EIR-video, 9. maj, 2017:

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: ’Hvis vi kan overbevise præsident Trump om at tage imod tilbuddet om at gå sammen med Kina og de andre nationer omkring den Nye Silkevej, så kan han blive en af de største præsidenter i USA’s historie.’ Dette initiativ, Bælt & Vej-initiativet, blev officielt lanceret af Kina i 2013. Det er en politik for gensidigt fordelagtig infrastrukturkonnektivitet, for fælles udviklingsprogrammer. Foreløbig omfatter programmerne og de igangværende arbejder flere end 60 nationer og berører flere end 4 milliard mennesker – flertallet af menneskeheden – og med planer om infrastrukturinvesteringer til $20 billion. Dette er et enormt projekt. Disse programmer har potentialet til at fjerne fattigdom på planeten inden for én generation; fuldstændigt og totalt at fjerne lokal fattigdom overalt.

Jason Ross:

»Det ville være den største fejltagelse nogensinde, hvis USA ikke benyttede sig af Bælt & Vej Forum, der finder sted i Beijing, Kina, om en uge (14.-15. maj) – den største fejltagelse nogensinde. Denne begivenhed vil samle repræsentanter fra over 100 nationer, inkl. den direkte deltagelse af næsten 30 statsoverhoveder, og man vil diskutere vor generations største projekt: Bælt & Vej-initiativet.

Foreløbig er der ingen meddelelse om, eller noget, der peger på, at præsident Trump eller andre repræsentanter for USA vil deltage, men:

(Helga Zepp-LaRouche)

’Hvis vi kan overbevise præsident Trump om at tage imod tilbuddet om at gå sammen med Kina og de andre nationer omkring den Nye Silkevej, så kan han blive en af de største præsidenter i USA’s historie.’

Dette initiativ, Bælt & Vej-initiativet, blev officielt lanceret af Kina i 2013. Det er en politik for gensidigt fordelagtig infrastruktur-konnektivitet, for fælles udviklingsprogrammer. Foreløbig omfatter programmerne og de igangværende arbejder flere end 60 nationer og berører flere end 4 milliard mennesker – flertallet af menneskeheden – og med planer om infrastrukturinvesteringer til $20 billion. Det udgør 2 til 3 gange den investering, det ville kræve totalt at genoplive den amerikanske infrastruktur. Det udgør 20 gange de $1 billion, som Trump foreløbig har krævet. Dette er et enormt projekt. Disse programmer har potentialet til at fjerne fattigdom på planeten inden for én generation; fuldstændigt og totalt at fjerne lokal fattigdom overalt. I løbet af de seneste par årtier har Kina allerede undergået en fænomenal udvikling,

(udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson)

’Kina begyndte virkelig at føle sig entusiastisk på det tidspunkt, og med rette, de har opnået meget; de har flyttet 500 millioner kinesere væk fra fattigdom og ind middelklassestatus.’

(præsident Trump)

’Og jeg havde et langt møde med Kinas præsident i Florida, og vi havde lange, lange diskussioner, i mange, mange timer. Han er en god mand.’

Kina springer fremad med sin egen udvikling og arbejder sammen med sine naboer gennem kinesiske investeringer, gennem staten, gennem foretagender, og gennem ny finansiering gennem institutioner som Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), Den Nye Udviklingsbank (BRIKS-banken) og Silkevejsfonden, som alle er mekanismer, der er skabt efter 2013; og store projekter i enorm skala er nu mulige.

(Richard Trifan)

’Dette er et historisk projekt, som I alle ved; det er sandsynligvis den største, globale præstation, der er analog med vores ekspansion ud i rummet og til Månen og andre planeter. Det er sandsynligvis det mest omfattende initiativ, som mange nationer vil samarbejde omkring.’

Lad os foretage en rundtur. Med udgangspunkt i Asien er der seks udviklingskorridorer, som Kina har foreslået, for veje, jernbaner, vandveje, elektricitet, kommunikation, sammen med blød kommunikation, såsom uddannelse, fælles toldsatser og kulturelle udvekslinger. Disse korridorer er i øjeblikket under opførelse i varierende grader. Lad os f. eks. se på den Økonomiske Kina-Pakistan-korridor: den er i øjeblikket under massiv opbygning; den vil bringe 10 gigawatt elektricitet til Pakistan – det rækker til millioner af mennesker, 10 millioner eller mere – en ny havn i Gwadar (ud til Oman Golfen), med hundrede tusinder af jobs undervejs, blot for dette ene byggeprojekt, og generelt mere udenlandsk investering i Pakistan, end denne nation samlet set har fået i de sidste par årtier.

Lad os se på havet: Det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej, som bl.a. omfatter at udgrave en kanal gennem Kra-landtangen i Thailand. Dette er et enormt og nødvendigt projekt for at aflaste det overtrafikerede Malaccastræde, og for at bringe økonomiske muligheder til Thailand og Sydøstasien generelt. Denne idé, der har været foreslået i årtier, har nu en reel mulighed for at blive bygget inden for det nuværende årti.

Den Eurasiske Landbro, der når til Europa, transporterer stadigt voksende mængder af jernbanegods, med togafgange for godstog mod vest, der dagligt ankommer i Europa og vender tilbage til Kina med europæiske varer.

Hvis vi ser på Afrika, så har vi for nylig set åbningen af Addis Abeba-Djibouti jernbanen som blot et enkelt eksempel på den meget påtrængende nødvendige udvikling, som nu er mulig; som nu finder sted i Afrika, hvor investering i infrastruktur og industri og landbrug nu når nye højder, det meste af det fra Kina.

Hvis vi bevæger os mod øst, krydser vi Beringstrædet og bevæger os fra Asien og ind i Nordamerika, fra Rusland til Alaska. En rute over land, der muliggøres af denne Beringstrædeforbindelse, vil være hurtigere end transport med skib, og gør det muligt at udvikle området langs ruten. Det Arktiske Område har enorme resurser, der i øjeblikket er næsten fuldstændigt utilgængelige. Byggeriet af den nødvendige infrastruktur og selveste Beringstrædeforbindelsen vil være en storstilet infrastrukturpræstation. Dernæst vil et genopbygget, amerikansk infrastrukturfundament, et netværk af jernbaner, veje, en platform med ny, højdensitetskraftværker, kernekraft; havne, sluser, dæmninger; skoler og andre offentlige bygninger og offentlige værker, gøre det muligt for USA at opnå et nyt produktivitetsniveau, og have mere at bidrage med til verdenssamfundet og få fordel af verdenssamfundet.

Hvis vi nu bevæger os sydpå, så er der p.t. ingen transportmuligheder over land fra Nord- til Sydamerika. Man kan ikke køre til Sydamerika – det er ikke muligt. Der er en afbrydelse, kendt som Darien Gap. Når vi endelig får bygget denne forbindelse på blot nogle få dusin mil, vil vi endelig forbinde de amerikanske kontinenter som helhed. I Mellemamerika er ny finansiering, også fra Kina, ligeledes i færd med at muliggøre en sekundær Panamakanal, kunne man sige, med igangværende byggeri og forberedelse i Nicaragua.

I Sydamerika er en bi-oceanisk korridor, der strækker sig fra Peru til Brasilien, fra Stillehavet til Atlanterhavet via Bolivia, på planlægningsstadiet.

Så stor en del af verden arbejder i øjeblikket sammen, med fælles udvikling og en fælles fremtid med fremgang, værdighed og videnskabelige præstationer som mål. Vil USA tilslutte sig? Vi er blevet inviteret med åbne arme:

(Meifang Zhang)

’Sidst, men ikke mindst, vil jeg gerne citere Xi for at sige, at Kina byder USA velkommen til at deltage i samarbejdet inden for rammerne af Bælt & Vej-initiativet … Begge lande bør virkelig gribe disse muligheder.’

