeligt og omkring vores løfte til fremtiden. Og det er derfor, vi taler så hårdt mod de ekstreme angreb på rumprogrammet og indgrebet mod alt, hvad folkene i det amerikanske rumprograms kontrolcenter stod for, f.eks. Gene Krantz, der sagde, at vi lover at være vedholdende og kompetente. For der er intet vedholdende eller kompetent ved at tillade Obama at træde frem og afmontere og ødelægge vores rumprogram og gøre det til grin. Han promoverer et program, der er fuldstændig afkoblet fra virkeligheden, ideen om, at vi bare skal fange en asteroide, eller at vi skal sende et menneske med en enkeltbillet til Mars. Vi skal udvikle et marsprogram uden først at have en forståelse af galaksen som helhed eller af solsystemet som et integreret system, et system vi først skal forstå og lære at kende.

Problemet er, at det program vi havde før, er blevet lukket ned af Obama. Det handlede om at vende tilbage til at fokusere på at udvikle månen. Tidligere havde vi et program, der handlede om at udvikle månen, fremsat af astronauter som f.eks. Harrison Smith, før Apolloprogrammet blev lukket ned. Ved afslutningen af Apollo 17 var Apollo 18, 19 og 20 allerede planlagt. Men de blev afskrevet, fordi vi forrådte vores løfte om et meningsfuldt rumfartsprogram og i stedet skiftede til et yderst uansvarligt program. Og derfor blev også risikoen for tab af liv forøget. Men vigtigere endnu – man kan sammenligne det med, hvad der skete i militæret – er spørgsmålet, hvad er det, vi giver vores liv til? Derfor må vi på ny vurdere, hvad meningen med vores rumfartsprogram skal være. Og den vurdering skal ske med udgangspunkt i at forsvare menneskehedens kreative identitet og menneskeheden som art. Og fokus må være, at vi skal ud og opdage, hvad det er, vi endnu ikke ved. Og kineserne udgør et fremragende forbillede for os, fordi de tager livet alvorligt. Og de er alvorligt engagerede i deres rumfartsprogram. Og så længe Obama er præsident – husk, at jeg har krævet hans afsættelse flere gange – men dette udgør denne præsidents største forbrydelse: hans nedlukning af rumfartsprogrammet.

Så jeg mener, det vigtigste spørgsmål er, hvad vi giver vores liv til. Denne nation har brug for et videnskabeligt spydspidsprojekt baseret på menneskehedens kreative udvikling. Og vi bliver nødt til at befri menneskeheden for den dumhed, som har overtaget befolkningens tankegang. Og rumfartsprogrammet er lige det, vi har brug for at befri menneskeheden. Vi har flere gange snakket om, hvordan den kreative kraft blev skænket til menneskeheden af Prometheus. Og det ser næsten ud som om, at Zeus har fået lov til at stjæle ilden tilbage fra menneskerne. Denne kreativitetens ild må gives tilbage til menneskerne igen, og hele befolkningen må opløftes til et niveau, der ikke er set før i historien. Vi må overveje, hvordan vi kan transformere den planet vi bor på, men det kan vi kun, hvis vi forstår, at jorden ikke er en isoleret planet. Som Krafft Ehricke siger, er den ikke et lukket system. Vi kan kun løse de problemer, vi står overfor: krig, hungersnød, sult osv. ved at vinde en dybere forståelse af det solsystem vi er en del af. Og det der blev snakket om tidligere i denne udsendelse peger på, hvad det er der udgør den grundlæggende forskel mellem Kinas og Ruslands tilgang til måden, hvorpå vi må organiserer os og samarbejder som menneskehed; og Obama-regeringens tilgang til politik; dens angreb på rumfartsprogrammet og dens march mod krig.
Det kommer vi til at diskutere yderligere i morgen, og jeg vil opfordre folk til at læse det politiske program, ikke som teknisk formidling, men fra et udgangspunkt omkring, hvad det er, der mangler i vores tænkning i dag. Hvad er det vi ikke ved, og hvad er det, vi bliver nødt til at opdage?

Hvad skal der til, for at gennemføre en global indsats mod terrorisme?:
LaRouchePAC fredags-webcast den 6. maj 2016

Et uddrag:
Ogden: I løbet af en tidligere diskussion med Lyndon LaRouche snakkede vi også om dagens institutionelle spørgsmål, som lyder: »Hr. LaRouche, vær venlig at fremlægge dine anbefalinger om, hvordan man opbygger de institutioner og strukturer, der skal til, for at gennemføre en global indsats mod terrorisme, i et samarbejde mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Europa. Hvilken form for organisering og politik kan du anbefale, og hvilken rolle tror du FN kan spille i en sådan indsats?«

Steinberg: Efter vores diskussion med Hr. LaRouche og Fru Zepp-LaRouche, som fandt sted for nogle få timer siden, vil jeg svare, at det første der må gøres, er at fremlægge en præcis redegørelse for, hvor den globale terrorisme har sin oprindelse. Og det har den i London – Londonistan – og i lande, der i stigende grad er blevet simple håndlangere for det Britiske Imperium og dets politik. Saudi-Arabien er en sådan håndlanger. Det har landet været i hundrede af år. Men i særdeleshed siden al-Yamamah aftalen fra 1985 har der været en britisk-saudisk organisation, der har ophobet store pengesummer, øremærket til at understøtte terrororganisationer som al-Qaeda og aflæggeren ISIS. Prøv engang at se på Sydamerika og Mexico, ødelagt af narko-terrorisme, og bemærk så, hvordan London har været centrum for den internationale narkohandel og de terrororganisationer, der er sprunget frem deraf. Hvis man ikke starter med at sige sandheden omkring terrorismens natur, omkring dens oprindelsessted; hvis man ikke våger at angribe det britiske og det saudiske monarki, så kan der ikke opstå et solidt grundlag for den form for samarbejde, der er nødvendig.

Det er klart at de fire ledende nationer, USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien alle er konfronteret med denne Angelsaudiske terrortrussel. Og for så vidt som disse nationer ikke samarbejder omkring udformningen af en entydig handlingsplan, der involverer nedlæggelsen af de britiske oversøiske finanscentre, der stiller finanserne til rådighed for terrororganisationerne, er der intet grundlag for sejr. Hvis disse lande går sammen – for hvilke FN's sikkerhedsråd ville udgøre den perfekte platform – kan der føres en succesfuld krig mod den form for terrorisme, der udfolder sig globalt i dag. Og det er en afgørende del af den krig, der allerede er undervejs.

Og så er der selvfølgelig det mere langsigtede spørgsmål omkring, hvordan man skaber en tilstand hvor mennesker ikke har noget incitament til at gå med i den slags terrororganisationer. Det spørgsmål ligger implicit i Kinas politiske projekt kaldet »Ét bælte, én vej«: Udviklingen af Asien gennem denne »Win-Win«-politik. Visse desperate politiske ledere i Europa – sågar i Tyskland – lufter ideen om en »Marshallplan«, der skal genopbygge Syrien og Irak. Det vil give flygtningene en mission, så de vil tage tilbage og hjælpe med at opbygge deres lande med en masse opbakning udefra. Og det er en del af den slags passende og holdbare antiterrorstrategi, der skal til for at skabe en langtidsholdbar løsning. Allerede tilbage i 1970'erne fremlagde Lyndon LaRouche en plan for at skabe fred og udvikling i Mellemøsten. Udgangspunktet var at en økonomisk udvikling af regionen var den mest effektive antiterrorstrategi. Ligeledes sagde LaRouche i kølvandet på Oslo-aftalen i 1993, at man blev nødt til med det samme at køre bulldozer og arbejdsmaskinerne i position og begynde at genopbygge Gazastriben og Vestbredden og skabe et velstående område, hvor mennesker har en fremtid at leve for og se frem til.

Men nu har vi i stedet Saudi-Arabiens tyranni. Hen over de seneste dage har vi set, hvordan Tyrkiets præsident Erdogan forsøger at etablere et brutalt diktatur i sit land og hvordan han afpresser Europa med truslen om at oversvømme Europa med endnu en omgang af flygtninge på flugt fra Syrien, Irak, Libyen og Afghanistan. Så der findes en holdbar og effektiv politik, men kun, hvis man tager tingene fra toppen og tager udgangspunkt i sandheden om, hvor terrorismen kommer fra. Således og kun således kan vi danne den rette form for sammenslutning af nationer, der samarbejder om et fælles mål. Og terrorismen kan overvindes, det er der ingen tvivl om, men ikke hvis udgangspunktet for processen er et svindelnummer.

Ogden: På den front så vi hvordan CIA-direktør, John Brennan, i TV-udsendelsen »Meet the Press« sidste søndag (1. maj) udtalte, at de 28 sider ikke vil blive offentliggjort af Obama-administrationen. Det viser med al tydelighed at USA ikke er klar til en alliance med Rusland, Kina og Indien, FN og Europa omkring en effektiv krig mod terror, men stadig bukker og skraber for den saudiske kongefamilie, som stod bag 11. september.

Putins afgørende intervention i Palmyra, foruden hvilken byen stadig ville være under ISIS' belejring, skaber en stærk kontrast og viser vejen for at overvinde terrorisme. Så måske kan du forklare, hvad dette viser om, hvor Obama-administrationens sande alliancer ligger.

Steinberg: Det er meget ligetil. Det Brennan sagde på nationalt TV i »Meet the Press« i søndags var præcist, hvad vi regnede med, at han ville sige. Og alt dette var forårsaget af den vedholdende mobilisering for at få offentliggjort de 28 sider, som LaRouches politiske aksionskomité (LaRouchePAC) har været hovedansvarlig for. Denne mobilisering har tvunget Obama-administrationen til at bekende kulør og sige at den på ingen måde har tænkt sig at bryde med den Angel-saudiske alliance. Så længe Obama er præsiden og Brennan er CIA-direktør vil der være en beskyttelsesmur mod enhver form for afsløring af det Britiske Imperiums og Saudi-Arabiens rolle i terrorangrebet d. 11. september. Og naturligvis har FBI's topledelse været dybt involveret i at mørklægge denne sag. Hvis nogen troede at FBI på en eller anden vis havde skiftet identitet siden de mørke dage under J. Edgar Hoover, får de sig noget af en overraskelse. Den eneste forskel er, at teknologierne og ressourcerne, der er tilgængelige i dag, er langt mere vidtrækkende. Og det var daværende FBI-chef Robert Mueller, der personligt satte en stopper for, at de 28 sider blev offentliggjort.

Og så udtalte pressesekretæren for det Hvide Hus, Josh Earnest, tirsdag – han har ellers under pres fra de pårørende til ofrene for 11. september flere gange udtalt, at en i det mindste delvis offentliggørelse af de 28 sider ville finde sted indenfor de næste måneder – at han bakkede fuldt op omkring Brennans udlægning af sagen i »Meet the Press« udsendelsen og at der ikke ville blive nogen offentliggørelse. Og han løj så det drev, idet han gentog Brennans løgn om, at de 28 sider indeholder ubegrundede foreløbige ledetråde. Og det på trods af, at der er snesevis af saudiarabiske embedsmænd og politiske figurer, der er dybt involveret i at samarbejde med flykaprerne før angrebet d. 11. september.

Så USA befinder sig på sin vis i sandhedens time. Hvis I, det amerikanske folk, ikke kan gennemtvinge denne sag, hvis ikke vi kan få offentliggjort de 28 sider, så er det muligvis et tegn på at denne nation ikke længere har den moralske integritet, der skal til, for at overleve. Tilbage i 70'erne, da Vietnamkrigen viste sig som et monster, der åd USA op indefra, havde Senator Mike Gravel modet til at offentliggøre de såkaldte »Pentagon Papers« (Pentagons hemmelige dokumentation af USA's Vietnam-politik – red.) ved at læse dem højt fra talerstolen i senatet, og det ændrede historien. Og det er den slags øjeblikke vi lige nu befinder os i. Vi har brug for at nogen udviser samme mod i dag, som Mike Gravel gjorde dengang. For hvis mørklægningen af den Angel-saudiske hånd bag 11. september bliver tilladt at fortsætte meget længere, vil denne nation have opgivet det, der retfærdiggør nationens eksistens.

LaRouchePAC-fredagswebcast den 22. april 2016:
Om de britiske og saudi-arabiske forbindelser bag terrorangrebet den 11. september 2001

I takt med at presset fortsat vokser på Obama for at frigive de 28 sider om d. 11. september, inklusiv at tidligere senator Bob Graham i denne uge har skrevet en ledende artikel, hvori han undsiger det "aggressive bedrag", som to på hinanden følgende administrationer har forøvet mod det amerikanske folk, begynder vi i aften kl. 8 pm. (eastern time) vores webudsendelse med en særlig video-erklæring fra Lyndon LaRouche personligt. Han hævder en afgørende britisk skyld i komplottet, hvorefter Jeffrey Steinberg indtager podiet for i detaljer at udlægge sine eksklusive undersøgelser i disse britisk-saudiske forbindelser. Jeff Steinberg diskuterer også implikationerne af det nyligt frigivne 47-siders dokument forfattet af undersøgerne i 11. september Kommissionen, i hvilken de forslog en efterforskning af den rolle, som agenturer indenfor den amerikanske regering spillede i at dække over den saudiske rolle i angrebene, men som de blev blokeret i at foretage.

Engelsk udskrift.

As the pressure continues to increase on Obama to release the 28 pages on 9/11, including former Senator Bob Graham authoring an editorial this week in which he denounces the "aggressive deception" which two consecutive administrations have perpetrated against the American people, we begin our webcast tonight at 8 pm eastern witha special video statement from Lyndon LaRouche personally in which he asserts the British culpability in the plot, after which Jeffrey Steinberg takes the podium to lay out in detail his exclusive research into these British-Saudi connections. Jeff Steinberg also discusses the implications of a newly released 47-page document authored by researchers on the 9/11 Commission in which they proposed to investigate the role that agencies within the US government played in covering up for the Saudi role in the attacks, but were blocked from doing so.

'JASTA' Act Passed in 2012, and Obama Signed It — Against Iran


MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, my name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome all of you to our weekly broadcast here from larouchepac.com. You're watching the Friday evening webcast for April 22nd, 2016. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review. And the two of us had a meeting with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, and I think that the presentation that Jeff gives tonight will be a very significant presentation, elaborating on some remarks that Mr. LaRouche had to say just yesterday on the question of the story behind and beyondthe 28 pages.

