… den store leder, som Martin, stiger til et højere niveau. De tænker på deres liv, som evangeliet fremlægger det, som en talent (mønt); livet er en talent, man har fået givet. Man fødes, og man dør. Det er ens talent; hvad man har i denne tidsperiode. Spørgsmålet er, man vil under alle omstændigheder give den ud; hvordan vil man give den ud? Hvad vil man bruge den til at sikre, i al evighed? Hvad vil man gøre, som en mission, som vil gøre én fortjent til den plads, man ønsker at have i evigheden?

Martin havde en klar fornemmelse af dette. Denne ’bjergtopstale’ for mig, slog mig ligesom en klar forståelse af, hvad han sagde, hvad han sagde til andre.[1]

Livet er en talent. Det er ikke, hvad man ’får ud af’ livet. Det er, hvad man lægger ind i det, der tæller. Martin havde dette.

»Vi har, mener jeg, to problemer, som bør være grundlag for at reflektere over Martins liv i dag. 1) Vi har en national krise. Jeg vil ikke lægge fingrene imellem eller tale ud fra det politiske partiapparat (Demokraterne); men kendsgerningerne skal frem: Denne nationaløkonomi er ved at kollapse. Situationen, med hensyn til USA’s grundlæggende økonomiske infrastruktur i dag, er relativt set værre end i 1933, hvor Roosevelt i marts måned kom ind i Det Hvide Hus. Det vil sige, hvis man undersøger infrastruktur, energi osv., livsbetingelserne for vort folk og i hele verden – lad være med at se på de store byer, hvor de går rundt med en facade og siger, alt går godt; men se på lokalsamfundene; Detroit, f.eks., har nu halvdelen af det indbyggertal, byen plejede at have. En industriby er forsvundet. Se på Birmingham, man ser det samme rapporteret; det var aldrig rigt, men deres oplevelse af tab, tab, tab; det er situationen i USA. Og der er en ligegyldighed over for USA’s problemer. Mindst 48 af de 50 stater er bankerot, håbløst bankerot; dvs., at staterne umuligt kan øge skatteindtægterne uden at sænke økonomien yderligere, for at imødekomme regeringens essentielle forpligtelser. Det er karakteristisk for mindst 48 stater, og det bliver værre. Hvis man ser på leveomkostningerne, stigningen i leveomkostningerne i forhold til det, der officielt rapporteres, se på priserne for mad hos købmanden hen over de seneste 6 måneder i USA. Se på det faktum, at den amerikanske dollar, som for ikke så længe siden kunne købe en euro for 83 cents; i dag koster det 1 dollar 26-28 cents at købe en euro. Den amerikanske dollar er ved at kollapse i værdi; det, der stiger, er den pengemængde, der associeres til hasardspil, og den mest omfangsrige form for hasardspil finder sted på Wall Street. Pengene går, for rent spekulative formål, til at drive separate hasardspilsindsatser på sidelinjen i økonomien i vejret, for at drive værdien at aktiepriserne op for visse selskaber; og så snart et eller andet selskab bliver rigt, kommer lederne af selskaberne i fængsel, ligesom i Enron; for vi er gået fra ’stålindustrien’ til ’stjæle-industrien’! Det er arten af nationaløkonomien.

Vi er i vanskeligheder. Vi er i vanskeligheder på global skala. Siden januar 2002, da den nuværende præsident holdt en uheldig tale, i sin ’State of the Union’-tale. Holdningen over for USA er faldet hastigt, til det laveste niveau, jeg nogensinde har set; fra nationer i hele verden. I hele Eurasien; i de amerikanske lande, er USA nu foragtet, hvor det i det mindste var respekteret, eller endda elsket, før. Vi er i vanskeligheder. Og se på verden. Verden konfronteres med en stor krise; USA konfronteres med en stor krise, med den måde, det behandler verden på. De største befolkningskoncentrationer i verden, i Kina, f.eks., 1,3 mia. eller mere; Indien, Pakistan, Bangladesh og landene i Sydøstasien; dette er den største befolkningskoncentration på planeten. Det er en fremvoksende del af verden; spørgsmålet er, hvad er USA’s relation til disse asiatiske folkeslag, der i det store og hele repræsenterer forskellige kulturelle baggrunde i forhold til USA og Vesteuropa. Hvordan skal vi finde fred i en urolig verden; hvordan skal vi finde forsoning i en verden i vanskeligheder med lande, der har vendt sig mod os pga. Cheneys og et par andres krigspolitikker?

Vi står altså over for en situation. Lad os gå lidt tilbage til det tidspunkt, hvor Bill Clintons blev indsat som præsident. Tænk nu over noget, nogle af jer ved noget om; tænk på den sorte vælgerskares status, den lovgivende, sorte forsamling … i 1993, da Bill Clinton kom ind i Det Hvide Hus. Gå nu igennem listen over navnene; hvor er disse mennesker, og deres erstatninger, i dag? Der har været en udvælgelse af de politiske præstationer i hele landet af de sorte vælgerkredse/folkevalgte. Det er dette problem, jeg konstant konfronteres med, og fra 1996 blev det værre, accelererede brutalt.