Lad os tage imod denne invitation. Om et hundrede år vil USA i tilbageblik være så lykkelig for, at vi gjorde det.«

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 7. maj, 2017 – Det er et ironisk tidens tegn, at Argentinas ambassadør til Kina, Diego Guelar, i denne uge, på tærsklen til Bælt & Vej-topmødet i Beijing, udgav en artikel, der lovpriser Kina for at blive det 21. århundredes supermagt »uden at løsne et eneste skud«. Guelar rapporterede, at Kina var trådt ind i sin nye, globale rolle med »ansvar« og »lederskab«, og han roste Kinas spektakulære, økonomiske præstationer med nedbringelse af fattigdom, forhøjelse af den forventede levealder og global infrastrukturudvikling.

Ironien ligger i, at Mauricio Macris regering hidtil har været en Wall Street-darling, der har været en skinger modstander af samarbejde med Kina, BRIKS eller Bælt & Vej-initiativet (BVI). Og det var et tidens tegn, fordi næsten alle nationer på planeten nu vender sig mod Kina og BVI, med håbet om et Nyt Paradigme for menneskeheden.

Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, indfangede essensen i denne strategiske mulighed i bemærkninger i dag:

Ambassadør Guelars bemærkninger er et særdeles passende eksempel på den aktuelle, globale dynamik, sagde hun. »Dette er helt klart den vej, tingene går, og vi bør optrappe vores kampagne for, at USA absolut må gå med i denne indsats, fordi det er den eneste meningsfulde måde, på hvilken alle de geopolitiske konflikter i verden kan overvindes.«

Zepp-LaRouche understregede, at, selv om der er taget nogle positive skridt for at slukke lunten til diverse globale, sprængfarlige brændpunkter, såsom aftalen mellem den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin og Amerikas Donald Trump om at oprette fire »deeskaleringszoner« i Syrien, »så er vi absolut ikke ude af farezonen. Vi bør ikke have nogen illusioner, for tingene kan meget hurtigt gå galt«.

Øverst på listen over disse overhængende farer står den globale finanskrise. »Vi konfronteres stadig med en potentiel nedsmeltning af finanssystemet. Vi har stadig ikke vedtaget Glass-Steagall og Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love. Og vi ved stadig ikke, hvilken form for Glass-Steagall (bankopdeling), man diskuterer« i Trump-administrationen og andre steder i USA.

Ikke desto mindre »mener jeg, at vi generelt ser på meget optimistiske udsigter. Om en uge finder det historiske BVI-topmøde sted i Beijing, og jeg er absolut sikker på, at, som resultat, vil BVI-dynamikken blive endnu stærkere. Den går faktisk i retning af, at den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, som er den politik, LaRouche-bevægelsen og Schiller Instituttet har kæmpet for i årtier. Zepp-LaRouche understregede tempoet, i hvilket disse strategiske forandringer finder sted. »Dette sker alt sammen blot tre år efter, at politikken med den Nye Silkevej først blev udtalt af Kinas præsident Xi Jinping. Og hvis man tænker på den hastighed, med hvilken denne dynamik har slået rod på globalt plan, så er det ganske åndeløst.«

Zepp-LaRouche adresserede dernæst det centrale, strategiske spørgsmål om USA’s forhold til dette fremvoksende, Nye Paradigme. »Det ville være den absolut naturlige fortsættelse af disse seneste tre år, at inkludere USA i Bælt & Vej-initiativet; at inkludere Europa og at udvikle hvert eneste indlandsområde på planeten, og at løfte ethvert menneske på denne Jord ud af fattigdom. På denne måde kan vi virkelig begynde at definere menneskehedens fælles mål, udvikle et fællesskab, eller et samfund, for civilisationens fælles fremtid og begynde at takle de problemer, det virkelig er værd at takle: nemlig, at bygge bosættelser på Månen; at udvikle en bedre forståelse af universets love; og at finde løsninger på uhelbredelige sygdomme.

Vi har alle mulige fantastiske projekter, som vi skal udføre, hvor vi arbejder sammen som én menneskehed. Og hvorfor skulle dette ikke være muligt? Lad os gå frem på optimistisk vis for at virkeliggøre de gennembrud, som er absolut nødvendige.«

Zepp-LaRouche understregede, at det amerikanske folk ikke er så splittet, som massemedierne vil have alle til at tro. Men »de, der er uenige i disse medieskabte splittelser, bør træde frem i lyset og være med til at bringe USA ind i det Nye Paradigme omkring den politik, som Lyndon LaRouche i årtier har fremlagt«.

Titelbillede: Kort over hovedruterne for “Bælt & Vej” – det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej og det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte over land  – det største infrastrukturprojekt i menneskehedens historie, der åbner op for udvikling af planetens indlandsområder, og som allerede nu er 12 gange større end Marshallplanen, der genopbyggede Tyskland – og Europa – efter Anden Verdenskrig. 

6. maj, 2017 – Følgende erklæring distribueres i hele verden af medlemmer af LaRouche PAC, der deltager i de af Rusland initierede marcher til ære for dem, der bekæmpede fascisme i Anden Verdenskrig – som i Rusland går under navnet »Den Store Patriotiske Krig«. Øverst på flyvebladet er et billede af løjtnant William Robertson fra den amerikanske hær og løjtnant Alexander Sylvashko fra den Røde Hær, som omfavner hinanden foran et skilt, der lyder, »Øst møder Vest«, og som symboliserer det historiske møde mellem den sovjetiske og amerikanske hær i nærheden af Torgau, ved floden Elben, Tyskland, den 25. april, 1945.

De sovjetiske tab under Anden Verdenskrig er ufattelige for de fleste amerikanere, med et svimlende tabstal på 30 millioner menneskeliv, for ikke at tale om ødelæggelsen af familier, industri, land, kultur og infrastruktur. Kun kineserne, der mistede henved 20 millioner mennesker under kampene med Japan, kan muligvis fatte, hvor stort et offer, det sovjetiske folk led, såsom under belejringen af Leningrad (Skt. Petersborg), før sejren var hjemme. En sådan styrke, en sådan udholdenhed og et sådant mod udgør et vidnesbyrd om den kraft, menneskeheden besidder imod en ondskabens kraft, der er helliget ikke alene ødelæggelsen af menneskeliv, men også af menneskehedens ubegrænsede fremtid.

Hvilken vej fremad følger vi?

Samarbejdet mellem de tre stormagter: USA, Sovjetunionen og Kina, var altafgørende for de allieredes sejr i Anden Verdenskrig og er fortsat hjørnestenen i et nyt verdenssystem i dag.

Præsident Franklin Roosevelt, der anerkendte Sovjetunionens rolle under Josef Stalin, så vel som også indsatsen fra både de nationalistiske og kommunistiske kineseres side imod Japan, afviste personligt ethvert forsøg på at opretholde Det britiske Imperiums politik for kolonisation eller konflikt, og satsede på en verden med samarbejde mellem de fremvoksende, uafhængige nationer i verden, som især inkluderede det sovjetiske Rusland, Kina og Indien.

Hans vision for efterkrigstiden var radikalt anderledes end den vision, som blev implementeret af Storbritanniens Winston Churhill og, efter Roosevelts død, præsident Harry Truman. I stedet blev der, i kølvandet på krigen i Stillehavet, skabt en kunstig opdeling af britiske imperieinteresser og Wall Street-interesser, der specifikt havde til formål at opsplitte disse tre store nationer til at blive koldkrigsfjender.

Tiden er nu inde til, at arven fra den Kolde Krig slutter. Som den amerikanske udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson sagde til medlemmer af det Amerikanske Udenrigsministeriums stab den 3. maj, 2017:

»Vi har frembragt resultater på en måde, der i mangt og meget var formet af, og var en rest fra, den Kolde Krigs æra. Og i mange henseender har vi endnu ikke selv foretaget overgangen til denne nye virkelighed; man kan, når vi har vore samtaler med NATO – endnu et eksempel – se, at der er mange institutioner i hele verden, som blev skabt under en anden tid.