Now, as those of you who are watching this broadcast tonight probably know, we are living in a truly momentous period of history. Over the last two weeks, since the "60 Minutes" episode which elaborated the story of the so-called "28 pages," the redacted chapter of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report into 9/11, that has been classified by both the Bush and the Obama administrations; since that broadcast, there has been an unrelenting stream of media coverage of this story, in almost all of the major national press in the United States, and also internationally, in Europe and elsewhere. There has also been a relentless attack, directly, on Obama, by name, for his refusal to declassify these 28 pages, despite the promises that he has given to the 9/11 families; and also for his open and explicit opposition to the lawsuit that families have waged against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the bill that they have introduced into the United States Senate, the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which would allow those victims to sue the state-sponsors of the 9/11 attacks.

Now, as you know, on the LaRouche PAC website, we have been covering this story for years, very closely. We've been following the efforts of Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC), Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA), and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) in the House of Representatives, who have introduced a bill, now over two years ago, House Resolution 14 (H.R.14), which was previously House Resolution 428, calling on Obama to declassify the 28 pages; and they've worked very closely with former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). Bob Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and was co-chairman of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report.

Bob Graham has been very vocal, for years, in calling for the 28 pages to be released. I had the pleasure of interviewing him at an event in Florida in November of 2014, and at that time, he was very clear that if the 28 pages had not been classified and suppressed, you would not be seeing the threat of terrorism that we're facing today from al-Qaeda and from ISIS, both of which have received direct funding from individuals connected with the Saudi regime.

Bob Graham wrote a very clear and very blunt op-ed that was published in the Florida newspaper TCPalm, which was titled, "28 Pages: How Our Government Has Used Deceit To Withhold Truth From the American People." This op-ed was published on Wednesday, to be timed directly in coincidence with President Obama's landing in Riyadh, to hold a joint bilateral summit with King Salman of Saudi Arabia. In this op-ed, Senator Graham is perhaps more explicit than he has ever been. He said, "This was not just a cover-up." The suppression of the 28 pages and other evidence linking the Saudis to 9/11 was the result of what he calls "an aggressive deception." He says, "Your government has purposely used deceit to withhold the truth." The reason for this deceit, he says, "is to protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from its complicity in the murder of 2,977 Americans. On April 15, the New York Timesreported: 'Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.'" That is obviously a blackmail threat against the United States, and that's what they said publicly; one can only wonder what the Saudis were threatening behind closed doors.

What Senator Graham goes on to say in this op-ed is: "If that is not sufficient to get your blood boiling, read on: [the New York Timeswrites] 'The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill's passage.'"

Now, Senator Graham elaborates that there have been multiple forms of what he calls this "aggressive deceit"; not only the suppression of the 28 pages. He said the 28 pages would disclose the sources of funding for the attack on 9/11; this has been under review for declassification for three years, which was three times the amount of time that it took to research, author and publish, the original Congressional Inquiry report which was 838 pages long! He said, secondly, "The 28 pages are the most iconic, but not the only, evidence to be withheld from the report of the congressional inquiry. The report is pocked by hundreds of specific redactions."

And then he says, thirdly, "Investigations at locales where the hijackers lived and plotted prior to the attacks also have been classified. One of those involves Mohamed Atta, the leader of the hijackers, and two of his henchmen who are alleged to have collaborated with a prominent Saudi family who lived in Sarasota for six years before abruptly departing for Saudi Arabia two weeks before 9/11."

Senator Graham says, "The FBI publicly described its Sarasota investigation as complete, and said it found no connection between the hijackers and the family. Later, responding to a Freedom of Information lawsuit, the FBI released an investigative report that said the family had 'many connections' to individuals tied to the terrorist attacks. The FBI for two years has aggressively resisted releasing that report," Graham says. [emphasis added] And this is part of a much bigger story, that goes beyond just the 28 pages per se.

Now, Senator Graham concludes that op-ed by saying there are three reasons why the 28 pages must be released: One is justice for the families; two is national security, and he said: The fact that Saudis, and their "blatant attempts to avoid liability as co-conspirators in the crime of 9/11, and the U.S. government's acquiescence by refusing to release information (and opposition to reforming laws that would hold collaborators in murder to account) has been a clear signal to the Kingdom that it is immune from U.S. sanctions. With that impunity," Senator Graham says, "it continues to finance terrorists and fund mosques and schools used to indoctrinate the next generation of terrorists in intolerance and jihad."

And then finally, he said, this is an issue of democracy. "The American government is founded on the consent of the governed. To give that consent, the people must know what the government is doing in its name. Distrust in government is reflected in the speeches of today's presidential candidates" he said. "The public's sometimes angry response is fueled by a sense of betrayal and deceit."

Now, Mr. LaRouche was asked a question from our institutional source this week, this is our regular institutional question, and it's very brief, but it's obviously directly on this subject-matter. The question reads as follows: "Mr. LaRouche, there has been an overwhelming enthusiasm to release the 28 pages lately. What is your advice to the Obama administration, in regards to the 28 pages?"

Now, we produced a short video which includes the audio of Mr. LaRouche's remarks on this subject. We're going to play that video for you now; it's about five minutes in length, and then immediately after that video, I'm going to ask Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium to elaborate some of the points that Mr. LaRouche asserts in this statement.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: [via audio file] I was watching those two planes which were carrying the victims, and carried them to death. I was an eyewitness to the press. We knew that they were being carried, as victims, inside the planes, in the two planes in succession, and obviously the passengers all died.

But that operation, on that occasion, which I witnessed from beginning to end in my first contact with it, defines the actual issue which has to be addressed.

Now of course, I also knew what the background was. The way this thing was set into motion was with the Bush family. Now, the Bush family was actually a key part, of setting this thing into motion; they may not have intended to do that, because they're too stupid to know what they're doing. See, the Bush family was involved in its own little warfare operation, so there was a spillover from the Bush administration as such, into this particular operation. The whole operation was twofold: One, was British-Saudi operation. Now the person who was directing the thing from inside the United States, had been trained by the British system. Bandar was a key figure operating inside the United States. Bandar was directly overseeing the launching of this operation.

And what they were doing, was they were shipping petroleum as a real money-making operation, just with the oil trade, by the British, shared with the Saudis; and this thing was done for harmful purposes in many ways, and was a key part of control of what the United States was doing in petroleum; because the thing was a fraud — a fraud committed by Her Majesty. Her Majesty was guilty: period. Queen Elizabeth was the author of this operation. She was the only person who was qualified to authorize this operation.

The attack on Manhattan was done under the cover of the British system. And the Saudis were a subordinate aspect of the British system as a whole. Her Majesty was the author, of this monster. And the Saudis were simply stooges. The Saudis have been stooges from the beginning of the 20th century. That's the essential story. Everything has to be focused on that: The fact that is was thedeliberate mass murder of American citizens. And not only that, but adirect attack on the United States!

The key thing is that the British and the Saudis are the same thing, since that time. And all these facts are really known, on the record. The Saudis are guilty and the British are guilty, because the Saudis and the British are part of the same agency. What the Saudis do, what the British do, won't be the same thing. The fact is that the Saudi Kingdom is not a real government — it's an empire; it's an imperial institution. It has no formal responsibility to anything except the Kingdom of the Saudis, and the British! They are the same thing!

OGDEN: Now, as you can see displayed on the screen, we have a short advertisement for a much longer feature documentary that was published, actually several years back by LaRouche PAC Television, which was called "Beyond the 28 Pages: 9/11 Ten Years Later,".

Jeffrey Steinberg was interviewed as part of that production, and obviously has been very intimately familiar with many of the facts that are presented in that documentary and which were alluded to by Mr. LaRouche in the statement that you just heard. So I'm going to invite Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium to elaborate this, in a little bit more detail.

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thank you, Matt.  Well I think it's important to recognize that the fundamental point that Mr. LaRouche just made in answering the institutional question for this week, is that the story of 9/11 is incomplete if we simply stop with the now obvious, transparently evident role that high-ranking figures within the Saudi royal family and within the Saudi government played in the 9/11 attacks. Both before the attacks, as the attacks were happening, and in the cover-up that followed. What's crucial to understand is that the Saudis do nothing without full support and approval coming from the highest levels of the British monarchy; all the way up to the Queen herself, and to the Royal Consort, Prince Philip.  The fact of the matter is that, going back centuries, back to the time of the heyday of the British East India Company, the entire Persian Gulf region was a British colony, a British Protectorate. For centuries, every one of the so-called nations — really tribal collections — along the Persian Gulf, whether it was Bahrain, or the UAE, or Qatar, or Oman, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait; all of those countries existed in name only. All of them had treaty agreements where their foreign and defense policy was run out of London. It was a vital feature for the functioning of the British East India Company to have a way station en route to India and on to China. So, at the beginning of the 20th Century, when people like Lawrence of Arabia forged the establishment of the House of Saud as a marriage between a tribal family and the Wahabi fundamentalist clergy of that area; it's always been a British game, it's always been tightly under the thumb of the British.  And that carries through even more so in the present modern period.

Mr. LaRouche mentioned Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who for years was the Saudi ambassador here in the United States; before that, he was the Saudi military attaché in Washington. And he was widely referred to as "Prince Bandar Bush", because of his close relationship with the Bush family — starting with father George HW Bush, and continuing even more so under George W Bush — was notoriously close. But above all else, Prince Bandar was a British agent. He was trained at British military schools; his official, authorized biography was written by one of his school chums from British military school. And in 1985, Bandar negotiated what came to be a critical feature of the Anglo-Saudi arrangement — the Al-Yamamah deal; this was ostensibly a barter arrangement in which the Saudis paid in oil for British military equipment — fighter planes, radar systems, training, supplies, all of that.

And in carefully investigating that program, what we discovered was that the amount of oil that the Saudis delivered to the British in payment for about $40 billion of military hardware, was orders of magnitude greater.  The oil for the Saudis was cheap; it was under $5 a barrel to pull it out of the ground and load it onto a supertanker. But once British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell took control over that oil, they sold it on the spot market at phenomenal mark-ups. From 1985 until the scandal first broke in 2007, more than $100 billion in excess funds were accrued after paying for the British military equipment and after generous bribes to many British and Saudi officials. Hundreds of billions of dollars were sequestered in offshore bank accounts; and those funds represented the biggest slush fund in the world for carrying out destabilizations of governments, terrorist activities, and assassinations. Prince Bandar, not being the brightest guy on the planet, openly boasted about this special relationship, and said that while Al-Yamamah was a traditional barter arrangement — oil for weapons — it was in fact something much more. It was a reflection of the marriage of the British and Saudi monarchies; and the fact that these monarchies could operate outside of any parliamentary or Congressional scrutiny; and could carry out black operations anywhere in the world that they chose to do it.

Now, officially, Prince Bandar received a $2 billion commission for arranging the Al-Yamamah deal; and those funds have been traced.  They went from accounts of the Bank of England, accounts from the British Ministry of Defense that oversaw the Al-Yamamah arrangement; and they went from there into the bank accounts in Riggs National Bank in Washington DC, the private accounts of Prince Bandar bin Sultan.  Among the documentation contained in the 28 pages that Presidents Bush and Obama have kept from the American people, is evidence, paper trails of funds that were sent directly from Bandar's and his wife's personal bank account into the hands of two Saudi intelligence agents who were the handlers of the original two 9/11 hijackers who arrived in the United States at the beginning of the year 2000.

So, the British hand in 9/11 is unmistakable. If those 28 pages were to be opened up, it would not only confirm that the British and the Saudi royal families were together engaged in setting up and financing the 9/11 attacks; but would open up an array of other questions about follow-on terrorist operations that have occurred on a global scale. All told, hundreds of billions of dollars laundered offshore —probably in places like Panama, as well as the Cayman Islands, the Isles of Jersey off the coast of England — have gone into countless operations like the 9/11 attacks themselves.

So, while many people are quite clear on why it is that President George W Bush would order the suppression of the 28 pages, because of his notorious close relationship with Prince Bandar and the Saudis; many people scratch their heads and say, "Well, why would President Obama — particularly after he promised the families that he would declassify the 28 pages; why would President Obama continue with the cover-up?" It's not for Obama a matter of the Saudis; for Obama it goes to the next higher level in this whole story, which is namely, the British. Obama, from the beginning of his political career, has been sponsored by the British. It's not surprising that this week President Obama made a trip to Saudi Arabia; he was there Wednesday and Thursday. He met with King Salman of Saudi Arabia; and on Thursday, he met with all of the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. From there, he has now flown on to London, where he will be holding a private audience with the Queen. Obama has been a slavish loyalist of the British Empire, of the British monarchy, since the moment he came into office as President. So, Obama's hand in the cover-up, the shameless continuing cover-up of what happened on 9/11, is all about protecting the British side of this story. Were those 28 pages to be opened up, the minute that one began looking at the role of Prince Bandar, it would become absolutely obvious that there is a major British side to this story.

Now of course, when you talk about the British monarchy, if you roll the clock back just a few years before the September 11, 2001 attacks; remember that there was an intensive investigation over a number of years into the fact that the British monarchy was unquestionably behind the murder of Princess Diana. It was a revenge killing because she represented forces that were completely disgusted with the way that the House of Windsor, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, Prince Charles operated. So, you have a British monarchy that has blood on its hands going back a very long time; and most recently with the top-down ordered assassination of Princess Diana. It should come as no surprise that that same British apparatus is up to its eyeballs on global terrorism.

Now in point of fact, in late 2000, Executive Intelligence Review filed a formal request with the US State Department that they consider placing Great Britain on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. People may remember at that time, there was a wave of terrorism going on around the globe. In 1997, you had the Egyptian Islamic Jihad group carry out an attack against a group of Japanese tourists at Luxor; and the Egyptian government at that time, provided detailed evidence that the terror plot had been organized, financed, and controlled by Egyptian terrorist networks that were living in Britain under the protection of the British monarchy.

Several years later, the Russian government filed a series of formal diplomatic demarches because they had evidence that the British government was facilitating the recruitment of Chechen terrorists who would be allowed to travel to Afghanistan from Britain to be trained by al-Qaeda and then safely routed into Chechnya to become part of the separatist terrorist networks that were fighting against the Russian government. There was detailed evidence that was included in that EIR profile; and unfortunately needless to say, the State Department sat on it, did nothing; and so, we had 2001. And we had many subsequent terrorist events that followed from that.