Så vi konfronteres altså ikke med et nyt problem i dag, men med det samme problem, principielt, som Martin med succes konfronterede, og jeg vil fremføre, at, i arven efter Martin Luther King og hans liv, er der noget, vi kan lære i dag, som bringer ham tilbage i live, som om han stod her i dag, i live. Der er noget særligt ved hans liv, hans udvikling, som vi i dag bør indfange, ikke alene med hensyn til at adressere vor nations problemer, som er ved at blive forfærdelige, men problemerne med vore relationer med verden som helhed. Hvordan skal vi agere over for disse kulturer, der er forskellige fra vore egne? Med asiatiske kulturer, der er forskellige fra vore egne; med muslimske kulturer, der er over 1 mia. muslimer i hele verden; med Kinas kultur, der er forskellig fra vores; med kulturen i Sydøstasien, der er forskellig fra vores? De er alle mennesker, der har alle de samme krav og behov, men de er forskellige kulturer, de tænker anderledes, de responderer til andre (kan ikke høres) end vi gør. Men vi må have fredeligt samarbejde med disse mennesker, for at løse globale problemer. Så begynder man at tænke over en person som Martin, og jeg vil indikere, i denne sammenhæng, hvad Martins betydning er i dag.

Vi havde ingen erstatning for Martin. Første lektie. Martin var en enestående person; han var ikke en talentfuld person, der tilfældigvis snublede over lederskab og let kunne erstattes af andre ledere, der havde lært jobbet og kunne tage over bagefter. Han havde ingen efterfølger; der var ingen, som befandt sig i en position til at efterfølge ham. Mange ønskede det; de havde det ikke.

Hvad var det, Martin havde? Hvad var essensen af Martin, der gjorde ham til noget specielt?

Lad os sammenligne tre tilfælde for forstå dette. Et tilfælde, Martin selv. Det andet er tilfældet med Frankrigs berømte heltinde Jeanne d’Arc, og jeg er godt bekendt med den faktiske historie af Jeanne d’Arcs tilfælde, som på en måde er sammenligneligt, på en særlig måde, med Martins tilfælde. Og så også med et fiktivt tilfælde, som peger på det problem, vi står overfor, tilfældet med Shakespeares Hamlet; især Hamlets monolog i 3. akt.

Hvad handlede det om? Martin var en sand Guds mand, på en måde, som meget få mennesker kan virkeliggøre i deres livstid. Det var ikke alene det, at han var en Guds mand, men at han voksede op til fuldstændigt at forstå, hvad det ville sige. Hans billede var selvfølgelig Kristus og Kristi korsfæstelsespassion. Det var hans kilde til styrke. Han levede det. Han havde besteget bjergets top, på et tidspunkt, hvor han vidste, hans liv var truet af magtfulde kræfter internt i USA. Og han sagde, ’jeg vil ikke vige tilbage fra denne mission, om de så dræber mig’; præcis som Kristus sagde, og jeg er sikker på, Martin tænkte på dette, på dette tidspunkt. Kristi korsfæstelsespassion er det billede, der er essensen af kristendom. Det er et billede i f.eks. Tyskland og andre steder, hvor Bachs Mattæus-passion opføres, en ca. to timer lang forestilling. Og i disse to timer genlever publikum, menigheden, sangerne, musikerne på en kraftfuld måde Kristi korsfæstelsespassion. Dette har altid været vigtigt, at genleve dette; at indfange essensen af, hvad Kristus betyder for alle kristne, og Martin viste dette.

Forskellen er det følgende; og jeg vil vende tilbage til Jeanne d’Arc; de fleste mennesker er tilbøjelige til at tro, jo, jeg vil gerne i himmelen, eller noget i den retning. Eller også er de ikke, de er ligeglade. Men de leder efter svar inden for rammerne af deres dødelige liv. De tænker på kødets tilfredsstillelse, den sikkerhed, de vil nyde godt af, mellem grænserne for fødsel og død; hvorimod den store leder, som Martin, stiger til et højere niveau. De tænker på deres liv, som evangeliet fremlægger det, som en talent (mønt); livet er en talent, man har fået givet. Man fødes, og man dør. Det er ens talent; hvad man har i denne tidsperiode. Spørgsmålet er, man vil under alle omstændigheder give den ud; hvordan vil man give den ud? Hvad vil man bruge den til at sikre, i al evighed? Hvad vil man gøre, som en mission, som vil gøre én fortjent til den plads, man ønsker at have i evigheden?

Martin havde en klar fornemmelse af dette. Denne ’bjergtopstale’ for mig, slog mig ligesom en klar forståelse af, hvad han sagde, hvad han sagde til andre.[1]

Livet er en talent. Det er ikke, hvad man ’får ud af’ livet. Det er, hvad man lægger ind i det, der tæller. Martin havde dette. Der er derfor, han var en leder, og jeg har kendt de andre ledere, der var med ham i denne periode. De havde ikke helt den samme gnist. De accepterede måske ideen, de troede måske på den, men det greb dem ikke på samme måde, som det greb Martin. Og det greb ham mere og mere, er jeg sikker på, i takt med, at han påtog sig større og større ansvar; som en leder føler man dette, man ser sit folk, man ser, hvad man må håndtere, man ser lidelserne, man ser farerne, og man må finde i sig selv styrken til ikke at vige tilbage, ikke gå på kompromis.