Så, efterhånden, som vi arbejder os ind på denne mulighed for at se på, hvordan vi skal udføre vores arbejde, er en af tingene at tænke på verden, som den ser ud i dag, og lade tilbage – altså, vi gør tingene på denne måde, fordi vi har gjort det på denne måde i de sidste 30 eller 40 år, eller 50 år – for alt dét blev skabt under andre omstændigheder.

Man kan vel sige, at jeg indbyder jer alle til at gå til denne indsats, som vi vil påtage os, uden begrænsninger af jeres tankegang – overhovedet.«

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Udskriftet fortsætter på engelsk:)   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 4. maj, 2017 – I dag, præcis ti dage, før åbningen af Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing finder sted, er vidtrækkende forandringer til det bedre i menneskets vilkår blevet til en umiddelbart opnåelig mulighed. Den nye vision for menneskeheden, der har været Lyndon LaRouches og Helga Zepp-LaRouches hele livsværk, kan virkeliggøres, hvis deres ideer effektivt promoveres i løbet af de forestående dage og uger.

Hvor mange indså sandheden i Kinas officielle avis, Global Times’ lederartikel fra 2. maj? Den sagde, at ængstelsen over Bælt & Vej-initiativet »blotlægger den stereotype, amerikanske nulsums-tankegang … [Men] den offentlige mening i USA er diskret ved at ændre sig, fra at være imod det, og til at tillægge en undersøgelse af det, større betydning«.

Sandheden i denne iagttagelse er nu blevet understreget på en overraskende måde, gennem den amerikanske udenrigsminister Rex Tillersons lange, improviserede tale for hele Udenrigsministeriet i går. Anglofile nyhedskilder har citeret en del af Tillersons bemærkninger med det formål at bagvaske dem: hans åbningsudtalelser, hvor han klart tager afstand fra Bush- og Obama-administrationernes morderiske politikker med »farvet revolution« og regimeskifte. Her sagde Tillerson, at Amerikas »værdier« ikke nødvendigvis er det samme som dets udenrigspolitik – hvilket, som han forklarede, vil sige, at forsøg på at påtvinge andre nationer amerikanske »værdier« ofte ville vise sig kontraproduktivt.

Men det, der ikke blev rapporteret, var Tillersons detaljerede og udtrykkelige beskrivelse af den nye administrations nye aftaler om dialog med Kina. Han sagde, at den nye dialog ville blive med kinesiske regeringsfolk, der rapporterer direkte til præsident Xi Jinping – og således implicit, at amerikanerne ville være regeringsfolk, der rapporterer direkte til præsident Donald Trump. Planen fra begge sider er her, at man vil opnå konkrete aftaler snarere end blot få en talk-shop, som den foregående »dialog«.

Men hvad er det overordnede formål med dialogen? Tillerson understregede, og understregede igen, at dens formål bliver at definere den amerikansk-kinesiske relation »for det næste halve århundrede!«

Var det ikke Lyndon LaRouche, der skrev bogen med titlen, »Jordens kommende halvtreds år«? (Hele Rex Tillersons tale for Udenrigsministeriets ansatte kan læses her: https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/05/270620.htm)

En implikation er, at det stadig er muligt for præsident Trump at deltage i denne Bælt & Vej-konference den 14.-15. maj, og vi bør kæmpe for, at det sker.

I mellemtiden – på den anden side af globen i Kasakhstans hovedstad Astana – underskrev de russiske, iranske og tyrkiske repræsentanter i dag en aftale om at etablere demilitariserede »sikre zoner«, eller »deeskaleringszoner«, i Syrien, med støtte fra den syriske regering. USA var, selv om de ikke deltog i aftalen eller deltog direkte i forhandlingerne, repræsenteret i Astana af fungerende viceudenrigsminister Stuart Jones. Præsident Putin sagde, at præsident Trump i deres telefonsamtale den 2. maj havde støttet sådanne sikre zoner – ja, det havde faktisk været en del af Donald Trumps præsidentkampagne, selv om det ondskabsfuldt var blevet miskarakteriseret som en casus belli for Rusland. Den russiske regering siger, at oprettelsen af disse zoner endelig vil begynde at adskille terroristerne fra den bevæbnede, syriske opposition – noget, som [tidl. udenrigsminister] John Kerry i et år havde lovet at gøre, men som Barack Obama aldrig ville give sin tilladelse til.

Samtidig har nogle amerikanske kongresmedlemmer ikke holdt trit med verdensbegivenhederne således, at der ikke blev indgivet et Glass/Steagall-tillæg, før Husets Komite for Finansielle Ydelser havde en direkte afstemning om et finansielt reguleringslovforslag i dag, langs partilinjerne. Vi vil mobilisere mere aggressivt og hårdere om dette, men ikke længere specifikt med denne komite som mål.

Det er det store billede, som hver og én af os til enhver tid må repræsentere: menneskehedens fremtid i de næste halvtreds til hundrede og halvtreds år.

Foto: Helga og Lyndon LaRouche taler ved en Schiller Institut-konference i Tyskland, juni 2016.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

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

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

Lyd:

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 3. maj, 2017 – Den dynamik, der repræsenteres af de »Tre Store« internationale ledere (Putin, Xi og Trump), får i stigende grad rodfæste i den globale, strategiske situation, om end ulige fordelt. På mærkedagen for Trump-administrationens første 100 dage var det Det britiske Imperiums plan, at Donald Trump skulle være afsat fra præsidentembedet og /eller død; at verden skulle være på en fast kurs for regional og global atomkrig; og at Glass-Steagall skulle være historie – og kun historie.

Den britiske plan var ganske bestemt ikke, at Trump foreløbig skulle have talt tre gange i telefon med den russiske præsident Putin, med udsigt til et møde mellem dem, der sandsynligvis vil finde sted under G20-topmødet i juli; det var ikke, at Trump skulle have gennemført et møde med Xi Jingping samt talt med ham flere gange; og det var ikke, at Trump personligt skulle have placeret spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall som topprioritet til diskussion – selv om kampen om, hvilken version af »Glass-Steagall« – den ægte FDR-lov eller en eller anden ersatz variant med »ring-fencing« (intern bankopdeling) – stadig udkæmpes, og hvor amerikanske borgere er en del af kampen, anført af LaRouche PAC’s mobilisering.

Føj hertil den kendsgerning, at det forestående topmøde for Bælt & Vej-initiativet 14.-15. maj i stigende grad dominerer den globale, økonomiske dagsorden, og at Lyndon og Helga LaRouche personligt er i centrum for denne diskussion, med Rusland og Kina som de primære samtalepartnere, (som det meget klart sås af den nylige Schiller Institut-konference i New York), og man vil se, hvorfor Det britiske Imperium ikke er den mindste smule ’begejstret’.

De er faktisk i panik, og de forsøger stadig at brygge et fremstød sammen for at afsætte Trump ved en rigsret, og for at gennemføre en ’farvet revolution’ i USA.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i dag, at vi nu befinder os i en nedtælling på 10 dage til Bælt & Vej-topmødet i Beijing, og at vi må forstærke indsatsen for at insistere, at USA må blive involveret i denne proces. USA har et infrastrukturunderskud til skønsmæssigt mindst $8 billioner og har brug for kinesisk ekspertise og investering til at være med til at genopbygge landets infrastruktur på det højeste, teknologiske niveau. Desuden, understregede Zepp-LaRouche, bør USA og Kina gå ind i joint venture-projekter, især i Mellemøsten og Afrika, for at bringe fred og udvikling til disse områder. Zepp-LaRouche erklærede: Der er masser at gøre!