So, the bottom line here, is that now that there is intensive momentum demanding the declassification of those 28 pages, what is really required is a complete, de novo, top-down investigation into the 9/11 actions; and into all of the subsequent terrorist actions that have followed and have been the work of the same Anglo-Saudi apparatus. Once those 28 pages are made public, once the American people — led by the families of those 2,997 people killed by 9/11 — have the chance to thoroughly read through and digest the content of those pages; then the whole can of worms, the whole British-Saudi empire structure has to be brought down. Has to be subject to the kind of rigorous criminal prosecution that is warranted; and that means as well, that both President Bush and President Obama have to be brought to criminal task for their role in both facilitating and covering this up.

As Mr. LaRouche said in his brief comments to colleagues yesterday, that you just saw in that 5-minute video, he was on the scene; he was giving a live interview to Utah radio broadcaster Jack Stockwell. He had the TV on in his study; and he saw in real-time, the planes crashing into the two World Trade Center towers. He was one of the few people — perhaps the only person outside of those who committed the crime — on Earth who understood the full strategic implications of it the moment that the attack occurred. LaRouche had warned at the beginning of 2001, once he saw the character of the Bush/Cheney administration, that this was the kind of regime that would look for the first opportunity to carry out a Reichstag fire in order to go for dictatorship. And he understood that it was the Anglo-Saudi apparatus that represented the capability for carrying out just such a heinous crime with those particular intentions. He made very clear in that real-time interview with Jack Stockwell, that the entire blame was going to immediately be placed on al-Qaeda; but he said to the extent that al-Qaeda had anything to do with it, it's a bit part. It's a minor element of something much bigger that goes much higher; and goes up to the British-Saudi apparatus that we've been discussing here.

So, members of Congress who have read those 28 pages — and by now, there's well over 100 members who have done that; they've all come away with the same conclusion. That these documents must be made public; and furthermore, that they completely alter how you understand the history of the last several decades. So, take that as just a glimmer of an indication of what the implications are. Regardless of what's contained in the 28 pages per se, it's the implications of the findings in those 28 pages; and the can of worms that's opened up that leads all the way up to the British monarchy.  And you realize that the fight to get these 28 pages released to the public is a fight for the very survival of mankind going forward from this day. The British Empire today is bankrupt; they're desperate. They're not just desperate to cover up the 28 pages and the whole 9/11 story and the Al-Yamamah story; they're desperate because they're on the edge of losing their power. And they will, if the opportunity presents itself, create the conditions using these kinds of capabilities, to start a world war. So, the stakes are enormous; and the answer is very straightforward. Release the 28 pages; and on the basis of that, re-open from the top down a complete and thorough investigation. Starting with the British and Saudi monarchies and working down from there. We owe it to the families that suffered through 9/11; we owe it to the American people; and we owe it to mankind.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. One thing I would just mention in relation with some of what Jeff just went through in detail, is that some of these connections are not unknown to people who are familiar with this investigation. In fact, Senator Bob Graham himself, while denied from including this in his nonfiction book, Intelligence Matters; in his fiction book — which he said himself he had to publish, because it was the only way he could get the truth in written form. In his fiction book, his novel Keys to the Kingdom, Senator Bob Graham includes a lot of references to exactly the kinds of things that Jeff just went through. The role of BAE; the Al-Yamamah deal; the offshore tax havens; the Cayman Islands; the fact that Tony Blair intervened to shut down the investigation into the connection between the British BAE Systems and the Saudis. So, in fact, these are the lines of inquiry that anybody who is serious — and the people who are familiar with this case — wish would be pursued; because they know exactly how big this can of worms really is.

Now, the 28 pages may not have been declassified yet; however, one very important document that was declassified recently — and has only now begun to receive media attention, starting with an exclusive report and analysis by Brian McGlinchey, who is the editor of the very important website 28pages.org. This is a document which was a 47-page draft document which was written by two researchers who were working on the 9/11 Commission; this was the independent blue-ribbon panel their own extensive report into 9/11. But these two researchers, who are named Dana Lesemann and Michael Jacobson, had both been formerly employed by the Congressional Joint Inquiry Committee. And in this 47-page document, they lay out what was going to be their own working plans for their follow-up research on the spcific lines of research which they had been engaged in during their role in the Congressional investigation. One of the items which they cite in this document — and Jeff will elaborate this more — is the fact that an alleged al-Qaeda operative, a person named Ghassan al-Sharbi who had trained for flight lessons in Arizona prior to 9/11, and who was captured in Pakistan subsequently; was discovered to have buried a cache of documents near to his person at the location where he was hiding, which included al-Sharbi's US pilot certificate which was inside of an envelope from the Saudi embassy in Washington DC.

Senator Bob Graham, who was not informed of this fact during the time that this investigation was going on, but later learned about it after this declassification; said in response, "That's very interesting.  That's a very intriguing and close connection to the Saudi embassy."  The second item which is of extraordinary interest in this 47-page research document, are the two questions which these two researchers intended to pursue.  The first question was:  How aggressively has the US government investigated possible ties between the Saudi government and/or royal family and the September 11 attacks?  And number two:  To what extent have the US government's efforts to investigate possible between the Saudi government and/or royal family and the September 11 attacks been affected by political, economic, or other considerations?

Now, what's very telling is that when Dana Lesemann attempted to go back and access the 28 pages which she herself was instrumental in researching and writing, first she was denied and blocked access to them; and then when she circumvented those denials, she was fired.  She was dismissed from the 9/11 Commission investigation.  So, I think that just demonstrates in a very illustrative way just one example of what Bob Graham described as the "aggressive deception" that has been undertaken in this case; that's what he said in the op-ed which I cited at the beginning of this broadcast tonight.  He said, "Your government has purposely used deceit to withhold the truth."  And that is not the only case.

One thing I would like to Jeff to just elaborate a little bit more on, is the entire story of the Sarasota cell, and the very significant work that investigative journalist Dan Christianson has done of theFlorida Bulldog, in tracking down 80,000 pages of FBI documents that linked Mohammed Atta and other members of the Sarasota cell to people connected with the Saudi royal family and the Saudi government. Documents which the FBI withheld from Bob Graham at the time of the Congressional investigation; did not tell him existed. They impeded that investigation and stonewalled on, until an FOIA lawsuit forced them to at least hand them over to a judge. And the review of those documents still has not been completed.

So, I would like to ask Jeff to come to the podium and elaborate a little bit more on the further implications of this "aggressive deception" — not just a cover-up — that has been committed by the US government in this regard.

STEINBERG: The 28 pages are a critical piece of this story, because that was the final product; it was the work product after a year of investigation by the Joint Congressional Inquiry. And that 28-page chapter that took up the question of foreign support and funding for the 9/11 hijackers, represented the most solid and corroborated evidence that the investigators were able to compile in the face of massive obstruction. It's not just simply that President Bush, when he reviewed the final 800-page report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, simply ordered the suppression of the 28-page chapter. Every step along the way, during both the period of the investigation by the Joint Congressional Commission and the later 9/11 Commission, was impeded top down from the White House; and particularly from the highest levels of the FBI. This is not mere speculation. In the recent period — just over the course of the last year — many of the documents that were work-products of the Joint Committee and the 9/11 Commission which were classified, have now been reviewed and declassified.

For those of you who don't know some of the inner workings of Washington, there is a board which is located at the National Archive, called the Interagency Security Clearance Appeals Panel — referred to as ISCAP. And they are the final authority; they're kind of a Supreme Court with respect to questions about what documents should be declassified. And they've been in the process of reviewing and declassifying some of the important staff documents of the two investigative bodies. Last July, they declassified about 29 documents that were work-products from the 9/11 Commission; and one in particular written by Dana Lesemann and Jacobson, is very revealing. It was a work-product document; it was classified for the last decades as being "Secret", but what they laid out was their plans for pursuing the investigation over the period of the next several months. What's very clear is that they had many, many more leads on many more officials of the Saudi government — in southern California, in Washington, in Saudi Arabia — who were deeply implicated with the 9/11 hijackers. One section of Document 17, this 47-page paper that was declassified last July, is headlined "A Brief Overview of Possible Saudi Government Connections to the September 11 Attacks"; and it goes through the names of 18 Saudi officials who were in southern California, in Washington, and back in Saudi Arabia, who had direct contact and facilitated the efforts of the hijackers.

Now, the FBI was a continuous obstacle from the top down. During the "60 Minutes" broadcast several weeks ago, Commission Member John Lehman said that the order to block the publication of the 28 pages came directly from Robert Muller, who was the director of the FBI at the time. Now, it happens, and again it's repeated throughout this 47-page working document from the 9/11 Commission staff, that the two 9/11 hijackers, al-Hazmi and al-Midhar, who were living in the San Diego area; for the better part of a year were living in the home of a man who was an FBI informant, who was being paid $3000 a month by the FBI to keep tabs on possible radicals inside the Muslim community — particularly the Saudi-Muslim community in the southern California area. The staff from the 9/11 Commission and earlier the staff from the Joint Congressional Inquiry, repeatedly asked to interview the informant; they were blocked at every turn. The informant was put in the Federal Witness Protection Program under a change of identity; the FBI Special Agents who were the handlers of this informant, were also blocked from being interviewed by the Committee. So, in other words, one branch of the Executive Branch of the Federal government was working overtime to prevent the investigation from going forward.

Now, going all the way back to the days of J Edgar Hoover, it was notorious that the FBI was completely in bed with the British. During World War II, it was an open collaboration between the FBI and the British Special Operations Executive, with their headquarters at Rockefeller Center in New York City. But this relationship continued. Wall Street is an important intermediary between the FBI and the British. And so, the FBI role in the cover-up, both in San Diego and in other parts of the country, is absolutely stunning; and is something that in and of itself must be thoroughly investigated and exposed.

In the case of Sarasota, the FBI conducted an exhaustive investigation into a wealthy Saudi family that were intimately tied through business with the Saudi royals, who were in regular contact with Mohammed Atta and two other of the 9/11 hijackers. They lived in a gated community in the Sarasota, Florida area. Mohammed Atta and the others would frequently visit that home; and two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, that family on very short notice, picked up and left the country. First flew back to London; and from London back on to Saudi Arabia. The FBI compiled 86,000 pages of documentation following up those leads; because the connections between this leading Saudi family and the 9/11 hijackers was unmistakable. Those documents were withheld from the Joint Congressional Inquiry, despite the fact that the FBI was subpoenaed all over the country to turn over any records relevant to the investigation into 9/11.

So, you've got — as Senator Graham said — "willful deception" at the highest levels of government. Now, we know about San Diego; we know about Sarasota. We know also that Herndon and Falls Church, Virginia was another sort of center of activity of some of the hijackers and some of the leading Saudi clerics who were part of the overall structure of support for those 9/11 terrorists. Paterson, New Jersey was another center of this. Senator Graham has said at press conferences on Capitol Hill, that we've barely scratched the surface; because the government — to protect the British and protect the Saudis — have put up a wall of deception. They've blocked lines of inquiry; they've concealed documents; they've committed fraud and perjury. All because the power of the British and the power of the British/Saudi alliance is so dominant over politics in Washington that the FBI, in effect, is sworn to defend that relationship; even if it means that the American people are denied justice.

So, once again in conclusion, there is much more to this story than merely the events of September 11, 2001; as horrific and as dramatic as they were. The 9/11 Families deserve nothing less than the full and complete truth; no matter where it leads. But the problem runs much deeper. If we don't purge this Anglo-Saudi problem, if we don't get to some of the questions that were posed by the 9/11 Commission staffers; such as "Did the FBI intentionally withhold from the Joint Inquiry, information about the informant's relationship with the hijackers; and subsequently attempt to obstruct the Joint Inquiry's investigation of the matter? If the FBI did withhold information and obstruct the Joint Inquiry's investigation, were the FBI's actions indicative of a larger pattern of an FBI non-compliance with Congressional oversight; and what should be done about it?"

So, this is a can of worms that must be opened; and must be systematically investigated. Because our very future may depend on getting to the bottom of this.

OGDEN: And we are truly seeing a very momentous shift around this while Obama is in Riyadh and then flying directly to London. This has become the subject of almost all of the media coverage in the United States. And it's an extraordinary opportunity to pull this thread to unravel this empire. However, this is just yet one of many threads that can and must be pulled. There are other threads: What came out two years ago in the Senator Levin report on HSBC. This has a major aspect of it; and of course, this is becoming relevant again in the Panama Papers. And Helga LaRouche thought it was very significant that Jacques Attali, a prominent French economist, wrote an article this week saying, don't call them the Panama Papers; call them the London Papers. Because what this is really all about is the entire system of British offshore tax havens and Crown Protectorates that create the safe haven for this dark underworld of narco-terrorism, drug money laundering, and terrorism financing. And you can be guaranteed that if you follow the money, some of those threads lead directly back to these offshore tax havens.

So, as we're seeing right now, a lot of the work that has been done over years if not decades by the LaRouche Movement, by Executive Intelligence Review, by associates of Jeff Steinberg. And by Mr. LaRouche going back to his book, Dope, Inc. and also the very important film that he put out at the end of the 1990s, "Storm Over Asia", which described exactly how these irregular warfare operations are run to destabilize countries. And then the appearance he had on the Jack Stockwell show on the day that September 11 was occurring; that is featured in this "9/11 Ten Years Later" feature documentary that we showed little excerpts from, during the statement that you heard from Mr. LaRouche earlier this evening.

So, if you have a chance and you haven't watched it, or you haven't watched it lately; we would encourage you to go back and view that documentary. It's available on larouchepac.com/28pages; it's also available on our youTube channel. And I think you can be ready for much, much more that will be coming from LaRouche PAC TV on this subject and the broader implications of it. So, please stay tuned to larouchepac.com; please subscribe to our YouTube channel if you haven't already. Please explore all the content that we have published on this subject in the past; and please share it as widely as you can with your friends and your associates.

So, I'd like to thank Jeff Steinberg for joining us here this evening; and I would like to thank you for watching our broadcast. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Thank you and good night.


Nationer må samarbejde om at fremme menneskeheden!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 25. marts 2016

Engelsk udskrift. Vi begynder vores udsendelse i aften med at oplæse en kort erklæring fra LaRouche-bevægelsen i Belgien, Agora Erasmus, om bombesprængningerne i Bruxelles. Erklæringen fordømmer gerningsmændene til disse angreb og sørger over ofrene for angrebene. Men erklæringen opfordrer os også til, konfronteret med denne fornyede nødvendighed, at arbejde sammen med vore mulige samarbejdspartnere i Rusland og andre lande for at besejre ISIS én gang for alle; men også til at fjerne roden til denne terrors årsager én gang for alle.