Lad os tage tilfældet Jeanne d’Arc, til sammenligning. Dette er den sande historie; hun var en så signifikant person i det 15. århundrede, historien blev grundigt dokumenteret dengang og er blevet krydstjekket osv. Hun var en person i hele kristendommen; hun er en hovedperson i Frankrigs historie. Her er hun så, en ung kvinde (17), der kom fra bondestanden, og som havde forhåbninger om, at Frankrig måtte befries fra de normanniske ridderes forfærdelige besættelse; at Frankrig måtte blive en sand nation, og at det måtte løftes ud af sin tilstand og blive en nation for at tage sig af disse problemer; at Gud ønskede, dette skulle ske. Så, gennem flere hændelser, henvendte hun sig til en prins, som var den nominelle arving til Frankrigs trone, og hun sagde til denne prins – jeg har glemt, der var diverse akkreditiver – ’Gud ønsker, at du skal blive konge’. Og han så på hende og sagde, ’Hvad ønsker du af mig?’ Hun svarede, ’jeg ønsker ingenting af dig; Gud ønsker, at du skal være konge’. Og, på grund af hendes kraftfulde personlighed og hendes mission, gav kongen hende kommando over nogle soldater til en meget alvorlig kamp på det tidspunkt, idet han formodede, hun ville blive dræbt som leder af disse soldater, og det ville løse problemet. Men hun blev ikke dræbt, hun vandt slaget, som hun personligt anførte. Og Frankrig blev mobiliseret til sin uafhængighed; ideen var dets uafhængighed i det store og hele som et resultat. Så kom tidspunktet, hvor kongen blev kronet, prinsen blev kronet til konge: men så forrådte kongen hende, til Frankrigs fjender, til briterne, normannerne. Og hun blev retsforfulgt af inkvisitionen, som var en rædselsfuld ting, den værste form for uretfærdighed man kan forestille sig. Og under retssagen blev hun tilbudt lokkemad; hvis du trækker dig lidt, vil vi ikke brænde dig levende på bålet. Hun sagde nej; hun veg tilbage; måske skulle jeg gå på kompromis, hun havde præster, der forsøgte at få hende til at gå på kompromis. Hun sagde, ’jeg vil ikke gå på kompromis. Jeg kan ikke forråde min mission’. Hun havde besteget bjergets top; jeg vil ikke forråde min mission; jeg vil fastholde min kurs. Så de tog hende og bandt hende til en pæl; de stablede brændet op om pælen; de satte ild til bålet, mens hun var i live og kogte hende ihjel. Så åbnede de brændestakken for at se, om hun var i live eller ej og fandt, at hun var død, og så fortsatte de processen og genantændte bålet og brændte hende til aske (hun var da 19, -red.)

Men ud af dette skete der to ting: Frankrig blev genoplivet og fik sin uafhængighed og fik senere den første, moderne nationalstat, under Louis 11 af Frankrig.

Betydningen af dette for os i dag, er, at pga. denne sejr, pga. det, der skete med Louis 11 af Frankrig, fik vi den første europæiske stat, i hvilken hele regeringen var ansvarlig for hele folkets almene vel. Det almene vel betyder præcis det, det betyder i 1. korintherbrev, kap. 13, hvor Paulus skriver om agápe, undertiden kaldet kærlighed eller godgørenhed. Det er denne egenskab; det er ikke loven, det er ikke lovbogen, der tæller; det er ens kærlighed til menneskeheden, der tæller; at man altid må leve for ens kærlighed til menneskeheden. Og derfor er en regering ikke legitim, undtagen som en regering, der officielt er forpligtet over for ikke alene det almene velfærd for hele folket, men også over for forbedringen af livsbetingelserne for deres efterkommere. Og for første gang i Frankrig, i denne stat, [fik man] princippet om forfatningsmæssig lov; at en regering ikke kan behandle nogle blandt befolkningen som menneskeligt kvæg. Det er ikke lovligt, det er ikke en nation, hvis den behandler nogle blandt sin befolkning som menneskeligt kvæg. Man skal tænke på hele befolkningens almene velfærd; det må være indfanget i forpligtelse over for hele folket, og over for deres efterkommere. For vi er alle dødelige, og for at vække i os selv de passioner, mens vi er i live, som vil tilskynde os til at gøre det gode, må vi have en følelse af, at forbruget af vort liv, brugen af vor talent, vil betyde noget for de kommende generationer. De bedste mennesker ser efter ting, ligesom Moses, som vil finde sted, når han ikke længere selv er der til at nyde dem! Denne fornemmelse for udødelighed er det, som de bedste forældre opofrer for deres børn; det er det, som lokalsamfund opofrer for uddannelse til deres børn, for deres børns muligheder. Man gennemgår pinen ved lidelser og mangel, men man har en følelse af, at man er på vej fremad, at ens liv vil betyde noget, at man kan dø med et smil på læben; man har overvundet døden, man har brugt sin talent vist, hvorfor livet vil betyde noget bedre for de kommende generationer. Det var princippet. Det princip inspirerede den mand, der blev kong Henrik 7 af England, til at gøre det samme imod den onde kong Richard 3, og til at etablere England på det tidspunkt som den anden, moderne nationalstat. Det var på en måde, hvad Martin gjorde. Samme form for proces.

Men lad os nu tage den anden side af sagen. Lad os tage tilfældet Hamlet. Hamlet siger, vi har muligheden for at kæmpe og befri os selv fra forfærdelige tilstande, men, men – hvad sker der, når vi dør? Hvad sker der efter døden? Det er frygten for, hvad der sker efter døden, som gør folk til krystere. Og det er vores problem i USA i dag. Det er problemet med vores lederskab i det Demokratiske Parti; det er problemet med det Republikanske Parti, for det er ikke alle i det Republikanske Parti, der er dårlige, nogle af dem er meget gode, og jeg har til hensigt at inkorporere nogle af dem i min regering; jeg er ikke særlig partisk, når det drejer sig om regeringen. Jeg er partisk med hensyn til at få den etableret.