Det er sikkert, at Rusland og Kina vil respondere favorabelt til en sådan amerikansk politik. Som den officielle kinesiske avis Global Times skarpt bemærkede i en leder fra 2. maj:

Ængstelse over Bælt & Vej-initiativet »blotlægger den stereotype, amerikanske nulsums-tankegang …

[Men] den offentlige mening i USA er diskret ved at ændre sig fra at være imod det, og til at tillægge det større betydning at undersøge det …

[Samarbejde ville] hæve deres gensidige tillid til det næste niveau … og skabe en ny platform for kinesisk-amerikansk samarbejde …

Beijing har allerede overbragt en invitation, og hvordan USA vil respondere til det, er værd at observere.«

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 1. maj, 2017 – Præsident Donald Trumps erklæring i dag om, at han er villig til at forhandle fred direkte med Nordkoreas Kim Jong Un – hvilket vil forskaffe de største, løgnagtige medier i London, New York og Washington et nervøst sammenbrud – er begyndelsen til, at præsidenten muligvis vil bryde ud af en britisk krigsfælde. »Under de rette omstændigheder«, sagde han, og disse omstændigheder kunne meget vel være præcis de multilaterale, direkte forhandlinger, som præsidenterne Xi og Putin arbejder så hårdt på.

Kina og Rusland – de nationer, som den britiske elite har forsøgt at drive Trump til krig med. Den britiske regerings Boris Johnson og Michael Fallon har gentagne gange meddelt, at de med sikkerhed vidste, at Trump stod for at gå i krig mod Nordkorea, ligesom de, kortvarigt, havde puffet ham ind i en krigsfælde i Syrien.

Det er af presserende betydning, at alle Trump-tilhængere forstår dette og lægger yderligere pres på ham for at undfly briternes dødbringende »geopolitik«.

Hans destination bør være Beijing, 14.-15. maj, sammen med 30 andre statsoverhoveder og 101 nationale delegationer i Bælt & Vej Forum. Det er samarbejde med Kina om økonomisk udvikling på verdensplan, inklusive en ny økonomisk infrastruktur i USA.

Præsidenten overrumplede Wall Street i samme interview i det ovale kontor ved at sige, at han ønskede at bryde Wall Street-bankerne op med det »21. århundredes Glass-Steagall«. Ingen tvivl om, at de vil tilbyde Barack Obama endnu mere – en halv million pr. tale – for at angribe Trump. Fra og med G20-mødet i februar 2009 i London fulgte Obama den britiske, politiske ledelse: Bankredning (bailout) til alle storbankerne, og vedtagelse af hvad som helst, blot IKKE Glass-Steagall. Dét ville sætte en stopper for Londons rolle og verdens imperie-finanscentrum.

Hvad der er vigtigere, så ville dette smide Wall Street-bankernes spekulative derivater og »kasino«-operationer ud af støtte fra skatteborgerne og statslig garanti og overlade dem til at gå fallit, hvis de vil gå fallit. Med en enorm gældsboble i foretagender og selskaber på $14 billion, der er begyndt at gå i betalingsstandsning og nu truer med at gå fallit, er dette det afgørende, første skridt til at vende tilbage til en økonomisk genrejsning. Som stiftende chefredaktør for EIR, Lyndon LaRouche, i dag sagde om Trumps interview: »Dette finanssystem har været komplet degenereret, et svindelnummer, siden et godt stykke tid før krakket, som jeg forudsagde i begyndelsen af 2007. Man må simpelt hen skaffe sig af med det.«

Præsidenten tager skridt til at undfly den dødbringende, britiske fælde med geopolitik og krig, som – siden FDR – kun JFK og Ronald Reagan er brudt fri af, i det mindste delvist. Den ene blev myrdet, den anden næsten myrdet. Det er et spørgsmål om liv og død for nationen, at præsident Trumps tilhængere forstår, hvad han er oppe imod, og hvad hans næste skridt må være.

Lige fra begyndelsen havde Schiller
Instituttet den idé, at vi måtte have en
retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden;
men at det aldrig ville fungere, hvis det ikke
blev forbundet med en renæssance af
klassisk kultur. 

Det, jeg vil tale om, er ideen om den højeste menneskehed, det fælles filosofiske grundlag for vestlig og asiatisk kultur … Præsident Xi Jinpings håbefulde vision for det, han altid kalder et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid … er blevet vedtaget som en resolution i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. … Med dette koncept er et strategisk initiativ, som kan erstatte den krigsskabende geopolitik med idealet om en forenet menneskehed, sat på dagordenen

Download (PDF, Unknown)

25. april, 2017 – Som noget nyt vil vi fremover udlægge EIR’s nye kortvideoer – 1 til 3 minutter – hver dag, på vores hjemmeside direkte. De bliver ikke oversat til dansk.

Nedenstående de videoer, der hidtil er kommet.

Som det vil være alle vore læsere bekendt, så er der mange, alvorlige brændpunkter i verdenspolitik i øjeblikket. Schiller Instituttet i Danmark kæmper for, at vi også her kommer med – eller melder os ind i – det Nye Paradigme, så vi ikke ender med en lav levestandard, og som et museums-levn fra en anden tid … for slet ikke at tale om virkningerne af en krig, også i Europa, hvis konsekvenser, ingen kan overskue.

Men vi har brug for mange, mange flere danskere, der sætter sig grundigt ind i disse ting og tænker over, hvordan I kan hjælpe os, og Danmark, med at opgive den aktuelle, mere eller mindre nytteløse, eller direkte forkerte, politik og kommer i gang med de tiltag, der skal forme Danmarks fremtid – din fremtid. Vi skal have bankopdeling – som haster – vi skal have et reelt program for infrastruktur og produktiv beskæftigelse – Danmark skal selvfølgelig være repræsenteret ved Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing i maj – alle de mange ting, I har fulgt med i gennem vores hjemmeside. Kan I komme i tanke om nogen andre i Danmark, der kan fremlægge et så flot, gennemgribende og fornuftigt program? Men, uden handling er det blot ’svage’ ord.

Vi beder jer om, at I distribuerer vores materiale – f. eks. disse kortvideoer – til hele jeres bekendtskabskreds, gennem jeres sociale medier og andre af jeres netværk – og husk at sige til dem, at de igen skal sende det videre … vi skal have mere gang i tingene! Det skal I hjælpe os med! Gør også opmærksom på, at folk kan melde sig til at modtage vores Nyhedsbrev, der sendes 2 gange ugentligt, til jeres e-mails. Tilmelding, se hjemmesiden.

Sæt gang i tingene.

– Redaktionen.

The New British Coup in the USA — Helga Zepp-LaRouche

British Press Push War on North Korea

Brits: Aggressive war is LEGAL (when we do it!)

Chinese Diplomat Invites US to Join New Silk Road

President Trump, Go to Beijing to Build Infrastructure

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 23. april, 2017 – I denne uge gjorde den russiske og kinesiske presse det til en sag at dække LaRouche-bevægelsens kampagner for at formå Trump-præsidentskabet til at bringe USA ind i det Nye Silkevejsparadigme med Xi Jinpings Bælt & Vej-initiativ, alt imens de samtidig i stigende grad identificerer briternes rolle i at undergrave Trumps bestræbelser for at bringe USA, Rusland og Kina ind i et samarbejde, til menneskehedens gode. Samtidig foregår der en bevægelse, hvor politiske institutioner i USA går i retning af et samarbejde med LaRouche-organisationer – Schiller Instituttet, Executive Intelligence Review og LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomite (LaRouche PAC).

Lørdag gik repræsentanter fra Schiller Instituttet og medlemmer af en Tea Party-organisation fra New Jersey sammen foran New York Times – eller, som præsident Trump korrekt identificerer det, det »mislykkede New York Times«. Plancher ved protesten inkluderede: »New York Times ønsker krig med Rusland, amerikanere ønsker fred«; »New York Times – få alle de falske nyheder på tryk«; og en plakat med et portræt af en rødmende Göbbels, med ordene: »New York Times får Göbbels til at rødme«.