International LaRouche PAC Webcast
Friday, March 25, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's March 25, 2016. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you're watching our weekly broadcast with the
LaRouche PAC Friday evening webcast. I am here tonight in the
studio with Jason Ross and Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC
Science Team. We had a chance to have a discussion earlier today
with Mr. LaRouche.
We are going to begin our broadcast tonight by reading a
short statement that was issued by the LaRouche movement in
Belgium, Agora Erasmus, which is a statement on the Brussels
bombings. It's a statement condemning the perpetrators of these
attacks and also mourning the victims of these attacks. But it's
also a statement which is asking us to renew our sense of urgency
in the face of the urgent necessity to work with our possible
collaborators in Russia and other countries, to defeat ISIS once
and for all; but also, to root out the causes of this terrorism
finally once and for all. The statement reads as follows: It is
titled, "Brussels Bombings: Let Us Be Firm and Coherent Against
Terrorism and Its Sponsors".
"Today Brussels is in tears. At this tragic juncture, our
thoughts and heart goes to the victims, their families and
friends. Our affection and support goes to the first aid workers,
the police forces, the security services, the authorities of the
government and to all those simple citizens who kept calm and
showed solidarity in this horrible hardship.
"However, we cannot but call on the Belgian government to
draw the lessons of these attacks, and to act immediately to
uproot immediately both the known networks, as well as the
godfathers of this barbarism:
"First of all, the decades-long, evil role of Saudi Arabia
and Qatar, in spreading the Wahhabite and Salafist ideologies and
the financing of terrorist organizations, towards which the
Belgian, as well as the US, the British, and the French
governments, have all turned a blind eye.
"Second of all, the complicity with Daesh of Turkey, a
member state of NATO whose headquarters are 8 km from the
attacks. While Erdogan and his family buy Daeschs oil and provide
them with weapons and equipments, the EU submits itself to
Turkeys wishes by exchanging refugees, and offering it billions
of Euros.
"Finally, there is the financing of terrorism, which would
be impossible without the banking facilities of the fiscal safe
heavens offered by the City of London and Wall Street; as
documented in a US Senate report in the case of British bank
HSBC. In Belgium, an investigative parliamentary commission on
the financing sources of terrorism, if allowed to do their job,
would quickly arrive at the conclusion that an orderly banking
reorganization, through a banking separation law based on the
Glass-Steagall Act, would be an excellent weapon in the war on
"In addition to those three concrete measures, we need a
shift in our overall political orientation. Instead of seeking
endlessly for confrontation and geopolitical domination, Belgium,
as well as other member states of NATO and the EU, have
everything to win from detente, entente, and cooperation with
Vladimir Putins government in Russia, who happen to be the only
heads of state sticking to principles of really being committed
to defeating Daesh.
"Let us also deepen our cooperation with China, with which
Belgium is celebrating 45 years of very good relations, and is
working for mutual development with its New Silk Road vision.
Only economic development shall create better living conditions
and cultural exchanges between peoples that will allow us, for
real, to eliminate the threat that hit Brussels today."
Now, the context of these attacks obviously is something
which we here at LaRouche PAC have been continually coming back
to after the January 7th attacks in Paris against Charlie Hebdo,
then the November attacks later in Paris, and then the attacks on
March 22ns in Brussels. As former Senator Bob Graham, who is the
co-chair of the 9/11 investigation into the Joint Inquiry Report,
has continually emphasized, only be declassifying the 28 pages of
that report and bringing the spotlight to who actually funded the
logistical and created the support network apparatus to make 9/11
possible — the Saudi government and others connected to the
Saudi Royal Family — will we be able to shut down these
logistical networks and these financing networks. The fact that
the George Bush administration and now the Obama administration
has continued to fail to release those 28 pages, has allowed the
Saudi government to continue to act with impunity financing first
al-Qaeda, now ISIS, and any other organization that pops up based
on the same ideological orientation. So, that is absolutely
However, there is a broader context as well; and this is
what I'm going to ask Jason Ross to discuss a little bit with us
here tonight. As the statement out of the Agora Erasmus
organization in Belgium stated, what is absolutely necessary is a
political paradigm shift; a shift in our political orientation.
We must continue what is now begun, preliminarily, with the
association between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov;
and the agreements that have been drawn up between the United
States and Russia to defeat ISIS on the ground in Syria. This is
a good direction, but it must go much, much further. And also, a
collaboration with China; and the working together of the United
States, the EU, and China is something that Mrs. Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has been emphasizing very broadly. Both with a trip
that she recently made to India, where she was one of the
featured speakers in a prominent international forum that
occurred there; and then at an event that occurred this past
Wednesday, March 23rd in Frankfurt. An EIR seminar where the
continuing discussion of the extension of the Silk Road — the
development perspective that China has initiated — what is being
discussed in Europe now as a new Marshall Plan for the Middle
East and North Africa — is the context for economic development
and a culture of hope and a culture of commitment to the future.
And optimism as opposed to perpetual war, which is required to
change the conditions on the ground in Syria, Iraq, in Libya, and
in the rest of the Middle East and North Africa. This was the
subject of a very prominent forum that occurred the previous week
in Cairo, Egypt; where Hussein Askary, a representative of EIR,
presented with the representatives of the Egyptian government,
the first Arabic-language version of the EIR Special Report, "The
New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge". This is something
that we covered in our broadcast here last week.
So, to discuss that very important conference that occurred
in Frankfurt, involving Helga LaRouche and many other prominent
individuals, I would like to ask Jason to come to the podium now.

JASON ROSS: Thanks, Matt. Well, this was really a tremendous
intervention that took place in Germany; and as Matt said,
follows on the other recent successes of Helga Zepp-LaRouche in
India and Hussein Askary in Egypt. This event, which took place
this Wednesday in Frankfurt, had 75 attendees and a very high
level discussion of the paradigm that is necessary to build a
future and eliminate the war and economic collapse, which is
otherwise the direction that the trans-Atlantic is heading in,
potentially to drag the world with it.
Among the speakers were Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who we'll get
into some more detail on that in particular; Hussein Askary gave
a report on what he had done in Egypt, as well as announcing that
at the same time that the seminar was taking place in Frankfurt,
a seminar was also taking place in Yemen. Which had been
organized there to work through the Arabic version of the World
Land-Bridge report; despite being under Saudi bombardment
literally in a very real way, this future orientation was taking
place in that nation. Other speakers included the Ethiopian
Consul General, who spoke about development in his nation and
about the 800,000 refugees and displaced persons currently living
in Ethiopia; and the government's plans for developing a future
through such projects as the Millennium Dam. Two speakers from
Italy — Marcello Vichi and Andrea Mongano — spoke about the
Transaqua Project; a decades-old proposal which would be able to
replenish Lake Chad, which is far below half of its previous
capacity. And in drying up, it is eliminating a source of
livelihood for people in the adjoining nations, and making it
much more difficult or impossible to root out terrorism by
replacing it with a positive economic policy. Ulf Sandmark was
also a speaker. His trips to Syria in the last couple of years
led to the formation of a Phoenix proposal, as he called it, for
the redevelopment of Syria. That gives you a sense of what the
overall tenor of the meeting was.
In her presentation, Helga Zepp-LaRouche asked whether we
are morally fit to survive. Given the crisis that we're facing
and given the response to it, are we morally fit to survive?
Referencing the recent events in Belgium, she pointed out that
terror can affect anybody; she also pointed out that in that same
time period, there was a Saudi Arabian bombing of a marketplace
in Yemen leaving 120 people dead, including 20 children, and 80
people wounded. These are people, too. People in Yemen also do
not deserve to be killed and blown up. To root this out, an
opening up of those 28 pages, the classified section of the 9/11
Report that covered over the role of Saudi Arabia in that crime;
these 28 pages have to be released, and the real source of
terrorism — namely involving nations that the United States and
Britain are working with, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, this has
to be cleaned up.
You contrast that with what is happening. Cooperating with
Turkey; where the dictatorial president has recently shut down
one newspaper, and there is talk of another one being closed
down. And an extortion operation to get money from the EU to
prevent the motion of asylum seekers; to deport those seeking
asylum — that is not a solution. What is a solution? She says,
where is our humanity; where is humanity going? What's the
potential for dealing with this? [Mrs. LaRouche] says, look at
China. China is a nation which, over the recent generations, has
pulled 900 million people out of poverty; and in their current
five-year program, calls for eliminating poverty entirely in
China by 2020; and playing a role in eliminating poverty in the
world by 2025. Now that is an objective for a nation to have.
The One Belt – One Road policy that is official Chinese
government policy at this point, represents a real victory for
the New Silk Road — the World Land-Bridge proposal that the
Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement have been
championing for over 20 years now. This is Chinese policy. China
is moving away from simple labor towards more complex forms of
exports; high-speed rail, a replacement of "Made in China" with
the motto of "Created in China". And of course, their efforts in
space. The tremendous efforts of the Chinese space program, which
go beyond replicating feats performed by other nations — some
many decades ago — to doing the entirely new; going to the far
side of the Moon, as planned in an upcoming mission. Something
that has never been done — a landing on the far side of the
Moon; representing a unique environment for various types of
astronomical researches.
So, how can terrorism be stopped? Clearly, you have to not
hide the sources of it; not hide the funding of it. Tell the
truth about Saudi Arabia. But that's not enough; the long-term
solution, of course, requires development. The only plan for
peace is not a negation of war and conflict; it's an affirmation
of what a peace looks like among nations and among peoples.
So, this theme was also the subject of Hussein Askary's
presentation; and he recounted for himself and the beginning of
his involvement with the LaRouche movement, taking place in 1994.
When, with the Oslo Accords and the potential for peace between
the Israelis and Palestinians, LaRouche had said at the time, if
there is not an economic development program, this peace will not
succeed; which was true. And there was not an economic
development program, and that peace did not succeed as it could
have. Hussein remarked on his recent trip to Cairo; where, as
viewers of the website are familiar, he was a primary participant
in a conference sponsored by the Egyptian Transport Ministry
itself, to launch the Arabic edition of the New Silk Road Special
Report. In doing this, not only was this a top-level endorsement
from the Transport Minister himself — who headed the meeting;
but it represents a potential for cooperation within the region
as a whole.
Among the World Land-Bridge concepts is included an
up-shifting of the quality of development. For example, Hussein
brought up Mr. LaRouche's 2002 trip to the region, when he
attended a conference held in Abu Dhabi, among oil ministers and
others. And LaRouche said at that time that the future for that
region could not be one of a raw materials exporter, an oil
exporter; but rather processing and industry would have to take
place as an idea of a future orientation for the economy there.
So, there are many old cultures within this region; ancient
civilizations with an historical grounding. The potential for
cooperation there is tremendous; and it's not about local
interests being played against each other. Some people in Egypt,
for example, might have thought that building the connectivity of
the New Silk Road would lessen the payback on their investment in
the new Suez Canal. If land routes are possible, won't that
reduce shipping? But, that's not the way to look at it. As a
general sense of connectivity and improvement in conditions of
economy, these things aren't mutually exclusive. So, just as
Egypt raised $8 billion from within the nation to complete the
construction of the new Suez Canal within the astounding period
of one year, the Transport Minister announced at this meeting
that Egypt was prepared to invest $100 billion — a trillion
Egyptian pounds — over the next 14 years into roads, rail,
logistics centers, into connectivity in the Southwest Asian
region, as well as with Africa. He spoke about the plans for
cooperation between Egypt and South Africa and other nations, for
rail and road connectivity crossing the entire continent from the
north to the south. Something which does not currently exist;
there is not strong connectivity among these nations of East
Africa in this way.
Hussein spoke about the fact that 95% of Egypt's territory
is currently empty; and the potential with water resources to
totally transform the nation. So that, among these projects —
many of which China is eager to cooperate with — there lies a
sense for stability. Does terrorism have to be stopped? Do people
willing to kill others have to prevented by military means at
times? Yes. But the only way you're going to have a stable future
and progress and happiness for that, is through a legitimate
program for development.
So, what can we do here? Well, we've heard a lot of good
news recently. Helga Zepp-LaRouche's trip to India was excellent
news. Hussein Askary's trip to Cairo and the various seminars and
meetings that he held there — about which you can read more on
our website. The conference just this week in Frankfurt; these
represent positive developments increasing the potential for this
new paradigm taking over as directing the course of human
Here in the United States, we have a number of
opportunities. Let's take a look at Manhattan, for example. Every
Saturday, there's an opportunity for direct discussion with these
Manhattan dialogues with Lyndon LaRouche himself. Coming up very
soon, on April 7th, there will be a very important conference
held in Manhattan, sponsored by the Schiller Institute, about
which you can read more and find registration information here on
our website. A conference in the US, dedicated to the principle
of how we can join this orientation; what kinds of concepts have
to guide relations among nations, and about the scientific
mission for mankind, and about the culture that's commensurate
and assists in bringing about these kinds of developments.
So, there's no amount of good news from around the world,
although it's good to have good news; but there's no amount of
good news that can replace the obligation of us in the United
States to oust Obama to prevent conflict, war, the direction
we're going right now. Without ousting Obama and repudiating that
policy orientation, the good news around the rest of the world
isn't going to be enough to prevent a commitment towards
conflict, to prevent its coming into being.

MEGAN BEETS: Earlier this week, Secretary of State John
Kerry travelled to Moscow for a series of meetings, including
with President Putin of Russia; and also for extensive dialogue
and discussion with his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov. These discussions obviously centered around the
ongoing US-Russian cooperation in resolving the conflict in
Syria. Going into the meetings and press conferences, both Kerry
and Lavrov stressed strongly that the successes in Syria are due
to the close collaboration between the United States and Russia;
and also expressed the hope that this cooperation can continue
and extend beyond Syria to address other urgent challenges and
conflicts in the Middle East, such as the ongoing atrocities in
Yemen and also beyond.
Now, after the conclusion of what were many, many hours of
meetings, Kerry began the joint press conference with Lavrov with
a statement which goes to something which is much more important
than cooperation among nations to resolve existing conflicts and
dangers, as urgent as the solutions of those conflicts may be.
And his statement points to the essence of the real meaning and
purpose of cooperation among nations. So, he said, "Let me just
say that earlier today, I had the privilege of meeting with Scott
Kelly, the American astronaut who spent 340 days in space with
his counterpart, Mikhail Koryenko. I had a chance to talk to both
of them about their time in space together; where they spent that
remarkable period of historic time cooperating and working
together. Two astronauts, one American one Russian, who were
working to study the effects of long-term space flight on the
human body. And as I listened to both of them talking about their
time, it emphasized to me the fact of close collaboration being a
demonstration of what not just two astronauts can do; but what
nations can do when they work together, whether it's on the
International Space Station, or international diplomacy."
Now in that context, we look to China and the leadership
that they have taken in their lunar program, as Jason mentioned a
moment ago. We look at the accomplishments of the recent past,
such as their 2013 landing on the surface of the Moon with a
lander and a rover; which is the first time in nearly 40 years
any nation has done that. And we also look forward to the
achievements that are planned for the next two years; their 2017
sample return from the Moon, and their 2018 landing on the lunar
far side — the first time ever, for any nation. These kinds of
things represent real value for mankind; both economically and
So, what I'd like to do now is invite Jason to the podium to
elaborate on that point.