Det er pointen. Problemet her er det følgende: Tror vi rent faktisk på, at mennesket er forskelligt fra dyrene? Tror I på, at, i skolerne i dag, i aviserne i dag; tror I på, at amerikanere tror på, på nogen som helst signifikant måde, at mennesket er forskelligt fra dyret? Det er ikke det, vi underviser; se på vores standardpensum. Mange af jer ved noget om uddannelse. Vores uddannelsespolitik er en national forbrydelse. Man lærer ingenting; man lærer at bestå en prøve. Man spørger sig selv, om de, der udarbejder prøven, ved, hvad de taler om. Man har prøver at bestå i forskellige steder i landet, ikke for at teste, hvad man har gjort ved eleverne med hensyn til, hvad de ved; undertiden kommer eleverne og siger, ’jeg ved ingenting, i mine skoleår lærte jeg ingenting’. Sådan, som man underviser nu. Det, man tester, er elevernes lydighedstræning i dette skoledistrikt eller den del af landet, målt ud fra underlødighed. Distrikterne konkurrerer om penge! Og præstationerne, som skoleelevernes hundetræning, bliver en standard for, hvor mange penge, og hvor mange udmærkelser, dette distrikt vil modtage det følgende år. Vi er ikke længere interesseret … Vi tror som nation ikke længere på at udvikle mennesker! Vi er, ligesom det gamle Rom, blevet et samfund for ’brød og cirkus’; få din krumme, og lad dig underholde! Og underholdningen bliver mere og mere ond, som det skrider frem. F.eks., arbejder folk i dag; er deres mentalitet, at de skal arbejde? Tror de på arbejde, tror de på, at samfundet giver dem mulighed for at arbejde? Nej, det gør det ikke. Det giver dem mulighed for at få fat i nogle penge. Hvad er den største vækstindustri i USA? Hasardspil! Hvad er Wall Street? Hasardspil. Hvad er Enron? Hasardspil. Hvad er disse fyre, der kommer i fængsel i New York? Hasardspillere. Mentaliteten i landet er, at, hvis du sidder i held og vinder i lotteriet og vinder på væddeløbsbanen, så går det fremad for dig. Til trods for, at ens industri er ved at kollapse, ens landbrug er væk, byrådet ikke længere har råd til at sørge for centrale behov; vi er blevet et hasardspilssamfund. Vi er afhængige af hvad? Masseunderholdning. Hvilken form for masseunderholdning? Er dette noget, man i realteten bør skamme sig over?

Vi anser ikke længere mennesker for at være mennesker. Vi forstår ikke længere, hvad menneskeligt er.

Jeg startede en ungdomsbevægelse for henved 4 år siden, der fokuserer på unge mennesker, 18-25 årige, dvs. aldersgruppen for universitetsstuderende. Som I ved, når folk bliver omkring 18 til 25 år, under normale betingelser, er de gået videre end til at tænke på sig selv som unge mennesker, halvt voksne, halvt børn, og til at blive voksne mennesker. De har den voksnes selvtillid, den voksnes impulser osv. De er klar til at påtage sig ansvar i samfundet. I et velordnet samfund, ville alle have adgang til en kvalitetsuniversitetsuddannelse, for at udvikle den enkeltes talenter for at finde ud af, hvad deres mission i livet skal være, hvilken form for karriere, de skal satse på, og man giver dem muligheden for at gennemarbejde dette, finde ud af dette, finde ud af, hvem, de virkelig er som voksen, og at vælge deres fremtidige profession i livet på denne basis. Det, jeg understreger med denne træning, er, forstå forskellen mellem menneske og dyr.