En artikel i TASS samme aften lød: »’Hele verden griner ad New York Times’, sagde Daniel Burke, talsmand for Schiller Instituttet, i et interview til TASS’ korrespondent. ’De er blevet smålige tjenere for dem, der søger krig og kaos.’ Efter hans mening ’spreder denne udgivelse løgne om Syrien, ligesom den løj om tilstedeværelsen af masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak. Dette er en del af en kynisk og falsk kampagne for at udskifte regimet i Syrien – dette kan let føre til en Tredje Verdenskrig’, sagde Burke.« Ruptly, RT’s Tv- og videotjeneste, udlagde en video af demonstrationen.

Ligeledes lørdag, udgav China Daily en lang artikel, inkl. billeder, som rapporterede om Schiller Instituttets konference i New York City med titlen, »Bælt & Vej-initiativ ’Ny Platform’ for kinesisk-amerikansk samarbejde«, som rapporterede om præsentationerne af dr. Patrick Ho, stifter af China Energy Fund Committee, vice-generalkonsul for Folkerepublikken Kina i New York, Zhang Meifang, og vice-chargé d’affaires ved Ruslands permanente mission til FN, Petr Iliichev, som alle talte med Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

EIR har nu indledt en daglig, kort (1-2 minutter) lang video på EIR YouTube kanal, der er totalt helliget afsløringen af den direkte britiske rolle i både at undergrave ethvert samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og Kina, og i at bruge enhver tænkelig løgn for at manipulere USA ind i en krig med Rusland og Kina – en krig, som omgående kunne afslutte civilisationen, som vi kender den. Vi opfordrer alle til at abonnere på denne daglige video.

Præsident Trump accepterede, under sit møde med præsident Xi Jinping den 6.-7. april i Florida, Xis invitation til at besøge Kina, men uden at fastsætte en dato for besøget. Alt imens et sådant besøg er af den yderste vigtighed for menneskehedens fremtid, når som helst, det måtte finde sted, så har Lyndon og Helga LaRouche kraftigt opfordret præsidenten til at deltage i »Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde«, som afholdes i Beijing den 14.-14. maj. Hvis han deltager, ville Trump kunne mødes med både Xi Jinping og Vladimir Putin, sammen med 26 andre statsoverhoveder og regeringschefer, der har planlagt at deltage i forummet, i omgivelser, der tilsigter at skabe samarbejde for udvikling mellem nationerne på vores fælles planet. Verden må skride til handling nu for at opnå et sådant nyt paradigme for verdens udvikling, som den nødvendige basis for at gøre en ende på det britiske system med geopolitisk, militær konfrontation, én gang for alle, og i stedet skabe en ny renæssance, der er helliget menneskehedens fælles mål.

Foto: Lørdag den 22. april, 2017, holdt medlemmer af Schiller Instituttet og en Tea Party-organisation fra New Jersey en demonstration uden for New York Times. (photo: Daniel Burke/LaRouchePAC)

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

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

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

Indledning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sidste del af udskriftet på engelsk:

(Se også: Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale på konferencens første dag: (Fuld dansk tekst.)

»Samarbejde mellem Kina og USA om Bælt & Vej-Initiativet«. 

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

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

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

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

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Lyd:

10. april, 2017 – Topmødet mellem USA’s præsident Donald Trump og Kinas præsident Xi Jinping havde til hensigt at skabe grundlaget for en tæt relation mellem disse to, store lande, for at løse deres uoverensstemmelser og samarbejde om menneskehedens fremskridt. Den amerikanske præsidents pludselige beslutning om at bombe Syrien på fuppåskuddet om, at Syrien anvendte kemiske våben, forstyrrede imidlertid ikke forhandlingerne. Alt imens den kinesiske delegation må være blevet totalt overrasket af denne betydningsfulde militæroperation midt i dette vigtige møde, besluttede de ikke at slække på deres fokus, efter at præsident Trump informerede præsident Xi om bombningen efter statsbanketten om aftenen, den 6. april. Møderne fortsatte med den kinesiske delegation den følgende morgen som planlagt og sluttede tidligt på eftermiddagen.

Kemien mellem de to ledere var god. De havde allerede tidligere etableret et godt forhold gennem deres gensidige korrespondance og telefonsamtaler. Der var mange smilende ansigter under pauserne med pressen, under afbrydelserne i de mere seriøse diskussioner. Præsident Trump sagde, at de to ledere havde udviklet et »fremragende« forhold, og at »mange potentielt meget vanskelige problemer vil forsvinde«. Præsident Xi var også meget tilfreds med den modtagelse, som hans delegation, der omfattede fire medlemmer af Politbureauet, havde fået af præsidenten. Topmødet, sagde han, »var af enestående vigtig betydning for de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer«.

»Præsident Trump har gjort fremragende forberedelser til vort lands repræsentanter og gav os en varm modtagelse«, sagde Xi.

»Vi har for nylig haft dybtgående og udstrakte kommunikationer til dette formål og kom til mange fælles punkter for forståelse, af hvilke den vigtigste var at intensivere vort venskab og bygge en form for tillid, der svarer til den kinesisk-amerikanske, praktiske relation og det kinesisk-amerikanske venskab.«

Præsident Trump havde også det meste af sin regering med sig på topmødet, inklusive udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson, forsvarsminister James Mattis, finansminister Stephen Mnuchin og handelsminister Wilbur Ross. Præsident Xi overrakte også en invitation til præsident Trump til at besøge Kina i år, som præsident Trump omgående accepterede. Præsident Xi inviterede ligeledes den amerikanske præsident til at tilslutte sig Bælt & Vej-initiativet.

De to præsidenter etablerede ligeledes en ny ramme på regeringsniveau for forhandlinger, den Omfattende Dialog mellem USA og Kina, som de selv vil styre.     Denne funktion vil erstatte den foregående Strategiske Dialog mellem USA og Kina, som Trumps folk kritiserede som værende en »sludrekomsammen« uden praktiske resultater. Med dette nye format håber de at virkeliggøre konkrete resultater inden for kort tid. Dialogen vil have fire grundpiller: Dialogen om Diplomati og Sikkerhed; den Omfattende Økonomiske Dialog; Dialogen om Retshåndhævelse og Cyber-sikkerhed; og Dialogen om Sociale og Kulturelle Spørgsmål.

De to præsidenter havde diskuteret de vigtige spørgsmål inden for handel og har besluttet at udvikle en 100-dages handleplan for handel med Kina, som ville have »vej-stationer for præstationer langs vejen«, iflg. finansminister Stephen Mnuchin. Der var også en diskussion om investering og fjernelse af de forhindringer, der stadig er for opnåelse af en regulær, bilateral investeringstraktat mellem de to lande. Udenrigsminister Tillerson har ligeledes indikeret, at en længere diskussion havde fundet sted om det nordkoreanske atomprogram, med en fornyet forpligtelse fra begge sider til en atomvåbenfri Koreansk Halvø og øget samarbejde omkring at overbevise nordkoreanerne om at opgive deres program, selv om der ikke var nogen »pakkeaftale« om spørgsmålet, sagde han. Tillerson sagde, at præsident Xi var enig i det amerikanske synspunkt om, at denne situation har nået et meget alvorligt stadie.

Alt imens topmødet syntes at have opnået de afgrænsede mål, det var opstillet, med at etablere en god arbejdsrelation gennem en grundig diskussion af de spørgsmål, der deler de to lande, så er der stadig en skygge fra angrebet mod Syrien. Visse kinesiske analytikere har allerede givet udtryk for en mistanke om, at operationen blev timet til at understrege, at USA er fast besluttet på, om nødvendigt at anvende militær aktion imod den Demokratiske Folkerepublik Korea (Nordkorea), hvis denne trussel består, og således lægge pres på Kina for at indtage en hårdere linje mod dets nordkoreanske nabo. Selv om ingen bør være tåbelig nok til at tro, at et militærangreb mod Nordkorea, i modsætning til Syrien, kunne gennemføres uden en omgående gengældelse fra Nordkorea. Den ensidige udøvelse af amerikansk magt i Mellemøsten sendte også et subtilt budskab om, at »en ny relation mellem stormagter«, som Kina har ønsket, en relation, der bygger på ligeværdighed, stadig er et fjernt mål.