JASON ROSS: At least in the United States, growth really
stopped in the 1960s and '70s. Now, this is point that Lyndon
LaRouche had made at the time, that he makes in his economics
courses; that he has in his economics textbook. And one that many
people may not agree with, saying there's been a tremendous
amount of development since then. However, a comparison of the
rate of growth from the 1930s until after the assassination of
Kennedy — the close of the 1960s — reveals a rate of growth of
productivity, of power consumption, of water consumption, of
markers of physical economy that have taken a tremendous turn
downwards since that time, over the last 45 years. So, why is
that? Partly it has been a lack of a commitment or even an
antagonism to economic development; a deliberate reduction of
economic output. Something that was sped [up] with the collapse
of the Soviet Union — growth; or limited or bounded by certain
conditions. And if we don't change those bounding conditions,
there is simply a limit to what economic growth will be possible.
Let me give an example. China; we've seen the tremendous
success of China in lifting people out of poverty. This is a real
achievement; especially over the last generation or so. This
achievement, this incredible success, utilized — in the main —
technologies which existed; much of it was not based on new
technologies. That doesn't take away its being a tremendous
accomplishment; and one that shouldn't be taken for granted.
India, for example, is another large nation similar in size to
China, which has not seen the same success in eliminating poverty
and in getting economic development within that nation. So, China
has definite claims to a sense of pride in the success that
they've had in that sense.
But let's think about what it is that really drives economy
forward. And if we look on the large scale, developments such as
a couple of centuries ago, the liberation of power created by the
steam engine; the ability to use combustion and heat to turn that
into motion, completely transformed mankind's relationship to
nature. Totally transformed the economy. It took some time to be
implemented; but the economy that resulted from the
implementation of that new technology was, frankly, in many ways
incomparable to what came before. This wasn't just about
improving production by having machinery so there'd be less
workers required to do the actual physical muscle labor of moving
things, or using animals for a similar purpose. It also
transformed what we were able to do. The transportation afforded
by the steam engine — trains, for example; this is something
totally new.
Think about the materials advancements that were made since
that time with the incredible developments of chemistry in the
late 1800s; the new understanding we had of the world around us.
There were further materials science breakthroughs made in the
middle of this past century; and which continue to some degree
today. But let's consider the real progress in science and in
power that is required to set a new level for what could be
accomplished; that moves forward what those limits to economic
growth are. We're not currently even near the limits of what we
could do, even with current technology. Poverty can be completely
eliminated on this planet with current technology. But to move
the level of what's possible, that requires something
fundamentally new.
Something of that level would be represented, for example,
in breakthroughs on fusion. Fusion, which as we've discussed many
times over the course of decades in the LaRouche movement, is a
complete transformation in our relationship to the natural world.
If we had accomplished the useful implementation of fusion power,
both for the types of electrical power that we use today as well
as for transforming our relationship to materials by allowing the
refining and processing of ores on a totally different scale than
currently exists. The introduction of fusion as a scientific
breakthrough, will represent a really new era in the power of
Space; this is another place to look, in terms of what is
going to move the frontiers of science itself forward. We have to
develop a greater understanding of the Universe as a whole; of
these large, large-scale systems to develop new insights and to
make new scientific discoveries. Not every discovery that we'll
ever make in the future depends upon being in space; but if you
don't have that orientation, you're definitely limited.
And what do we see, for example, with China? With the
super-conducting tokamak that they have, the East Tokamak; as
we've discussed a couple of times on this show today already —
the plan to go to the Moon. The plan to go to the far side of the
Moon; to do something new. This goes beyond playing catch-up;
this is playing leap-frog. This is, as a nation, having a
commitment to a universal role as the society of organized
people, towards achieving things that will have a
world-historical importance. Like the development of the steam
engine; like other breakthroughs that transformed humanity as a
whole. A nation has to have that mission — barring incredibly
dire poverty conditions — a nation has to have that as its
mission; otherwise it simply has no legitimacy to exist. It has
no mission; it has no purpose. And then, people are not connected
to a sense of achievement that lies far outside of their own
What we need to do, among nations, is have that social
commitment to developing a new future for everybody; and of
allowing our citizens, our society, to actively and knowledgeably
play a role in bringing that about. So, this goes far beyond
removing a few bad things, getting bad people out of office. We
need to have an affirmative idea of what we want to achieve and
what we want to be as a society, as a nation, among societies and
nations of the world.
And again, this upcoming April 7th conference will represent
the highest level discussion of these types of issues in the
United States — from economics, science, culture; this will all
be covered. I highly encourage people to find out more about it
on our site; the registration information is there. And the
conference will also be available on our website.

OGDEN: Wonderful; thank you, Jason. So, I would encourage
you to please register and encourage other people to register for
this event. Also, coming up this weekend in New York City, if you
are in the area, on Easter Sunday at 6pm, there will be another
concert of portions of Handel's {Messiah}; which will be offered
by the Schiller Institute at a church in Brooklyn. And many
people may have seen the recording of the December 12th and
December 13th concerts. This, I'm sure, will be even better than
those. So, if you are in the area, or if you can make it to New
York this weekend; I would encourage you to come. And you can get
more information about that concert also, through the Schiller
Institute. So, thank you very much; thanks to both Megan and
Jason for joining me here today. And please stay tuned to

Hvad betyder Ruslands militære
tilbagetrækning fra Syrien for den
fredsproces, der er begyndt i Genève?
Fra LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast
18. marts 2016

Alt dette er et mål for det faktum, at det transatlantiske område er dødt; og det vil kun begynde at vende denne død omkring, hvis der finder en revolutionær, fundamental forandring sted i politikken. Denne alternative politik gennemføres i det eurasiske og asiatiske Stillehavsområde, anført af Kina, af Rusland, og er reflekteret i den måde, hvorpå præsident Putin har navigeret den strategiske situation.

Så den store trussel kommer fra det faktum, at et døende Britisk Imperium – der er uigenkaldeligt dømt til undergang – kæmper for sit liv og forsøger at bevare noget, der ikke længere kan bevares.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Det frydefulde ved at skabe overraskelser!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast 18. marts 2016

Engelsk udskrift: I denne uge får vi en opdatering fra Kesha Rogers i Texas, som anfører en politik for en genoplivelse af det amerikanske NASA-rumprogram; Jason Ross fortsætter sagaen om Gottfried Leibniz; og Jeffrey Steinberg giver os Lyndon LaRouches analyse af betydningen for fredsprocessen i Syrien af de seneste udviklinger, med den russiske militære tilbagetrækning.


International Webcast March 18, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's March 18th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to thank you for joining us
for our weekly Friday evening broadcast, here, on
larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}; and Jason Ross,
from the LaRouche PAC science team; and we're joined via video by
Kesha Rogers, multiple-time candidate for Federal office from the
state of Texas, and leading member of the LaRouche PAC Policy
All of us had a chance to meet with Mr. LaRouche, both in
person and via telephone connection (in the case of Kesha),
earlier this morning. Mr. LaRouche had some very definite and
specific ideas which he wished for us to convey. Mr. LaRouche was
{emphatic} when we met with him earlier today, that the global
agenda right now is being set by Russia and by China, and their
allies. He said that the initiative in creating the future and
shaping present global policy, lies with those two countries,
strategically — in the case of Russia, as is very clear with
what is occurring in Syria right now; and economically and
scientifically — in the case of China.
You can see very clearly that the outdated and archaic
methods of the trans-Atlantic system are proving to be impotent,
both in the case of resolving the current grave crises which are
facing mankind as a planetary species right now, but also
impotent in setting the agenda and fulfilling and laying out the
vision for the future of mankind. The mission which has been
undertaken by China, in terms of their objective to explore the
far side of the Moon — something which is going to be unfolding
over the coming two years — exemplifies the necessary identity
which mankind must have in order to affirm and to fulfill our
true nature as a creative species.
Mr. LaRouche stated that something that we should develop,
in dialogue with him and with each other, is to think about the
open questions, the unanswered questions about how is mankind, a
species, reflective of a much larger, and as yet not fully
understood, creative characteristic of the galactic system as a
whole. This is a relationship which Johannes Kepler drew out in
very unique detail in terms of his discoveries about our {Solar}
System, but we have many, many large and unanswered questions of
what is the role of the human species in our relationship to the
galactic system as a whole, and then the complex of galactic
systems as a much, much larger whole.
Mr. LaRouche said that this mission to explore the "dark
side" of the Moon, so-called, is a pathway in order to begin to
understand even the opening of the questions along these lines.
The dark side of the Moon, his hypothesis was, is where you can
find some of the shadows of this much larger system, have insight
into it, and also to begin to understand mankind's role as
reflective of these broader creative processes which are involved
in these great astronomical systems.
This is the spirit of the United States at our best. Our
republic was founded on these kinds of unique ideas, as we've
discussed here in previous weeks. The role of the great
philosopher and scientist Gottfried Leibniz is a major
contributor, a "founding father", or "founding grand-father" of
our republic. This is something which I know Jason Ross has
presented multiple times and is in the process of having a series
of developing classes on that subject; and I'm sure we'll be part
of his discussion later today.
But also, this is what you can see in a great statesman,
such as Abraham Lincoln — very, very much so. Franklin
Roosevelt; and John F. Kennedy. Tragically, that spirit in the
United States has deteriorated drastically. We see now that the
leadership does indeed lie with China and with Russia; and this
is something which Kesha Rogers, who is joining us here today,
wrote about in an editorial which is appearing in this week's
edition of the {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine. Kesha's
editorial is titled, "To Save the United States Economy, Revive
the Space Program."
Kesha and I had a brief conversation earlier this afternoon.
I know she has some broader ideas to develop on this subject, so,
without further ado, I would like to hand over the podium to
Kesha Rogers.

KESHA ROGERS: Thank you, Matt. I think I'd like to start,
first of all, by continuing to develop what has and must be the
focal point by which we come to understand the necessity for the
revival and the defense of, not just the American and U.S. space
program, which I have continued to be a leader in championing the
development and the necessity of our space program and what it
truly represents for the progress of all mankind. But just on the
editorial that I wrote, I think, to understand it, it's not just
from the standpoint of looking at the economic conditions of the
United States and some practical applications to economics that
the space program will provide; but we also have to look at it
from the standpoint of is, the space program as a true conception
of real economic value. This is what's actually missing from our
thinking and what has been attacked by the current Wall
Street/British imperial system, is that economic value is based,
from {that} standpoint, on monetary value and not on the creative
powers and progress of the human mind.
The real question at hand right now, is to bring about — as
we're seeing and will be developed further in these discussions
today — a new conception of what is the identity and what is the
purpose of mankind. I have continued to use the example and the
works of the great pioneer of space flight, space pioneer Krafft
Ehricke; and looking at his conception of mankind as a
space-faring creature, as the understanding of mankind's
"extra-terrestrial imperative," as that which must be identified
and understood.
If you look at the conditions of the space program and why
it's so important, you take the example, for instance, of what
China is doing now, as completely rejecting this monetarist
policy; that the space program is not how much money you're going
to put into pet projects and specific projects. It is creating
something that's never been created before, to actually create a
new conception and identity of mankind, from the standpoint of
the idea of acting on the future.  That's what this idea and what
is being developed, for instance with China in their
investigation of the far side of the Moon.
People may look at this, "Well what is this going to
benefit us? How is this going to improve the economic conditions,
in terms of monetary value, or any of this?" But that is the
wrong way to look at it; because the problem right now is that
what you have seen is two different opposing conceptions of the
view of mankind. One coming from the trans-Atlantic system,
coming from a collapsing imperial system that has been based on
money and monetary value that is dying; and the other is
represented by what Russia and China are doing. And as Matt
emphasized and what I developed in my recent writing, was that
this was the mindset of the great leaders of our nation,
represented by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, of Franklin
Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, [and] John F. Kennedy. It wasn't just
on the creating of new projects per se, but on a whole new
different conception of the identity of mankind.
And so, you take for instance, the example of what we
accomplished in the United States, of landing a man on the Moon
— the idea that Kennedy put forward, that by the end of decade
we would land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth.
What was the vision and intention behind that? Was it just the
idea that we would go and plant our flag on the Moon? This would
be some short-term gratification and so forth? Or, was it a
forward-thinking outlook, in terms of the direction of mankind in
recognizing what Krafft Ericke, the great pioneer of space
flight, recognized, that mankind was not just a creature of the
planet Earth. We were not just a part of, as he called it, a
"closed system," and so it was our responsibility to go out and
to do what no other animal had the capability of doing; of
actually conquering and developing, coming to understand what is
the purpose of mankind and what is the development of mankind in
the universe as a creature of our solar system and of the galaxy
as a whole.
One thing that I thought was very insightful, is that Krafft
Ericke wrote about the understanding of the Renaissance, the
Classical Renaissance, as an achievement of human progress. And
also the Classical Renaissance is something that contributed to
the development of what became our space program and what was the
intention that guided the direction of space travel and the space
I'll just read a quick quote from what he expressed on this
idea. He says, "The development of the idea of space travel was
always the most logical and most noble consequence of the
Renaissance ideal, which again places man in an organic and
active relationship with his surrounding universe and which,
perceived in the synthesis of knowledge and capabilities, its
highest ideals."
So you look at this from the standpoint of Krafft Ericke
understanding that the Renaissance that was guided by the
scientific breakthroughs which I'm sure you'll hear a lot more
from my colleague Jason there, of Brunelleschi, or the
breakthroughs that came about from the works of Kepler. That the
idea of mankind, is to create something fundamentally new,
something that had never been created before, and increasing the
relationship of mankind to the Universe.
Now that's economic value! That is not what is being
discussed when you look at these debates going back and forth
from the standpoint of these Congress Members to the space
community, and what budgets are being cut and should not be cut.
But the reality is, as I stated before, we have to have, in the
defense of the space program, a new conception of the direction
of mankind. That means we're removing all limitations to
progress, all limitations that are put on mankind's ability to
continue to understand how to make new discoveries in the
principles scientifically of what's out there. Why should we
actually investigate the Solar System? What is our mission in
doing so? And it's not about a money-making short-term
gratification. And so, I think this emphasis that Krafft Ehricke
put on the renaissance as an ideal of looking at why we have, as
a human species, an extraterrestrial imperative, is really a
continued expression of what you're seeing coming from China; not
just in their space program, but in the development of the
win-win strategy of cooperation for all mankind, for every nation
to come to join together. And to further the progress of
addressing the necessary challenges to the economic condition of
the planet by actually recognizing that the solutions do not lie
right here on planet Earth.
So, I think that's the conceptions I wanted to get across;
and what I hope to have further discussion on as we continue this
fight to identify what is the real mission of the space program,
and how we come to rid the world immediately of this current dead
system that's keeping us from advancing in the way that we should

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Kesha; and I can recommend that
people read what you've written in the current edition of
{Executive Intelligence Review}. I also know that you're planning
on making a video statement — which will be posted on the
LaRouche PAC website and available for people — developing some
of these ideas a little bit more in detail.
So, if people have been watching this website, you know that
Jason Ross has also been working very closely with Kesha to
develop some of these ideas with their implications from the
standpoint of a scientist, whom I hope you are becoming more
familiar with by now — Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. As we
discussed last week on this webcast, I think if you begin to
consider this question which Kesha just laid on the table for us,
about how do you create a future for mankind. How do you initiate
the creation of something which is completely new, as we move
into the future? Now, this can never be done through the
replication of the past; there's no precedent for a discovery. A
discovery is something which is always new, and is created {de
novo} and is introduced, which changes the course of human
history. Obviously, there is a lineage that goes back to
Gottfried Leibniz, and many Leibnizians who have lived since him:
Karl Gauss; Bernhard Riemann; Albert Einstein; and I would even
include Mr. Lyndon LaRouche in that lineage.
So, without further ado, I'm going to ask Jason to elaborate
a little bit more; picking up on what Kesha just left off on.