Jeg bliver lidt teknisk omkring dette, for det er et vigtigt punkt. Hvad er forskellen mellem menneske og dyr? Kan man bevise, at mennesket ikke blot er et dyr? Og hvordan kan man bevise det? Hvis mennesket var en abe, f.eks., ville det menneskelige befolkningstal på denne planet aldrig have oversteget et par millioner individer. Så lad være med at gøre mennesket til en abekat (et fjols). Vi har nu over 6 mia. mennesker, vi skal sørge for, på denne planet, og tallet vokser. Pointen er, at mennesket har været i stand til at opdage, hvad intet dyr kan gøre, at opdage universelle, fysiske principper i universet, og at anvende disse opdagede principper til at frembringe forbedringer i samfundet, som øger menneskets magt over naturen; præcis, som man kan læse i Skabelsesberetningen i 1. Mosebog: mand og kvinde skabt i Skaberens billede, efter hans lignelse; og ansvarlige for denne funktion. Det er, hvad vi er. Når vi underviser i fysisk videnskab; når vi underviser i klassisk kunst og den slags ting, når vi underviser i historie ud fra dette standpunkt, formidler vi i realiteten en fornemmelse af deres menneskelighed. De er i stand til at genopføre fortidens store principper, det være sig inden for kunst eller inden for fysisk videnskab. Når de kender dette, kender de forskellen på sig selv og dyret; de bryster sig af dette og siger, vi er menneskelige. Og de kan se på hinanden med kærlighed, en form for kærlighed, der kommer til udtryk inden for uddannelse med den rigtige form for undervisning, hvor eleverne er delagtige i processen med at kæmpe sig igennem handlingen for sig selv at opdage et princip, der præsenteres for dem som en udfordring og et paradoks. Det vil sige, en kærlig relation, en klasse med typisk 15-25 universitets- eller skoleelever, hvor eleverne gives ansvaret for, gives en udfordring med at kæmpe sig igennem det for sig selv, og den gode lærer forsøger at fremkalde denne form for respons blandt eleverne; finde to til tre i klassen, der kan starte diskussionen og få hele klassen involveret i diskussionen, så det, der kommer ud af det, ikke er udenadslære fra en lærebog, men at det, der kommer ud af det, er en proces, hvor man i en social oplevelse opdager betydningen af et princip, som om de selv havde gjort den oprindelige opdagelse. Dette gøres, ikke ved at undervise den enkelte elev, selv om det nogen gange virker, men ved at få eleverne til at interagere i diskussionsprocessen. Det er derfor, man helst skal have en klassestørrelse på mellem 15-25 elever. Ikke for mange, som kan udelukke muligheden for, at alle kan deltage. Og ikke for få, så man ikke får stimulering til at starte diskussionen. Det er denne sociale proces med en relation mellem mennesker, der elsker hinanden i en højere forstand, fordi de har været fælles om processen med at opdage et princip. Eller … noget om historie; men de var fælles om det, og ideen om at være fælles om menneskelig viden, som menneskelig viden, er den essentielle kærlighedshandling. Man elsker menneskeheden og er tilfreds med menneskeheden, når man har arbejdet sammen for at gøre en opdagelse sammen. Og man indser, man kan regne med dem til denne form for metode – har man et problem med dem? Gå tilbage til metoden. Tal med dem på samme måde, som man gør i klasseværelset. Og man kæmper sammen igennem det, disse unge mennesker kæmper til kl.3-4 om morgenen. Når jeg holder foredrag for disse fyre, er de over mig i henved fire timer. Jeg holder en præsentation på en times tid, de er over mig konstant. Men det er smukt, det er vidunderligt. Jeg tror, at alle, der har arbejdet med undervisning, ved, hvad jeg taler om. Det er smukt; det er vidunderligt.

Så problemet er dette: Vi har en befolkning, vi har en verden, der har en mangel på mennesker, der rent faktisk fuldt ud forstår forskellen mellem menneske og dyr; at mennesket, som det defineres i Skabelsesberetningen i 1. Mosebog, er et væsen, der er skabt i universets Skabers billede. Det er os. Fordi vi overfører disse ideer, fordi vi overfører dette arbejde, som intet dyr kan, elsker vi hinanden; vi elsker de mennesker, der var før os; vi elsker dem, der kommer efter. Vi kerer os om dem, på en meget selvisk måde, for, idet vi bruger vores talent her i livet, vores skønhedssans beror på, hvad der kommer ud af vores liv, i de kommende generationer. Vi elsker børn af denne grund. Der er børn; vi elsker børnebørn endnu mere end børnene, undertiden, fordi vore børn var i stand til at producere disse børn, det er fantastisk! Man elsker dem især, for dem, der bliver bedsteforældre, de elsker specielt disse børnebørn af denne grund.

Men denne form for kærlighed mangler generelt i befolkningen, hos ledere.

Martin havde selvfølgelig dette. Martin var ét af de sjældne mennesker, på hans tid, som havde en dybtgående følelse af, hvad det vil sige at være et menneske; som havde en dybtgående forståelse af læren fra Kristi passion på korset. Han var i stand til at bringe dette ind i politik – han kom ikke ind i det som politik som sådan – han var en naturlig leder. En naturlig leder er ikke én, der kommer ud af den politiske proces som sådan, men ud af folket. Martin opnåede aldrig et politisk hverv. Og alligevel var han sandsynligvis en lige så betydningsfuld person i USA som nogen moderne præsident var. Det opnåede han. Hans myndighed som en leder kom fra folket. Han kæmpede mod folket og med folket for at befri dem. Han var en leder i ordets sande betydning. Hans indflydelse som en politisk kraft i nationen og i verden kom fra hans forhold til folket.