Det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums respons på angrebet var usædvanlig tavs. Talskvinde for det Kinesiske Udenrigsministerium, Hua Chunying, gentog 8. april, at Kina er modstander af anvendelsen af kemiske våben »af noget land, nogen organisation eller person, til noget som helst formål og under nogen som helst omstændigheder«. Samtidig sagde hun, at spørgsmålet fortjente en grundig FN-undersøgelse for virkelig at afgøre, hvem, der havde ansvaret, »og som på basis af solide beviser kan nå frem til en konklusion, der kan bestå historiens og kendsgerningernes prøve«.

I øjeblikket synes både »historien og kendsgerningerne« at være beroende på påskuddet for det militære angreb. Præsident Trump bør agte på den amerikanske filosof, George Santayanas ord, »De, der ikke lærer af historien, er dømt til at gentage den«. Og det ser ud, som om dette meget vel kunne blive en gentagelse af George W. Bush’ hasten mod krig, igen baseret på fuphistorien med »masseødelæggelsesvåben«, med mindre den kurs, man er slået ind på, hurtigt lægges om. Og der er ingen tvivl om, at kinesiske militærstrateger nøje vil følge udviklingen i den amerikanske præsidents pludselige skift, for at få frem, hvilken betydning, det har for dem – og hvad konsekvenserne af denne meget uberegnelige og farlige, militære eskalering, er.

(Ovenstående artikel af William Jones vil forekomme i det kommende nummer af Executive Intelligence Review, EIR.)          

7. april, 2017 – Selv om præsident Trumps illegale og tåbelige angreb mod Syrien bogstavelig talt fandt sted imellem de to aftaler, der var planlagt for hans møder med præsident Xi Jinping, så nævnte deres fælles erklæringer ved topmødets afslutning ikke hændelsen, men roste resultaterne af mødet og lovede, at der ville komme stærke relationer og nye udviklinger mellem USA og Kina.

Trump sagde, de to teams have gjort »enorme fremskridt i vore relationer« og at »vi fortsat vil gøre mange yderligere fremskridt«. Han kaldte den personlige relation, der var etableret, for »fremragende«, og at han så frem til at »mødes mange gange i fremtiden«, alt imens »mange potentielt vanskelige problemer vil forsvinde«.

Xi sagde, iflg. Xinhua, at der er »tusinder af grunde til at få de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer til at fungere, og ingen grund til at bryde dem«. Xi inviterede Trump på et statsbesøg i Kina, og Trump accepterede og sagde, han håbede, han »snarest« kunne gennemføre besøget.

Xi beskrev fire nyligt etablerede »mekanismer på højt niveau for dialog og samarbejde mellem Kina og USA« inden for områderne diplomati og sikkerhed, økonomi, retshåndhævelse og cyber-sikkerhed, såvel som sociale udvekslinger og mellemfolkelige udvekslinger.

Alt imens der ikke blev underskrevet nogen specifikke projekter under møderne mellem regeringsfolk fra begge sider, så opfordrede Xi til etablering af »en prioritetsliste for samarbejde, til snarlig gennemførelse, fremme af forhandlinger om den bilaterale investeringstraktat, og for at udforske det realistiske, praktiske samarbejde omkring infrastrukturbyggeri og energi, blandt andre område«.

Uden kommentarer sagde Xi, at de to ledere »informerede hinanden om deres nuværende prioriteter på den hjemlige og diplomatiske dagsorden, og udvekslede synspunkter om regionale, ’varme’ spørgsmål«.

USA's præsident Trump og Kinas præsident Xi under topmødet i Mar-a-Lago.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Han forklarer dernæst flere punkter, inkl.

»3. Det syriske luftvåben ramte målet«

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

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

Dernæst siger han,

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

Så siger han,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

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

Lyd:

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 4. april, 2017 – Civilisationens skæbne kunne meget vel blive afgjort i denne uge, med præsident Trump, der står fast imod den »farvede revolution«, der føres imod USA fra Det britiske Imperiums og deres håndlangere i den mislykkede Obama-administrations side, og som samtidig er i færd med at forberede et historisk topmøde med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping, hvor han officielt kunne, og må, tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej.

Den britiske imperieopdeling af verden i krigsførende blokke – af hvilke ingen er vigtigere for deres modbydelige Imperiums overlevelse end »Øst vs. Vest« – ville kollapse under et Trump-partnerskab med Kina for at samarbejde om udviklingen af verdens nationer gennem Kinas Ét Bælt, én Vej, og gennem et partnerskab med Rusland for at overvinde terroristsvøben, en skabelse af London og deres saudiske monarkiske allierede.

I kølvandet på terrorbombningen af en Metrostation i Skt. Petersborg i mandags, ringede Trump til præsident Vladimir Putin og tilbød »den amerikanske regerings fulde støtte til responsen på angrebet, og med at bringe de ansvarlige til retsligt ansvar«, iflg. Det Hvide Hus. »Både præsident Trump og præsident Putin var enige i, at terrorisme må endegyldigt og hurtigt besejres«, lød udskriftet.

Torsdag og fredag vil præsidenten mødes med Xi Jinping på sin ejendom i Florida. Det rapporteres, at begge parter har planlagt topmødet omhyggeligt – begge parter ønsker et succesrigt møde, og begge parter har til hensigt at gøre en ende på den geopolitiske nulsums-fremgangsmåde over for globalt diplomati og erstatte det med win-win-samarbejde for at adressere menneskehedens fælles mål. Som udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson under sit besøg i sidste måned for at arrangere denne uges topmøde sagde til kineserne, så ville de amerikansk-kinesiske relationer under Trump-administrationen blive »en meget positiv relation, der bygger på nul konfrontation, nul konflikt, gensidig respekt og altid i søgen efter win-win-løsninger«. Dette reflekterede direkte Xi Jinpings opfordring fra 2012 til at opbygge »en ny slags relationer mellem store lande« mellem Kina og USA, baseret på »nul konflikt, nul konfrontation, gensidig respekt og win-win-samarbejde«, et forslag, der blev blankt afvist af præsident Obama, som i stedet gik frem med forberedelser til en militær konfrontation med Kina.

Bestræbelserne fra briternes/Obamas/mediernes side på at give Rusland skylden for Hillary Clintons fejlslagne valgkampagne, og på at anklage Trump for at være et godtroende fjols for russerne, bliver i stigende grad latterliggjort, alt imens Obamas og hans korrupte efterretningsteams forbrydelser ikke længere kan skjules. Den tidligere vicedirektør for USA’s Centralkommandos Efterretningstjeneste, oberst James Waurishuk, sagde, i sin respons til afsløringen af Obamas nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, Susan Rices rolle i at bruge efterretningssamfundet til at udspionere Trump-kampagnen: »Vi står og ser på en potentiel, forfatningsmæssig krise ud fra standpunktet om, at vi brugte en ekstremt stærk kapacitet, der er tiltænkt at bruges til at sikre og beskytte landet, og vi brugte det til politiske formål, på vegne af den siddende præsident. Det skaber en ny præcedens.«

Trump adresserede også Byggesektorens Fagforenings kongresmedlemmers konference i Washington, D.C., i dag, og inspirerede dem til at tage ansvar for de »engang så fremgangsrige byer, der nu skæmmes af tomme parceller, og engang så fremgangsrige industribyer, der nu ligger hen som rustbyer og er i totalt forfald«. Han fortsatte: »Jeg har her for mig i dag, her i denne sal, de mænd og kvinder, der, hvis de får muligheden, kan transformere disse lokalsamfund. I er borgere, der kan genopbygge vore byer, genoplive vore industrier og forny vort elskede land, og jeg ved, I ikke vil helme, før jobbet er gjort.«

Det britiske Imperium er i færd med at brase sammen, men, med en følelse af total desperation, udsender de deres styrker for at bekæmpe Amerikas Forenede Stater, for at bevare deres »del og hersk«-magt over verden på vegne af deres bankerotte finansimperium. Hvis USA, Kina og Rusland sluttede sig sammen, på vegne af hele menneskeheden, ville det betyde enden på Imperiet, måske for altid.