JASON ROSS: Thanks, Matt. Well, I think if you consider how
to conceptualize the value of the kinds of programs that Kesha
was discussing that we're promoting today, you reach a
contradiction if you try to approach them from a monetarist
standpoint. That is, the kind of economics that's generally
taught today, the kind of economics practiced as a religion —
well, I was going to say as a religion on Wall Street; the
primary religion on Wall Street is stealing — but, in general,
the basis of thinking is that economy is about money; we can
measure things in terms of money. How much is somebody willing to
pay for something? That's how valuable it is. That isn't. Money
doesn't measure different qualities; money doesn't measure the
future potential that something is able to create. And if you
base money on how much somebody's willing to pay for something,
you don't distinguish between things that are good and useful
versus bad and vices. People are willing to pay for heroin;
people are willing to pay for other opioids if they're addicted
to it. Does that mean that those drugs, as used by those people,
are valuable, or worth something because they're willing to pay
for them? Quite the contrary. So, we need a different way of
thinking about how we can measure economic value if we're going
to be human economists, instead of Wall Street magicians or
So, the reason we have economy is that we aren't animals;
animals don't have economies. Animals don't change what they do
from generation to generation; they don't improve, they don't
develop. We do. We create a new kind of time for ourselves. In a
very real way, humanity is a totally new and totally distinct
force of nature from anything else. Over geological time,
geologists describe to us how the Earth has changed, or how a
planet has formed; this is over hundreds of millions of years.
Over evolutionary time, perhaps tens of millions of years, we're
able to see transformations in the kinds of life that exists on
the planet. Over biological time, we have short-term periods of
the life of an organism, of its respiration, very much tied to
the daily cycle of the Earth, for example. And with humans, we
have a different kind of time. We create time. The flow of
history isn't always the same speed.
During the Dark Ages, when not much happened, you might say
that human time slowed down. And with the Renaissance, and with
the ability to discover more about nature by having a more
powerful way of thinking about it, and a more powerful conception
of us as human beings interacting with it; you could say that
time sped up. We create a certain time in that we create new eras
of humanity; not in the way that geology or evolution does, but
willfully by developing new principles that if we were animals,
you would say this is a whole new type of life all together. Life
moving from the oceans onto land; that's a totally different
quality of life. Life having developed photosynthesis and using
the Sun as a power source; that's a totally different kind of
life. But we're still human beings after the discovery of the
combustion engine, for example; the use of heat-powered
machinery. We create in ourselves the change that's comparable
only to large-scale evolutionary changes when we look at life in
general. So, we're distinct.
Now, how do we understand this? Both how do we understand
that world around us that we act on and interact with; and how do
we understand our thoughts about it and our ability to progress
and use the practice of science itself? What sort of terrain is
it? What sort of world is it? The physical world and the mental
Well, here's where I'd like to take up some concepts that
Mr. LaRouche has been bringing up recently about Bernhard Riemann
and about Gottfried Leibniz, and a bit about Einstein, too, who
got the verification of his hypothesis of gravity waves announced
very near his birthday this year — which was on Monday. So,
let's think about it. Is the terrain that we're operating on, one
which is steady and indifferent to our actions? Or, is it one
where what we do and what we discover and how we interact with
it, changes that world around us in a way that the world is not
fixed; either in ourselves or in our understanding of it? And,
that is the case; we transform the world in changing our mental
understanding of it. The math that we use in understanding how do
we conceptualize that world; that changes our interaction with
it, and we're a force of nature. We change the operation of the
forces of nature by improving our understanding of the world
around us and of ourselves and our ability to discover such
things. How can we possibly think about that quality of change?
As a couple of other examples, think about the difference
between what you might say is a fixed object — let's say iron
oxide. Iron oxide is basically rust; it's a mineral that's rust.
It's reddish brown, it's not terribly useful; but with the
development of metallurgy, instead of being a deposit of some
compound, it's now a resource. It's an ore from which we can
create iron and steel. The substance itself, did it change
chemically? It did in terms of the potential of what we could do
with it. And remember, we're a force of nature; we changed what
it was. It has to be thought of that way.
Or, what's the value of a technology? How does it change
over time? In the 1400s, windmills were a great invention; they
were somewhat new on the scene. They allowed pumping water, they
allowed grinding grain. That's excellent; that's a breakthrough.
Are windmills valuable today for making electricity? I don't
think so. Consider helium; helium is an interesting element. It
was first discovered in the Sun, not on Earth. It was discovered
in the Sun by the kind of light that came from the Sun when that
light was broken up into a rainbow with a prism, and certain
bands of the absence or presence of color were the clue that
there was a new element out there named helium, after Helios, the
Sun. That element, what's it used for? You might think of it's
being used to fill up balloons for children; you might think of
it being used as a gas for cooling for physical purposes or for
experiments. It's also, as Helium-3, an ideal fuel for fusion.
So, this substance transforms its meaning based on our developing
understanding. How can we think about this?
Well, let's take the example of Bernhard Riemann. In 1854,
Bernhard Riemann delivered a presentation and a paper on the
subject of the hypotheses that underlie geometry. That might
sound like a dry title; it might sound like it has nothing to do
with physical economy or anything that we'd want to be doing
right now. But this paper is very important in the view of Lyndon
LaRouche for his own development and as a way of understanding
economics. So, let's say why. Very briefly, Riemann points out
that our conception of space itself and of the way things operate
in space is taken for granted. The ideas that we use to
understand it, they don't really come from experiments per se, or
from physical theories; they come from our thoughts about space.
For example, the idea that space has no particular
characteristics of its own; that was the view of Isaac Newton.
Newton said space is uniform, it's out there; things occur within
space. Space is there first, it's just space; it has no
characteristics in particular. Newton said the same thing about
time; that time flows on uniformly. That's what time is; it's
really not much of a definition, or an understanding.
Geometric ideas that people had, for example, are the idea
that if you add up the angles in a triangle, you get 180 degrees.
Now, if you're drawing triangles on flat paper, yes that's true;
if you draw them on a curved surface like a sphere, it's not
true. Triangles on a sphere have more than 180 degrees in them.
If you then ask, "What if I draw a triangle in space?"; that's a
tough question. When we connect points in space, is the space
between them flat, is it curved? How could we discover that, and
what would be the basis of it having a curvature if it wasn't
What Riemann does, is he discusses through all the possible
ways that this could come about. He discusses in general,
curvature — both of surfaces and of space; how a space could be
curved. He works out in general how you could do that; but he
can't answer the question. He says, to answer the question,
"What's the nature of the space, and which processes unfold?";
you have to leave the department of mathematics and you have to
go to the physics department. You can't answer questions like
that just be pure reasoning; you got to have a hypothesis —
"What physically makes space?" And in this way, he's coming back
to the view of Gottfried Leibniz, who, just to say very briefly,
Leibniz and Newton totally disagreed on a number of subjects.
People may have heard of the dispute over their invention of the
calculus; did Leibniz steal it from Newton, or vice versa? But
there's a lot more there.
One of the major disputes they had was about space. Newton's
view was that space and time were absolute; and Leibniz's view
that space was a way of understanding co-occurrences. The
relationship of things that are here at the same time — that's
space; and for Leibniz, time was the evolution of things, how
things change. But time didn't have its own existence. Now,
that's precisely what Einstein took up in his theories of
relativity; he did what Riemann said had to be done. He didn't
finish the job; but he did what Riemann said had to be done.
Einstein overthrew, in a very specific way, the outlook of
Newton; Einstein showed that space was not flat, that it was bent
in special relativity, that it was curved in general relativity.
And very importantly, the basis of its shape, the basis of how
things interact over distances — that sense of space — was
based not on what a mathematician might imagine, but on what a
physicist hypothesizes. Einstein hypothesized an equivalence
between different observers that the laws of nature shouldn't
depend on whether you're moving; something that Leibniz also said
very explicitly. Einstein considered that light moved at the same
speed to any observer; something he had been pondering since he
was a pretty young man. And he hypothesized that gravitation
would transform the shape of space; that straight lines wouldn't
be straight to the extent that gravity is affecting them. This is
what was seen with the experiments about the position of stars
around the eclipse of the Sun, performed earlier during
Einstein's life; and it's seen in the recent verification of
gravity waves.
So, most people acknowledge that Einstein, OK, this is
physically important; this is a scientist, he discovered things.
What does it have to do with this other point, though, about
understanding humanity, and our role in economy, and our creation
in economy? Well, what Riemann did was, he made it possible to
say that human discovery is a force of nature; it reshapes
nature, it transforms our understanding about the objects around
us. And the basis of that world outside of us, can't be
considered independently of our increasing knowledge about it.
What we know about the world around us changes it, in that it
changes our ability to interact with it.
So, if we're looking for a real idea of what economics is,
throw away any sense of monetarism that says money made in a
whorehouse is just as valuable as money made in a steel plant;
and instead say, "How do we foster scientific discovery? How do
we foster its social implementation through technologies that
physically improve our power over nature and our ability to
provide improving standards of living and promote the general
welfare of human beings?" If this is our basis of economics,
fostering that kind of outlook, then I think we can say that
Gottfried Leibniz was the first physical economist in that sense.
I'll just reference to the show on Leibniz from earlier this
week, and one of the documents I cited there; Leibniz's paper on
the creation of a society for science and economy in Germany. And
I think if you read that paper, you'll be astonished at how
Leibniz pulls together both promotion of discovery, how that
works, what kind of thoughts are needed, how people should work
together, and how to implement those thoughts to improve people's
lives to the betterment of mankind. And that really has to be the
basis of our economics.
One simple rough measure, proposed by LaRouche to measure
this, is the potential population density. How many people can be
supported in a given area? That's a measure that is fixed for
animals. For a certain kind of environment, the number of deer
that can live there; deer don't change that. Human beings do. And
as a rough measure of economic progress, we could take that
value. What's the potential population that we're able to
support? The ability to use these thoughts is one that is not
being expressed in the trans-Atlantic at present. In our
discussion today, Mr. LaRouche talked about the positive impact
that Riemann had had on Italian science. Riemann had
tuberculosis, and spent a good deal of time later in life — he
didn't live that long — but later in his short life in Italy;
where thoughts from Riemann influenced the development of
hydrodynamics, stretching all the way into the time of airplanes
and the consideration of getting out into space.
Today, this overall outlook is best represented by Russia,
and especially at present, by China. So, this doesn't have to be
a purely Chinese development; this is clearly something that we
can take up as a mission for ourselves to contribute to here in
the United States and in the nations around the globe. And we've
got very special and precious people in the past that we can look
to for insights in how to make the next breakthroughs in
developing our understanding of what it is to be human, the basis
of human culture, and how best to advance human economy.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jason. Now, as Jason just
mentioned, and as I said in the beginning, really right now you
do see the initiative — the economic and the scientific
initiative — being taken by China to lead mankind into the
future; especially with the space program. You also see the
initiative being taken by Russia; and this is very clearly
illustrated this week with the actions that have been taken by
Russia in Syria. The strategic initiative lies in Putin's actions
there. As Mr. LaRouche emphasized, Putin is setting the agenda;
he is constantly on the flank. You can see this going back to the
chemical weapons, where Putin took the initiative to say fine, we
will help Assad dismantle these chemical weapons. It can be seen
with the decision to intervene, a few months back, by Putin into
the situation in Syria; and then with the pull-out that happened
earlier this week. What's clear is that every step along the way,
Putin's actions have caught Washington and Obama by surprise;
constantly breaking profile. And this is what's called "taking
the flank" in a military sense. There's clear precedence, as Mr.
LaRouche always uses the example, of Douglas MacArthur's actions
in Inchon. You always, always act on the surprise.
Now, this was illustrated I think just anecdotally very well
in an article that was published March 15th — Tuesday of this
week — in the {New York Times}, with a very apropos headline
which read "Putin's Syria Tactics Keep Him at the Fore, and Leave
Everyone Else Guessing". I just want to read the first paragraph
of that article, actually, because I think it just describes very
vividly what we mean by this:
"President Vladimir Putin's order to withdraw the bulk of
Russian forces from Syria seemingly caught Washington, Damascus,
and everyone in between off guard; just the way the Russian
leader likes it. By all accounts, Mr. Putin delights in creating
So, this is the subject of our institutional question for
this week; which Mr. LaRouche had some very specific words to say
in response to, which I'm going to let Jeff elaborate on for us.
But let me just read the text of this question to start off.
"Mr. LaRouche, as you know, earlier this week, at the start
of the Geneva Peace Talks, Russian President Vladimir Putin
announced that he ordered the withdrawal of some of the Russian
military forces in Syria. The withdrawal of Russian fighter
planes began the next day and has continued. A residual force
will remain at the naval base at Tartus and at the air base in
Latakia. How do you view Putin's decision? How might it impact
the Russian, American, and United Nations efforts to bring the
Syrian war to an end, now underway in Geneva?"