Og det er vores situation i dag, og grunden til, at jeg er så glad for denne lejlighed til at være sammen med jer, for I typificerer dem, der kæmper med vanskeligheder, i dette land og uden for dette land, for den såkaldte ’glemte mand’; som Franklin Roosevelt, der i 1933 blev indkaldt til at være præsident. 80 % af befolkningen i USA i særdeleshed, og mange i hele verden, er den glemte mand og kvinde. Der er ikke rigtig nogen, der kerer sig om dem. Tag eksemplet med historien om sundhedssektoren; tag eksemplet med alle mulige ting. Den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan forny en nation, som Martin ydede et stort bidrag til en fornyelse af USA, er, at man må gå til den glemte mand og kvinde; især til de ubemidlede, og hvis man kan udtrykke en kærlig holdning over for problemet med de ubemidlede, dem, der befinder sig på den laveste side i livet, så er man i stand til at repræsentere det princip, på hvilket moderne regeringsførelse bør baseres; det samme princip, som Jeanne d’Arc på sin vis muliggjorde gennem sit bidrag til Frankrig som den første, moderne nationalstat, der var helliget det almene velfærd. His man vil være en ægte politiker, må man være forpligtet over for det almene velfærd. Man må være forpligtet over for menneskeheden, og for at være forpligtet over for menneskeheden, må man se på det menneske, der befinder sig i de værste omstændigheder, generelt, og løfte dem op. Så har man virkelig bevist, at man kerer sig om det almene velfærd. Hvis man ikke går til disse mennesker, er man ikke med det almene velfærd. Hvis man ikke har sine rødder i kampen for det almene velfærd, er man ikke i stand til at lede vores nation, som er en nation, der forfatningsmæssigt er forpligtet over for det almene velfærd. Martin havde dette. Alle de store ledere i historien er som regel kommet fra denne form for baggrund; de fødtes ikke til at være ledere, de blev ikke valgt som ledere; nogle blev valgt i løbet af livet, men de startede ikke med at etablere deres lederskab ved at blive valgt. De etablerede deres lederskab ved at finde deres rødder i kampen for menneskehedens velfærd. De blev repræsentanter for en eller anden gruppe, der kæmpede for deres rettigheder, eller de blev fortalere for denne gruppe, der kæmpede for sine rettigheder. Og de kom frem til en lederposition, fordi de havde en indbygget, moralsk karakter, i billedet af Kristi passion og korsfæstelse. Og jo mere, de kommer ind i det, og jo farligere, det bliver, i takt med, at de vinder mere indflydelse – livet bliver farligere i takt med, at man vinder mere indflydelse – så indser de, at de sætter deres liv på spil, og de må spørge sig selv: hvad er det, jeg vil risikere mit liv for; hvad er det for en sag, jeg ikke vil forråde, selv, hvis prisen er, at det koster mig mit liv? Og han kastes direkte tilbage til Kristi korsfæstelse og passion. Og dér er vi i dag. Martin havde dette; og problemet med USA og bevægelsen i dag, er, at bevægelsen er blevet, skal vi sige, for ’civiliseret’ med hensyn til at bøje af for at komme ud af det med det politiske establishment, og hvor den tenderer mod at tro på, at vejen til succes er at bøje af for at komme ud af det med dem. Man fortaber passionen, som bør motivere den sande, politiske leder. Og passionen er denne helligelse; man har en talent, man har en fornemmelse af, hvad ens liv betyder, man har en fornemmelse af forpligtelse, af en mission i livet, for at opløfte nationen ved at løfte en bestemt del af befolkningen, eller hele befolkningen. Og man vil ikke gøre noget som helst for at forråde dette. Det giver én kraft. Det giver én kraft til at være et menneske, der er skabt i den levende Skabers billede. Man tapper ind i det. Martin tappede ind i det. Han var en Guds mand, ikke kun af Gud, men en Guds mand. Han var en mand, som, i løbet af livet, af skæbnen fik givet missionen at være en Guds mand. Og han havde styrken til at gøre det. Han havde styrken til at gå i Kristi fodspor; til at gennemleve Gethsemane; til at gennemgå korsfæstelsen. Han havde denne styrke. Som Jeanne havde på sin måde.

Og det er den lektie, jeg mener, må undervises, må blive forstået, hvis vi skal redde denne nation. Vi må tappe ind i denne kraft. Og som jeg siger, blandt alle de billeder af nylige, politiske ledere i USA, er Martin, både som en national leder og som en global leder, hvilket han også var med hensyn til sin indflydelse, det bedste eksempel på den form for personlighed, vi må have og må udvikle for at komme ud at det forfærdelige, frygtindgydende rod, der i dag truer os.

Mange tak.«       

[1] Hør hele Martin Luther Kings sidste tale, ’I have been to the mountain top’, her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixfwGLxRJU8

12. april, 2018 – Følgende budskab fra Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche blev oplæst den 9. april i anledning af en mindebegivenhed i New York for Martin Luther Kings berømte »Jeg har været på bjergets top«-tale.

»Præcis på det tidspunkt, hvor, takket være Kinas Nye Silkevejsinitiativ, i hvilket 140 nationer deltager, og hvor i særdeleshed udviklingslandene har håb om at overvinde fattigdom og underudvikling, som Martin Luther King kæmpede for mod slutningen af sit liv, har fortalerne for det oligarkiske system lanceret en række provokationer, som kunne få uberegnelige konsekvenser.

Samtidig med, at I samles her i aften, er faren for en krig, endda en atomkrig, i løbet af de seneste timer vokset. FN har mødtes for at diskutere Syrien. Selve eksistensen af verdens civilisation afhænger nu af, om verdens ledere i Kina, Rusland og USA i særdeleshed, nu sammen finder en vej ud af det gamle paradigme for krig og geopolitik.

Der er en igangværende bestræbelse på vegne af fortalerne for det gamle paradigme for at optrappe en konfrontation med Rusland og Kina for at skabe et klima, hvor det angiveligt skulle blive umuligt for USA at arbejde sammen med Rusland og Kina for at adressere menneskehedens eksistentielle spørgsmål.

Og dog, i den Kolde Krigs mørkeste dage, i 1963, fandt præsident John F. Kennedy, som netop med nød og næppe havde undgået en atomkrig over missilkrisen på Cuba, en udvej. Sovjetunionen og USA skulle i fællesskab udforske rummet. Han sagde: menneskeheden må gøre en ende på krig, eller også vil krig gøre en ende på menneskeheden.