De ideer, der i løbet af de seneste halvtreds år er blevet introduceret og udbredt af den bevægelse, som Lyndon LaRouche har grundlagt – for fred gennem udvikling, for en genoprettelse af det Amerikanske System for en kreditinvesteringsøkonomi, for en ende på den kulturelle sump med »sex, narko, rock and roll« til fordel for en ny renæssance for klassisk kultur og videnskab – er nu meget tæt på at realiseres. Vi kan ikke svigte historien på dette storslåede tidspunkt.

Foto: Præsident Trump taler for den Nationale Byggesektors Fagforeningskonference i Washington, 4. april, 2017.                  

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 2. april, 2017 – Når vore modstanderes scenarie – »russerne gjorde det« – er offer for nådesløs latterliggørelse foran et massivt publikum, er tiden inde til at indse, at kampen om USA’s fremtid endnu ikke er afgjort – den er snarere ved at blive afgjort, netop i dette øjeblik. Afgørelsen svinger frem og tilbage over afgrunden.

Den dristige og modige, men samtidig kompetente og klarhjernede vurdering af de aktuelle forhold i verden, lyder, at verdenshistorien står og vipper frem og tilbage i disse aktuelle uger. Vi har nået et punkt, hvor afgørelsen må træffes, og denne afgørelse kunne falde ud til både den ene og anden side.

På modstandernes side finder vi de kræfter og institutioner, der myrdede John Kennedy for over halvtreds år siden. Men ånden i John Kennedys tradition, som var den patriotiske ånd i traditionen efter Franklin Roosevelt og Alexander Hamilton før ham, døde aldrig. Netop, som de, der har verdslig visdom, mindst ventede det, dukkede ånden efter John Kennedy atter op som en eksistentiel trussel mod Det britiske Imperium, i form af præsident Ronald Reagans samarbejde med Lyndon LaRouches »Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ«, 23. marts, 1983. Det britiske Imperium forsøgte at dræbe Reagan; de troede, de kunne holde LaRouche fængslet, til han døde i fængsel. Det mislykkedes.

Jo, det lykkedes dem måske nok at trampe gnisterne ned for en tid, men nu blusser ilden op, højere end før. Nu kan Lyndon LaRouches politiske forslag få succes på kort sigt. Det britiske Imperiums blodige genfærd, og den historiske blindgyde, som hele det oldgamle imperiesystem udgør, kan meget hurtigt blive afskaffet. USA kan gå sammen med Kina og Rusland i det storslåede projekt for den Eurasiske Landbro, som LaRouche-parret var de første til at foreslå. Vi kan videreføre John Kennedys og Krafft Ehrickes opdagelsesrejse ud i Solsystemet, og hinsides dette.

Glem ikke, at jeres børnebørn vil udspørge jer længe og intenst om, hvor I var i 2017, og præcis, hvad I gjorde.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump ser ud ad det Røde Værelses vindue, på Det Hvide Hus’ sydlige søjleterrasse.

Jeg er også sikker på, at, hvis Krafft Ehricke havde været her i dag, eller havde levet i vor tid, så ville han have været utrolig optimistisk med hensyn til, at hans vision, som i hans levetid ofte blev bekæmpet – ikke kun hans livs vision, men fortsættelsen af rumfart i det hele taget mødte utrolig meget opposition og modarbejdelse – at han ville erkende, at vi i dag virkelig har den strategiske konstellation, som bringer realiseringen af hans vision inden for rækkevidde. Det er allerede, i forbindelse med en tale om det kinesiske rumfartsprogram, blevet sagt, at »frøspringet« nu virkelig kommer, for kineserne har en vision om at udvinde helium-3 på Månens bagside til den fremtidige fusionsøkonomi på Jorden. Det bliver endda også diskuteret af ESA, men jeg mener, at Kina på verdensplan uddanner flest forskere og videnskabsfolk inden for rumfart, og derfor er jeg optimistisk over, at denne »leap-frogging«, altså frøspring, vil fortsætte.

… Men i Europa har vi et politisk lederskab, som man kunne sige ligesom sidder fast i en tidslomme. I denne tidslomme går resten af verden fremad, og de sidder fast i denne tidslomme, denne glasklokke, som de bliver ved med at støde hovedet imod. Og derfor spiller vores organisation, Schiller Instituttet og vore allierede organisationer i Europa, en nøglerolle som lederskab for at bringe Europa ind i dette nye paradigme.

Næstformand Michelle Rasmussen havde følgende indlæg og spørgsmål på LaRouche PAC’s borgermøde på Manhattan, New York, lørdag, 1. april:

Jeg er Michelle Rasmussen, og jeg arbejder for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og er her på besøg. Jeg vil gerne give et øjebliksbillede af, hvordan tingene ser ud fra Europa, for det er ligesom folk i Europa står på usikker grund: På den ene side har man, mod øst, det nye paradigme, der anføres af Kina med Rusland og de andre centraleurasiske lande, der er involveret i Bælt & Vej-politikken. Og på den anden side, mod vest, har man potentialet for, at USA rent faktisk ændrer sin politik. Mod øst har vi en konkret transformation. Mod vest ville jeg sige, at der mest er et potentiale for en transformation, med tale om det Amerikanske System, infrastruktur, Glass-Steagall, med ideen om at få et nyt forhold til Rusland; samt de meget spændende udsigter med topmødet mellem Xi Jinping og præsident Trump; Trumps NASA-tale, osv.

Men i Europa har vi et politisk lederskab, som man kunne sige ligesom sidder fast i en tidslomme. I denne tidslomme går resten af verden fremad, og de sidder fast i denne tidslomme, denne glasklokke, som de bliver ved med at støde hovedet imod. Og derfor spiller vores organisation, Schiller Instituttet og vore allierede organisationer i Europa, en nøglerolle som lederskab for at bringe Europa ind i dette nye paradigme. For vi har en lille organisation i nogle af landene, og vores politik har altid været, at vi ikke nødvendigvis forventer, at de europæiske lande vil vise vejen, men at vi måtte så frøene for LaRouche-programmets politik for den dag, hvor USA tager skridt til det. Så måtte vi have sået frøene, så de europæiske lande kunne komme med.

Det er, hvad vi gør. Vi har, f.eks., ganske kort, i Italien haft omkring 12 forskellige lovforslag for Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling i løbet af de seneste tre år. Alle partierne, undtagen det førende parti, er for Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, og for blot to uger siden begyndte man omsider at drøfte det i parlamentsudvalget.

I Frankrig har vi en enorm chance i de næste fire uger, med Jacques Cheminades kampagne, der er i færd med at opbygge en national bevægelse. De har kontaktet 30.000 borgmestre for at skaffe 500, der ville støtte Jacques. Han vil få massiv lejlighed til at komme i medierne. Hans program vil blive uddelt til hver eneste husstand i Frankrig. Dette sker inden for de næste fire uger.

I Tyskland har vi netop haft en vellykket Krafft Ehricke-konference om udforskning af rummet. I Berlin har vi en valgkampagne.

I Sverige er Glass-Steagall netop blevet diskuteret i det svenske parlament, for en eller to uger siden; forslaget blev nedstemt, men det blev diskuteret. Og vore folk i Sverige lavede en indsats for at forsøge at standse krigen mod Yemen, og vi har Hussein, vores leder i Sverige, der arbejder med den arabiske version af vores Verdenslandbro-rapport.