STEINBERG: Of course, we've taking up the bulk of this
week's report with a discussion about man's extraterrestrial
imperative; the need for man to get off of the planet Earth,
because man was never an Earthbound creature. So, we're at a
point right now where Mr. LaRouche was delighted in our
discussion earlier today at the prospect of over the next two
years, China going through the preparations for the launching of
an orbiter that will be hopefully landing on the back side of the
Moon. And will for the first time, give mankind a window into the
Solar System and the Galaxy beyond. And this is something of
enormous importance and enormous excitement, because it puts this
nature of man as an extraterrestrial creature capable through
creative discovery, of not remaining Earthbound, but of exploring
the near Solar System and beyond. And it reminds me that
virtually every astronaut and cosmonaut who has travelled in
space, has remarked at one point or other, that having the
vantage point of looking down on Earth, you become at one point
overwhelmed with the fact that so much of what goes on, on the
planet of Earth, is trivial relative to the challenges that are
very obvious when you look at man from the standpoint of man's
ability to explore the Universe and make these kinds of
discoveries. And it was that approach that actually informed our
discussion about the Syria situation per se. Because as Matt
said, Russian President Putin has demonstrated once again that he
has a certain understanding that at the core of grand strategy is
always the idea of continuously moving; continuously flanking;
continuously confusing your adversaries by constantly being on
this kind of offensive.
So, we do have the developments of the past days, where at
the very moment that the Geneva second round of peace talks were
beginning, President Putin announced a draw-down of the Russian
military forces inside Syria. And in fact, the very next morning
— Tuesday morning of this week — the first Russian bombers and
other air force equipment and personnel began leaving. Now, the
Russians are there still; make no mistake about it. Russia has
established a fundamental change in the situation on the ground,
which is both a military shift and a shift at the diplomatic
table taking place right now in Geneva. Russia has a permanent
naval base fully established and more secured than at any time
previously at the port of Tartus; and it has now a major air
force facility in the Latakia province. And more recently this
week, yesterday President Putin issued a statement where he said,
if the circumstances change, if the peace process does not go
forward, then Russian forces can be reinforced in Syria, not in a
matter of days, but in a matter of hours. And quite clearly, the
infrastructure is in place for that to happen.
But Mr. LaRouche wanted to make a larger and much more
fundamental point about what is going on here. What he emphasized
is that you can't lose sight of the fact that the war is still
going on. We don't know how things are going to play out; what we
do know, is that there has been a change of conditions. In fact,
there was a major change of conditions beginning on September
30th of last year, when the major Russian military presence
began. And when the situation systematically shifted from that
point on, and yet at the same time, certain leading political
figures around the world — the spokesman for the Jordanian
government; Steffan de Mistura, the UN representative for Syria
— they all said, "We're not surprised by President Putin's
announcement this past Monday." In the case of the Jordanians,
the chief of staff of the Jordanian military, the chief of staff
of the Syrian military, were both in Moscow last October; and
they met with Russian Defense Minister Shoigu, they met with
President Putin. And they were told quite clearly that the
Russian mission was not a permanent mission; but was a limited
mission in both size and in time duration. And that when the
circumstances reached the point where it was feasible to reach a
diplomatic solution to the Syria crisis, that the Russian forces
would begin to be withdrawn.
As Matt pointed out with the {New York Times} coverage,
people in the West were scratching their heads, because they
refused to take note of the fact that Putin is a strategic
thinker. And very often, what he says — in most cases, in fact
— is exactly what he intends to do; but he's not going to do it
in a predictable fashion. He's going to do it in a way that will
catch you by surprise. And the biggest surprise is that most
political thinkers in the West, most officials in government in
the West, are ignorant and prejudiced. So, their own prejudices
prevent them from understanding how Putin thinks about these
things. Their own prejudices prevent them from understanding
because they're incapable of thinking in this kind of a strategic
fashion. Now the problem is, that we're still in a state of
warfare; and that state of warfare will continue until certain
things occur that go way beyond the borders of Syria.
Until the British Empire ceases to exist, there will be a
condition of warfare on this planet. We see it, not necessarily
in the form of warfare that most people think about — soldiers
shooting, artillery pieces firing, bombers dropping bombs. Look
what's happening right now in Brazil. The British Empire is
waging a war against the new emerging Asia-Pacific-centered
global system. They're trying to destabilize Brazil, which is a
founding member of the BRICS. There's a similar effort underway
to destabilize the Zuman government in South Africa; because
South Africa is the latest country to join in the BRICS
So, there are all kinds of problems going on; you can't look
for a simply linear expectation or projection of what's going to
happen by the situation now ongoing on the ground in Syria or in
Geneva. Another example: President Obama is taking a series of
measures that will lead unavoidably — unless they're reversed —
to a major confrontation between the United States and China. We
had a report earlier this week from David Ignatius in the
{Washington Post}, who is very often a kind of reliable leak
sheet for what's going on inside the administration. And the
Obama administration is preparing for confrontation with China
over the South China Sea; they're waiting for a ruling from the
World Court in the Hague on a complaint filed by the Philippines.
So the United States is preparing contingencies for poking China
in the eye, for carrying out new provocations against China. The
sanctions that President Obama announced this week, ostensibly
against North Korea, are in fact sanctions against China; they go
way beyond what was agreed upon by China and the United States at
the United Nations.
So, if you take all of these factors into account, and if
you think of them as a process, not simply as a series of
discrete events, then you get a very clear idea of what Mr.
LaRouche means when he says that the planet, in general terms, is
in a state of war. Now, ultimately what this state of warfare
comes down to, is the fact that you have a new emerging
Asia-Pacific-centered future. It's defined by the economic
initiatives of China, by the One Belt-One Road policy, and most
emphatically by China's systematic plan for collaborating with
other nations on the kind of space exploration that once was a
hallmark of American policy; but has not been abandoned.
President Obama has spent the last seven years systematically
taking down and dismantling America's space capability; and Kesha
is leading the fight to reverse that process.
Over the last 15 years, if you look at the Bush/Cheney
administration followed by the Obama administration, the United
States has been under British occupation. Both Bush/Cheney and
Obama were each, in their own way, governments that were at the
beck and call of the British Empire, of the policies of the
British financial oligarchy operating through Wall Street. And as
the result, the United States, really the entire trans-Atlantic
region, is dead. Germany was once a great prospering economy; the
result of the "economic miracle" that Franklin Roosevelt
envisioned for the post-World War II period; no replay of
Versailles, but a completely different approach. Germany has now
been destroyed by the policies largely coming from the British
Empire. All of continental Europe is hopelessly and irreversibly
bankrupt; and Mario Draghi's announcement of an expansion of
quantitative easing and a zero interest rate policy is a
reflection that certain people are desperate over the fact that
Europe is doomed, that the United States under present
circumstances. We've talked in recent months on this broadcast
about the death rate increase in the United States; the true rate
of unemployment; the epidemic of heroin addiction and heroin
overdose deaths; the declining life expectancy in the United
States. These are all measures of the fact that the
trans-Atlantic region is dead; and will only begin to reverse
that death if there is a revolutionary, fundamental change in
policy. That alternative policy is being carried out in the
Eurasian and Asia-Pacific region; led by China, led by Russia,
reflected in the way that Russian President Putin has navigated
the strategic situation.
So, the great threat is coming from the fact that a dying
British Empire — which is irreversibly doomed — is lashing out
and is trying to preserve something that can no longer be
preserved. There was a time when the British Empire could impose
petty tyrannies on countries around the world and achieve a
certain limited degree of stability. That's over with. All of the
efforts within the framework of the mindset of the British
Empire, the mindset of the Obama administration, the mindset of
virtually all European leaders — the French probably the worst
of the bunch on the continent — is doomed; it doesn't work. Yet,
there is an opportunity; and opportunity for all of mankind in
what's going on in the Asia-Pacific region, led by China, by
Russia. India is clearly stepping in to play a significant role
in this new emerging combination, cooperation among nations for
purposes that go beyond national interests, but address the
interests of all of mankind. Egypt is fully established as
orienting towards that new Asia-Pacific combination.
So, this is the larger picture; this is the framework for
judging the initiative taken by President Putin this week. And it
must be judged from the standpoint of the global consequences;
and not just simply the consequences for the immediate
negotiations around Syria. Although his actions this week have
certainly greatly improved the possibility of bringing that
five-year tragedy to an end.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. I would just add, the
initiative being taken by these countries also very much has to
do with the decades-long work Mr. Lyndon LaRouche and Mrs. Helga
LaRouche have undertaken. The One Belt-One Road policy that China
has adopted, is the Eurasian Land-Bridge policy which the
LaRouche movement uniquely championed in the beginning of the
1990s. Now, you have an evolution of that to the World
Land-Bridge; and this is what is documented so thoroughly in the
350-page Special Report that was issued by {Executive
Intelligence Review} called "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge". One very exciting announcement, because you
mentioned Egypt, just this week there was a very high-level event
which was sponsored by the Transportation Ministry in Cairo;
featuring a LaRouche collaborator, Hussein Askary, to announce
the formal publication of the Arabic language of this full,
350-page World Land-Bridge Special Report from {Executive
Intelligence Review}.
So, you can see that at the very highest levels of
government around the world, this is what is shaping the
discussion; the initiatives that the LaRouche movement have taken
for decades. And one final note along those same lines, as we
announced last Friday, Mrs. Helga LaRouche just got back from a
very important trip to India; at which she was one of the
featured speakers in a very prominent, very high-level dialogue
— the Raisina Dialogue. And if people have not seen it yet, a
wonderful half-hour interview that Jason Ross conducted with Mrs.
LaRouche was posted on the LaRouche PAC website earlier this
week. So, if you haven't watched that yet, I would really
encourage you to watch it; and to just think about everything
that has been said here today. Think about these initiatives that
are being taken by some of the world's leading countries to
create the future; and think about the role that the LaRouche
movement has played over years and decades in shaping the
possibility of these initiative being taken today.
So, thank you all very much for joining us here today. I'd
like to thank Kesha Rogers for joining us over video; and I would
like to thank Jeff and Jason here in the studio. Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

Hele menneskeheden behøver
Den Nye Silkevej nu!
LaRouchePAC Internationale
Fredags-webcast 11. marts 2016

Engelsk udskrift: Matthew Ogden kommenterer Helga Zepp-LaRouches besøg og tale i Indien om behovet for en Marshallplan/Silkevej i Sydvestasien; Jeffrey Steinberg giver os Lyndon LaRouches meget skarpe kommentar om EU’s korrupte aftale med Tyrkiets Erdogan om mod betaling at tage syriske flygtninge tilbage, og Jason Ross fra LPAC Videnskabsteam taler om Gottfried Leibniz og nødvendigheden af kreativ nytænkning, som Kina i dag legemliggør.

International Webcast for March 11, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon. It’s March 11, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly Friday
night broadcast from LaRouche PAC.com. I am joined in the studio
today by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Science Team and Mr.
Jeff Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and the
three of us had the opportunity to have an extensive discussion
with both Mr. LaRouche and also Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier
Now, as you know, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has just recently
returned from an extraordinary trip that she took to India. This
is the first time that either one of the LaRouches has been to
India since I think at least 2003; so this was a very important
trip, and during that visit to India, Helga was a featured
speaker on one of the keynote panels at a discussion in New Delhi
called the Raisina Dialogue Forum. This was a major conference
which included international representation, former prime
ministers, former heads of state, finance ministers, elected
parliamentarians, and so forth.
Now during that speech, Helga LaRouche focused her remarks
on the necessity for a new win-win, Marshall Plan development
project for the Middle East and North Africa. She remarked that,
in the wake of Xi Jinping’s visit to Iran, to Saudi Arabia, and
to Egypt where he brought the development vision of the Chinese
New Silk Road, that now was the time to adopt what she’s been
calling for, for years: which is, a New Marshall Plan to develop
that region of the world and to create a new era of peace and
prosperity for a region of the world that has suffered so much
under perpetual war, and a total breakdown of society.
Now this is very relevant, because obviously, as a
representative of the Schiller Institute from Germany, Helga
LaRouche was speaking directly from the standpoint of the
perspective of a European, who is witnessing the unprecedented
refugee crisis of millions and millions of refugees fleeing the
Middle East and North Africa, and flooding into Europe.
Our institutional question for this week actually focusses
directly on that topic, and what I’m going to do is read the
institutional question, and then give Jeff Steinberg and
opportunity to go through, both specifically and more in general,
what both Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche’s remarks were concerning this
question, and some broader questions as well.
So the question is as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has blamed

European nations for
unilaterally shutting the Balkan route for migrants. She said
that this has put Greece in a very difficult situation, and such
decisions should be taken by the whole of the EU. Austria,
Slovenia, Croatia, and non-EU member states — Serbia and
Macedonia — have all acted to stem the migrant flow. The
European Union and Turkey — from which migrants reach Greece —
have set out a plan to ease the crisis from their perspective.
Under the proposals that have been hammered out at a summit that
occurred in Brussels on Monday, but still to be finalized, all
migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey, would be sent back. For
each Syrian returned, a Syrian in Turkey would be resettled in
the EU. European Council President Donald Tusk has said that the
plan would spell the end of ‘irregular migration to Europe.’ What
is your view on the EU’s new migrant policy?”