For halvtreds år siden sagde en stor mand, pave Poul 6, at økonomisk udvikling er det nye navn for fred. Den eneste måde at højtideligholde 50-året for mordet på Martin Luther King er ved at erkende kampen mellem det gamle paradigme, hvis fortalere dræbte dr. King, og det nye paradigme. Og dernæst gøre alt, der står i vores magt, for, at dette dyrebare øjeblik, hvor alle hans drømme kunne gå i opfyldelse, ikke forpasses.«

Foto: Martin Luther King holdt sin sidste tale den 3. april, 1968, den berømte ’I have been to the mountain top’. Hør hele talen her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixfwGLxRJU8

Martin Luther King blev myrdet den 4. april, 1968.  Æret være hans minde.

14. april, 2018: Will Wertz: Vi befinder os netop nu på et punkt, som den tyske skuespilforfatter Friedrich Schiller kaldte for et ’punctum saliens’, dvs. et punkt, hvor en tragedie potentielt kunne ske, hvor der, hvis der ikke træffes afgørende beslutninger, kommer en tragisk afsløring af handlingsforløbet. Dér står vi lige nu. Som folk ved, så annoncerede præsident Trump i går aftes bombningen af Syrien, som blev gennemført i løbet af aftenen eller rettere om morgenen, syrisk tid. Dette truer med at abortere hele fredsproceselementet i Syrien. Det er en overtrædelse af FN’s charter, af folkeretten og truer med at komme fuldstændig ud af kontrol under visse omstændigheder …

 

 

 

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

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

Her følger engelsk udskrift af webcastet:

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

SEN. RICHARD BLACK

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

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

REP. TULSI GABBARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in accordance with international norms and
international law.

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

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

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

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

12. april, 2018 – I går udstedte syv eksperter i international lov, eller folkeretten, en erklæring, hvor de advarede om, at alle militære angreb fra USA’s og dets allieredes side mod Syrien, ville, »med mindre disse udføres i selvforsvar eller med en godkendelse fra FN’s Sikkerhedsråd«, overtræde international lov »og ville udgøre en kriminel aggressionshandling: den højeste internationale forbrydelse, der med sig fører ondskaben i alle andre internationale forbrydelser, som det fastslås af den Internationale Militærdomstol i Nürnberg i 1946 …«

»Vi opfordrer følgelig indtrængende USA og dets allierede til at afholde sig fra ulovlig opførsel mod Syrien«, skrev eksperterne. De bemærker, at USA’s bevæbning af oprørere med det formål at vælte den nuværende regering i Syrien, allerede er »ulovlig under international lov« og tilføjer: »vores pointe er enkel: den eneste måde at løse krisen i Syrien på, er gennem en forpligtelse over for veletablerede principper for internationale, juridiske normer«.

Underskriverne er: tidligere justitsminister (USA) Ramsey Clark; tidligere præsident for National Lawyers Guild Majorie Cohn; Inder Comar, adm. dir. for Just Atonement (en juridisk NGO, involveret i sagsanlæg mod Bush, Cheney et.al. for deres illegale aggressionskrig mod Irak); Jeanne Mirer, præsident for International Association of Democratic Lawyers; dr. Curtis F.J. Doebbler, FN-repræsentant for International Lawyers.org; Abdeen Jabara, medstifter af American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; og Associate Law Professor dr. Ryan Alford.

Erklæringen blev udgivet i går af Consortium News. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/04/11/international-lawyers-strike-against-syria-would-be-illegal/

Foto: Medlemmer af krigsforbrydertribunalet i Nürnberg (venstre) 1946.    

Jeg er Will Wertz fra LaRouche Political Action Committee, og vi interviewer i dag senator fra Virginia Richard Black, der er pensioneret oberst i den amerikanske hær; han var ligeledes chef for JAG (Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Army) afdeling for kriminalitet i Pentagon. Han har ekstraordinær stor erfaring især med Syrien, som han har besøgt flere gange. Formålet med interviewet er at få senator Blacks synspunkter om den aktuelle krise omkring beskyldningerne om et angreb med kemiske våben i det østlige Ghouta i byen Douma, Syrien.

Video, engelsk.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 10. april, 2018 – Det betyder ingenting, om så 10 Rod Rosenstein’er i Justitsministeriet »godkendte« de ekstensive FBI-raids mod præsident Trumps personlige advokat; beskyttelsen fra det fjerde og femte tillæg til USA’s Forfatning bliver fjernet fra den amerikanske præsident. Målet er at fjerne præsidenten fra embedet; og det umiddelbare mål, og den umiddelbare fare, er krig med Syrien og Rusland.

USA’s Forfatning bliver tilsidesat med det formål at tage magten over udenrigspolitikken, og selve det Ovale Kontor, fra præsident Trump og føre USA tilbage til Bush’ og Obamas status for »evindelig krig« og »krig for regimeskifte«. De amerikanske vælgere overlades til hjælpeløst at se til – med mindre de handler nu, i stort antal.

Hele optrapningen af dette »juridiske mord« på præsident Trump er den særlige anklager, og korrupte, tidligere FBI-direktør, Robert Muellers værk. Mueller har nu langt, langt overskredet sit mandat til at efterforske valget i 2016, fordi denne »Russiagate-efterforskning« er mislykkedes. Hans mål er nu at anklage præsidenten for hvad som helst for at bringe ham til fald. Mueller overgav ganske enkelt opgaven med at udføre disse raids mod Trumps advokat Michael Cohen til New Yorks distriktsanklager. Denne distriktsanklager, udnævnt af Trump, er allerede blevet tvunget til at redde sig selv – retsforfølgelsen af Cohen er returneret til Mueller, der vil forsøge at tvinge præsidentens personlige anklager gennem 25 år til at vende sig mod Trump.