Og i Danmark, som I hørte for et par uger siden, havde vi et vidunderligt gennembrud med koncerten for en dialog mellem kulturer, hvor folk hang oppe under loftet, så mange mennesker kom; og den vidunderlige udveksling af traditionel musik fra hele verden, inkl. fra Rusland og Kina, og også med europæisk opera og klassisk musik.

I parentes bemærket, så blev Alexander Hamilton født i Vestindien; han blev født på en britisk ø og voksede op på Sankt Croix, som var en dansk ø. Den danske statsminister, der netop har mødt Trump, besøgte i denne uge Jomfruøerne, fordi det er 100 år siden, danskerne solgte Jomfruøerne til USA. Alexander Hamilton voksede op på Skt. Croix [USVI], der dengang var en dansk koloni, og det har en vigtig indflydelse i amerikansk historie, for Alexander Hamilton var ikke fra nogen delstat! Alle de andre kæmpede for deres egen del, vores stat først, vores stat først. Men Alexander Hamilton stod over dette, han opererede ud fra standpunktet om principperne for frihed, og hans bestræbelser på at etablere en centralregering har forbindelse til dette: han var ikke bundet til en bestemt delstat. Det var blot en parentes.

Men, hvordan ser I virkningen af dette skifte i USA’s politik på resten af verden, der endnu ikke er i det nye paradigme?

Diane Sare: Jeg tror, det bliver meget ulige fordelt, for steder synes at have en masse fraktioner, som vi ser det i Tyskland, hvor der er folk, der virkelig gerne vil arbejde sammen med Rusland, især industrifirmaer osv. – og så er der Merkel. Så jeg tror, det bliver et chok, hvis vi får USA til at skifte politik, det bliver et virkeligt chok. Og jeg tror, det vil styrke folk, der ved, hvad der er rigtigt. Som ikke ønsker krig, som mener, de bør orientere sig mod Rusland, som ikke har haft mod til at sige det. Jeg tænker – da jeg var i Sverige sidste efterår, talte vi om, at hjernevasken imod Rusland var spektakulær! Man tror, det er slemt her, og det er slemt her, men jeg havde en nær ven, der boede på Gotland, denne ø mellem Sverige og de baltiske lande, og hun var fuldstændig overbevist om, at der er russiske spioner overalt på øen! Og det svenske militær må opruste for at forberede sig på en russisk invasion.

Jeg mener, at et skifte i USA sluttelig kunne give en masse optimisme. Men det bliver interessant; jeg tror, det bliver meget ulige fordelt, og jeg tror, det vil forårsage nogle uventede resultater.

https://larouchepac.com/20170401/manhtattan-town-hall-event-diane-sare

Michelle start på 46 min.

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

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

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

Udskrift af webcast, engelsk:

DEFEAT THE DEEP STATE TO ENSURE THE NEW PARADIGM!

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

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

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

        ROSS:  You're speaking of the DNC?

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

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

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

        ROSS :  Yeah.  It puts the ranking and ranking.

        MCGOVERN:  Yeah, you got it!

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

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

        ROSS: Twice a day.

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

        ROSS [laughing]: Well put.

        MCGOVERN: I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        JONES:  Thank you for having me.

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

v/ formand Tom Gillesberg

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/pressen-morklaegger-trump-og-usas-nye-visioner-i-et-forsog-pa-at-forhindre-det-nye-paradigme

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 27. marts, 2017 – Otteogfyrre timer efter præsident Donald Trumps ugentlige tale, der inspirerer Amerika til at genoprette vor nations tabte dedikation til at udvide menneskets viden om Universet og om selve livet, er denne historiske videoudsendelse fortsat næsten ikke blevet rapporteret i de amerikanske medier. Det er ikke engang blevet nævnt i New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times eller på de store Tv- og radiostationer. I stedet er medierne fulde af historier om, at Trump er en »fiasko«, fordi en (dybt fejlbehæftet) sundhedslov blev nedstemt, og af hysteri à la McCarthy-isme om Rusland, der stjæler det amerikanske valg, og af selv tilbagevendende henvisninger til »lugten af forræderi, der hænger over Trump-administrationen«.

På ét niveau er dette simpelthen nonsens. Men det sker også samtidig med, at en masse undergravende, »farvede revolutioner«, som den, der gennemføres mod Trump-administrationen, viser sig i hele Europa – i Balkanlandene, i Belarus (med direkte støtte fra de neonazistiske brigader i Ukraine), og, hvad der er vigtigst, i Rusland, hvor den med Soros forbundne Alexei Navalny har aktiveret et par tusinde demonstranter for at fremprovokere et par arrestationer, der skal gøres til avisoverskrifter i hele verden.

Og, hvad der er lige så vigtigt, så har præsident Trumps nylige vedtagelse af en politik for en tilbagevenden til det »Amerikanske System«, noget, der næsten udelukkende identificeres med Lyndon LaRouche, fået samme behandling af mainstream-medierne. Den faste skribent, der går under navnet Virgil på Breitbart-websitet, som tidligere blev ledet af Trumps chefstrateg, Steve Bannon, har udgivet to stærke rapporter, den ene om Trumps besøg i Michigan i denne måned [»Donald Trump, Rosie the Riveter, and the Revival of American Economic Nationalism« (Donald Trump, nitte-arbejderen Rosie og genoplivningen af amerikansk, økonomisk nationalisme)], og den anden om Trumps krav om at genindføre det Amerikanske System [»Trump Connects to the Taproot of American Economic Nationalism with Henry Clay’s `American System’« (Donald Trump skaber forbindelse til roden af amerikansk økonomisk nationalisme med Henry Clays ‘Amerikanske System’)].

Virgil bemærker, at disse taler af præsidenten »uden for enhver tvivl rejser den vigtigste, økonomisk-politiske idé i amerikansk historie«, og dog »var der ingen omtale af det i Politico, og heller ikke i hverken Washington Post, New York Times eller CNN«.

Løgnene, der udbredes som kendsgerninger af sofisterne på disse britiskkontrollerede og Wall Street-kontrollerede medier, er frastødende og ødelæggende, men ikke nær så ødelæggende som bestræbelserne på at forholde de amerikanske (og andre) masser, at den igangværende økonomiske og moralske transformation af vores nation i det hele taget finder sted. Forestil jer, at Jack Kennedys krav om, at mennesket skulle tage til Månen, »ikke, fordi der et let, men fordi det er svært«, blev udelukket i de amerikanske medier. Denne særlige ’behandling’ er velkendt af Lyndon LaRouche, hvis udviklende rolle i begge disse videnskabelige og økonomiske innovationer er åbenlys for alle, der kender ham, men som er blevet systematisk forholdt størstedelen af det amerikanske folk i 50 år, som en bevidst, åbent erklæret politik fra de såkaldte mainstream-mediers side.

Men denne evne til at udøve mind kontrol over befolkningen via medierne, er ved at blive brudt. En præsident, der taler direkte til befolkningen, og som nægter at bøje sig for myten om, at »den offentlige mening«, som den defineres af medierne, må tilbedes, har nu indtaget embedet. Det er langt fra klart, om han vil lykkes, men potentialet er stort, hvis befolkningen lever op til lejligheden. Lyndon LaRouche er i hvert fald af den overbevisning, at Trump ved, hvad han taler om.

Lyndon LaRouche har altid hævdet, at »den offentlige mening« og »at være praktisk« (pragmatisk) er menneskehedens, og i særdeleshed kreativitetens, største fjender. I denne tid med revolutionære forandringer, i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln og Franklin Roosevelt, er det nye paradigme fuldt ud opnåeligt. Verden vender sig mod Kinas Nye Silkevejsproces, som markerer afslutningen af »nulsums-geopolitik« under Det britiske Imperium, der har domineret moderne historie siden mindst 1900. Ideen om en global renæssance – inden for videnskab, kunst og politisk økonomi – er den nødvendige og passende mission, der nu er forelagt os alle.

Foto: USA’s udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson møder Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i Beijing, Kina, den 19. marts, 2017. [State Department photo/Public Domain]