So, Jeff.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: To put it very mildly, Mr. LaRouche was
extremely blunt. You’ve got to start from the standpoint that
this is a rotten deal; it’s not going to work. And furthermore,
that nobody has any business making any kind of backroom deal
with President Erdogan of Turkey. Here’s somebody who has been a
principal sponsor of the jihadist terrorism, including the
Islamic State and the Nusra Front; who has robbed his country
blind; he’s one of the most notorious thieves on the planet. He’s
killed his own people. He shut down the entire opposition
newspaper, and, quite frankly, he’s carried out a 6 billion euro
extortion operation against the European Union.
So the problem, in fact the disease that we’re dealing with,
is the tendency that’s rampant in the entire trans-Atlantic
world, to make these kinds of rotten deals with people who have
no business being allowed to remain in power. You have an entire
trans-Atlantic system that was really, in effect, characterized
this week by two developments. Number One: this rotten deal with
Erdogan, which should never be allowed to happen. And number two,
by the announcement by the European Central Bank head, Mario
Draghi, that the ECB was going to replicate the insane policies
that were carried out in the United States under the Quantitative
Easing, bail-out, and Dodd-Frank bill, all of which are
universally known to have been complete and total failures. So,
Draghi announced zero interest rates, and announced that the QE
policy of the ECB would be extended up to $80 billion euro a
month, and furthermore, that the ECB would begin purchasing
absolutely worthless private sector bonds to keep what one
columnist called the “zombie banks” in business.
Now, there’s been an absolute revolt in Germany, in
particular, against this Draghi policy, because the net effect is
that, with zero interest rates, people are going to be pulling
their money out of the actual savings banks and regional
commercial banks, through which all of the lending into the real
economy takes place. And as the result of that, you’re going to
see rampant bankruptcies on top of the already advanced complete
breakdown of the European real economy. All of the European
too-big-to-fail banks are already hopelessly bankrupt.
So you’ve got these two examples of absolute policy
insanity, of attempting to operate and make compromises and
“reforms,” within a system that is already dead. As Mr. LaRouche
said, you don’t make deals with dead people; there’s nothing in
it for you. There’s no future in it. Yet that’s exactly what
we’re seeing as the dominant phenomenon throughout the
trans-Atlantic region.
Now the fact of the matter is that there are viable
solutions. In the case of the United States, you could just
simply say, the Wall Street debt is unpayable, and we’re going to
just simply cancel it, and we’re going to go back to the
traditional American, Hamiltonian credit system, and we’re going
to just simply let Wall Street sink, period. It’s already
bankrupt. The people involved in it are absolutely correct —
they should have been frog-marched off to jail a long time ago.
So, by and large, when you talk to people in the political
system at a relatively high level, you’re dealing with a system
that is absolutely paralyzed with fear, and overwhelmed by
corruption. Because you press the issue, and you’ll get
widespread admission that the system is doomed, we’re headed for
another blow-out far worse than 2008; it could happen any moment
now. It could happen Monday morning when you wake up. And
furthermore, you could cancel this rotten debt, wipe out those
cancerous aspects of the whole system, and you could go ahead to
rebuild, but based on a completely different set of premises.
Same thing with the arrangement with Turkey. There’s no
grounds whatsoever for paying 6 billion euros in extortion,
knowing that a character like Erdogan is going to come back again
and again and demand more, and will continue to threaten to
unleash massive waves of migration, while at the same time Turkey
is trying to sabotage the efforts of Lavrov and Kerry to bring an
end to this five-year monstrosity of a war that’s been going on
inside Syria.
So, if you operate within a dead system, you are doomed to
go down with it. Now there are things that are working in the
world today. Putin is functioning. Putin is carrying out very
effective flanking operations in Syria. China is functioning, and
is in fact functioning at a much higher level from the standpoint
of real economic growth. And China is willing to invest in real
physical economic growth all across Eurasia, down into Africa,
into Latin America. And furthermore, China is leading a global
science driver policy. The plans to actually land an orbiter on
the dark side of the Moon have been discussed frequently in
recent weeks on this broadcast. China is now the leading R&D
nation on the planet, and they embody the principle of human
creativity. They’re not trying to draw deductive, pragmatic,
practical conclusions from policies that have failed. You can
never derive success by trying to scrutinize and analyze
systematic failure. You need human creativity, and you see that
in China.
Increasingly, there are nations that are grouping around
these opportunities that are posed for real development, centered
around China. Russia has taken certain measures to assure that
Russia survives, and that Russia has the military and material
resources to be able to conduct the kind of flanking operations
that may very well save Syria and the Middle East, and major
parts of Africa, from the genocidal destruction that will occur
if the existing trans-Atlantic forces, led by the British Empire
and stooges that they’ve got at their disposal like President
Obama, with his Dodd-Frank madness; like Mario Draghi; like the
corrupt Erdogan.
So, anytime that there’s an offer to make a rotten deal with
a rotten SOB like Erdogan, the obvious answer should be, run in
the other direction. Don’t do it. And so, in response to the
question that’s been posed, this is a rotten deal that is doomed
to failure, but it’s typical of a much larger problem, which is
the tendency to be stuck thinking inside the deductive box when
the only avenue for survival for mankind is to think creatively,
and align with those people who’ve demonstrated that they’ve got
a viable commitment to the future.
You find that in China. You find that in many of the actions
taken by Putin in Russia, and it’s pretty scarce everywhere else.
And it’s certainly virtually nonexistent in the entire
trans-Atlantic region.

        OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. I also neglected to
mention in my remarks in the beginning that, coinciding with
Helga’s trip to India and these very important developments with
Xi Jinping’s visit to the Middle East. The Arabic version of the
EIR Special Report, “The New Silk Road Becomes the New
Land-Bridge,” which was available in English and also has been
translated into Chinese; has now been translated into Arabic. And
I think Helga LaRouche’s foreword or preface to that will put it
very appropriately; that “either this is an extraordinary
coincidence or an act of divine intervention” that this would be
available at a time like this, when this is precisely what you
need. This sort of vision for a new Marshall Plan, the World
Land-Bridge, to bring development to this part of the world which
is in such dire need of it.
Now, as Jeff summarized quite succinctly, what Mr.
LaRouche’s focus in our discussion was, is that we are on the
edge of a total implosion of the trans-Atlantic system. That you
have a community of nations which is, in its present form, dead,
because of its own behavior; it has brought this upon itself. On
the other hand, you have nations such as China and others, who
are engaged in a process of real physical economic progress. And
this was a willful choice that was made by China to invest in
exactly the types of things that would create a future potential
of growth, scientific development and otherwise. So, Mr.
LaRouche’s question was, why would you associate yourself with a
dead system, when the alternative is immediately at hand?
So, Mr. LaRouche had a much more developed idea, however, of
what it is that brings success to a nation and to the human race
in general. And he was very specific to say that real creativity
is never a replication of the past; real creativity depends on
new ideas that are new in a very real sense. That creativity is
always {ad novo}, he said; and it’s not achieved through the
reform of a bad system. But it is only achieved through the
introduction of an entirely new principle which is truly new. He
said, Einstein is a good example of this; the personality of
Brunelleschi is an ideal example of this. But the goal is never
to deduce what the solution to a crisis must be from some sort of
precedent; but rather, to ask the question, “What is it that we
actually wish to accomplish for the future of mankind?” And, with
that question in mind, therefore, what must be done? What must be
done to achieve that future? And we tend to fail to ask that
question, and we get too consumed by the details of the present;
when we should be thinking from a total global standpoint about
what we wish to achieve in the future.
Now, I think at a time like now, where it’s very clear that
the nations of Europe and the United States are imploding,
socially, economically, politically; what brought us to this
point? But also, more significantly, what must be done to save
civilization now? And we discussed, I think very appropriately,
that when a nation loses its {raison d’etre}, when a nation loses
its mission, it tends to implode and fall in upon itself. And we
can learn a lot from the mission that China has, and the
optimistic vision of the future which is shared by all of its
citizens. So, with that said, I would like to invite Jason to
come to the podium. As you know, Jason Ross has been conducting a
many-part series of presentations, classes on the LaRouche PAC
website on the unique genius of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz; this
is a series which will continue. But I would like to invite him
to the podium now.

JASON ROSS: Well, this year, 2016, is the 300th anniversary
of Leibniz’s death in 1716. Leibniz lived from 1646 to 1716. And
a number of the disputes that he was in, the discoveries that he
made, are very freshly relevant for us today. Both historically
from the standpoint of understanding where we came from, and
because there are disputes that continue to the present. Disputes
over the nature of the purpose of the nation, disputes over the
nature of the Universe, disputes over the nature of mankind.
To discuss one of those, I’d like to frame it by contrasting
the views of Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton. Many people are
probably familiar, certainly if you’ve been watching this
website, with the concept of the dispute over the calculus. That
Leibniz plagiarized the calculus from Newton, as Newton and his
friends said; no. Did Newton steal the calculus from Leibniz, who
invented it first? Let’s leave that aside; that’s really not at
issue for what I want to talk about today. Let’s consider the
dispute that was represented between the British outlook of
Newton and the outlook of Leibniz in terms of the purpose for
humanity, as seen in their views of creation and of the Universe
as a whole. In the very last years of Leibniz’s life, he was
engaged in a dispute via letters with a follower of Isaac Newton,
Samuel Clarke. And in this discussion, one of the primary topics
that came up was the basis of considering God to be great. On
this, the two differed in a very fundamental way. Newton, via
Clarke, said that God’s greatness came from his power; Leibniz,
while not disputing that, said that God’s wisdom is also one of
His perfections, and that in leaving this out, you have a total
misunderstanding about God.
Now, I’m not going to make a theological point about this
today. I want to look at this in terms of the existence of the
nation-state. While Newton said that because God can do anything,
that shows how wonderful He is; and while this same outlook — a
religious outlook — was applied to man and society by John Locke
and Thomas Hobbes, who said that a powerful ruler of society
really exists for himself, and that people form a society through
a compact to not infringe upon each other, not with the idea to
have a mission together, but simply to get along as a way of
putting under control the impulses of people to steal from each
other and this sort of thing. So, on the one side, you have the
notion that the state exists, the ruler exists and is justified
in existing to maintain power; that that is the basis of
legitimacy of a ruler — holding power. It’s a somewhat circular
On the other side, you have Leibniz, who — in keeping with
his view of God being worth reverencing, respecting, loving
because of His wisdom; and having chosen in making the Universe,
to make it the best of all possible universes that could be
created. Leibniz applies that idea as well to society; saying
that the justification, the legitimacy for a ruler for a nation,
lies in how it is creating a happy society. And how it is imbuing
its people with wisdom, and developing science and economy to
create a more productive and a happier future. Happiness is an
important thing.
So, if you consider that today, and you look at — Matt had
brought up where is the {raison d’etre}; what is the
justification for the United States, for example, right now? What
is our {raison d’etre} right now under Obama? We don’t have one.
Obama’s destruction of the space program, which as a policy
better encapsulates an attack on the future than anything you can
imagine, has left us without a future in the stars; contrasted
with other nations, being led by China, with a serious,
comprehensive, really breath-taking mission of advancements that
they have been making towards reaching out into the heavens, and
the potential of developing new scientific breakthroughs in that
So, as Jeff and Matt said, LaRouche, in the discussion that
we had with him today, was stressing that, in creating the
future, it is made {de novo}; it isn’t something we deduce from
the past, although we can certainly learn from the past. The
essential characteristic is making something where nothing of
that sort existed before. He had singled out Brunelleschi and
Einstein in this regard. Einstein, who made breakthroughs
scientifically that did not follow from, or result from, the
thoughts of his day; but rather, contradicted and overthrew them.
This is an example of the kind of thinking that’s necessary. In
the United States in our most recent history, the time under the
Apollo program, as launched in its strength by Kennedy to go to
the Moon and back; this was in recent times, probably the most
singly powerful example of a potential to reach that. That
program didn’t result in Einstein’s per se; it didn’t have that
kind of effect. Amazing technological developments were made. The
potentials that the space program has as a whole to make new
scientific breakthroughs, however, is absolutely tremendous.
So, consider China. China, which has brought hundreds of
millions of people out of poverty in just the past few decades.
China, which currently lends out more internationally in
investments in nations than the whole World Bank does. China,
which has played a major role along with Russia in setting up the
BRICS; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization for Peace and
Stability; the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, to address
the $5 trillion or more needs for infrastructure within that
region of the world; offering loans that are without the
conditionalities that are the hallmark of the World Bank. This
ability to put into very specific practice a concept of “win-win”
cooperation, as it was put by President Xi; these specific ways
of cooperating with neighbors, with other nations for development
projects. As for example, the railroad operating in Ethiopia at
present, allowing the transport of food to the interior of the
nation in a timely fashion; preventing the intensity of
starvation that would otherwise be likely given the agricultural
disasters they’ve faced recently.
Take a look at space and science. China’s East Tokamak, a
super-conducting tokamak, recently had a 50 million-degree plasma
held for 100 seconds; a breakthrough for them on their way
towards developing fusion. Their space program — that was the
first soft landing on the Moon in decades — the Chang’e 3 with
the Yutu rover. Planning to come out next year, Chang’e 5, a
sample return mission to the Moon; again, the first time in
decades, and they’ll be only the third nation to have done this.
And then in a few years, a space first — not only for them, but
for the world — the Chang’e 4 mission, to land on the far side
of the Moon. The first time ever; this is something new that
mankind has never done before. It opens up new windows
scientifically in terms of the potential the far side of the Moon
offers for different types of telescopes — such as radio
telescopes.  They’ll be able to show us things that no other —
it’s the most convenient place to be able to do these things. It
simply is impossible from here on Earth, or in orbit; you need a
body to place these things on.
So, I think when we think about what’s the purpose of a
nation, it can’t be a short-term survival; it certainly can’t be
dominance per se, or maintaining a place in the world. For
example, the United States; there’s an unfortunate form of
thought that the United States should be first in everything.
Well, how did the United States become such a powerful nation?
The policies that made that possible, the outlook that made that
possible, the sense coming from the American Revolution that
there’s a mission for the nation that is beyond having
sovereignty itself, per se; but lies in a mission for development
and for the pursuit of happiness — as it’s put — that’s the
concept that has to guide us today. Now, if we were to adopt this
in the United States, which we must, as we force the adoption of
this policy in our own nation, we have the potential for the US
to play a very important role among other nations internationally
in reaching these objectives. And there’s really no reason for
conflict among nations; it’s simply not necessary at this point.
There might be some specific examples, but on the whole, by
throwing out the British-led creation of conflicts, and putting
the US on a path towards cooperation, participation, and
leadership on these sorts of ventures, we can regain in terms of
history, the right to exist, or reason for existing; a mission
for the nation.
So, if we’re going to turn around our domestic conditions,
as we see frighteningly in the dramatic rise in deaths by drug
overdoses or suicides in other forms that are increasing
dramatically; if we’re going do this, we have to have a mission.
We have to have a vision for the kind of future that we’re going
to make that doesn’t exist a present. The opportunities for this
exist; there are plenty of the particular policies that are
needed. These things are known. What is necessary is a demand and
a change in direction in the United States without Obama, to
adopt this orientation as our own. And if we do that, we can look
to the future with the knowledge that there is a reason for the
existence of the nation; and there’s a purpose to be fulfilled,
and that we’re taking up that purpose in our future which lies
beyond the Earth and out in the stars.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jason. And I think we can use
that as a promotional to encourage you to tune in to all of his
classes, which are available and will continue to be available on
larouchepac.com. And I’d like to thank Jeff for joining us here
as well, today. So, that’s what we have to present to you here
today; short and sweet. And we thank you for tuning in; and we
encourage you to please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good