Hvis Donald Trump var en saudisk prins, ville Robert Mueller nu beskytte ham. Hvis han var administrerende direktør for banken Wells Fargo, ville Mueller nu forhandle en aftale om ikke at retsforfølge igennem med ham. Men Donald Trump er præsident for USA og er imod de britiske geopolitikeres politikker for konstant krig.

Dette nye angreb på præsidenten og Forfatningen fulgte efter Trumps forsøg på, for 10 dage siden, at beordre det Nationale Sikkerhedsråd og Generalstabscheferne til at trække USA’s militær tilbage fra Syrien. Muellers angreb er direkte knyttet til svindelnummeret med angrebet med kemiske våben i Syrien, et svindelnummer udført af den britiskdirigerede, såkaldte organisation for først responderende redningsfolk, de »Hvide Hjelme«, der samarbejder med jihadi-terroristerne i Syrien.

Da præsident Trump, i marts 2017, sagde, at »regimeskifte i Syrien er ikke vores mission«, fandt det iscenesatte angreb med kemiske våben mod børn i byen Khan Sheikoun sted, for at få ham til at skifte mening, og den britiske forsvarsminister overbeviste USA’s forsvarsminister James Mattis om at angribe Syrien med krydsermissiler. Mattis har for nylig indrømmet, at der ikke fandtes nogen beviser. Nu, da præsident Trump siger, »Vi forlader snart Syrien«, iscenesætter de Hvide Hjelme endnu et angreb med kemiske våben, og Storbritannien og Frankrig kræver krig mod Syrien.

Enhver kan se, at dette – fuldstændig grundløst – kunne føre til en ny verdenskrig, som ingen kan overleve.

Denne krigspolitik er det mål, til hvilket den »juridiske lejemorder« Mueller er blevet hvervet, imod præsidenten og Forfatningen. Ledere i Kongressen, såsom senatorerne Chuck Schumer og Mitch McConnell, har reageret ved at forsvare Muellers handlinger. Ethvert medlem at Kongressen, der gør dette, bør smides ud.

LaRouche Political Action Committee mobiliserer for at stoppe Mueller, og stoppe krigsfremstødet, med en presserende national bredside, »NU ER DET NOK! Ring til Kongressen og din senator og sig til dem, at de skal lukke Robert Mueller ned og stoppe briternes krigsfremstød«. Den siger, »I 2013, da Obama truede med krig med Rusland over Syrien, intervenerede det amerikanske folk og løftede taget på Kongressen, og stoppede det. Det er, hvad vi nu har brug for … Stop fremstødet for krig, og luk Robert Mueller ned, NU!«

En af disse amerikanere, der intervenerede højlydt i 2013 for at stoppe krig med Rusland over Syrien, var Donald J. Trump.

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump og regeringslederne fra de Baltiske Stater. 3. april, 2018. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 9. april, 2018 – Vi befinder os i en situation med rød alarm, i betragtning af mønstret for provokationer fra den britiske, geopolitiske floks side, for at optrappe konfrontationen til et punkt, hvor det udløser generel krig. Mandagens tre timer lange møde i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd reflekterer faren. Det var et frontalt sammenstød mellem UK, USA og Frankrig på den ene side, og hvis talspersoner udspyede løgne, fornærmelser og spydigheder, og Rusland og Kina på den anden. Kina talte for en diplomatisk og politisk løsning. Rusland havde anmodet om mødet, der havde titlen, »Trusler mod international fred og sikkerhed«, og truslerne lå i de vilde anklager fra ambassadørerne Karen Pierce (UK), Nikki Haley (USA) og François DeLattre (Frankrig).

Det umiddelbart foreliggende spørgsmål er den falske påstand om den syriske regerings brug af kemiske våben i Douma, 7. april. Der eksisterer ingen beviser; iscenesatte videoer, udsendt af de berygtede aktører for britisk efterretning De Hvide Hjelme, kører konstant på de store medier. På mødet i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd fordømte Haley Syrien som et »monster« for at udføre dette (fantom)-angreb med kemiske våben; hun fordømte Rusland som et »regime, der ikke kan føle skam«.

Præsident Donald Trump, der er mål for alt dette, talte til sit kabinet her til morgen og sagde, at angrebet i Douma var »grusomt«, og »hvis de [Syrien, Rusland] er uskyldige«, hvorfor vil de så ikke give folk lov til at gå ind og bevise det«. Faktisk sagde både den russiske og den syriske ambassadør til Sikkerhedsrådet: send efterforskningsteams ind omgående. Lige med det samme. Kom i morgen.

Men, som i Skripal-sagen, og som med tidligere, ubegrundede anklager imod den syriske regering om kemisk krigsførelse, så er sandheden irrelevant for dem, der anklager.

Det er pointen. Dette aktuelle svindelnummer er ikke nogen separat begivenhed, men er en begivenhed i et mønster af provokationer i en sindssyg, igangværende strategi for konfrontation, der sætter hele planeten i fare. Er tankegangen den, at det ville være bedre at føre krig nu, snarere end senere, fordi det ville være mindre »kostbart«? Der har for ikke længe siden været en RAND-undersøgelse, som præcist hævdede dette vanvid. Der er galninge, der er tilbøjelige til at tænke på denne måde, især efter den russiske præsident Putins annoncering den 1. marts af nye våbentyper, og som, i stedet for at blive set som begrundelse for nødvendigheden af ægte forhandlinger om international sikkerhed, ses som en slutspilsmanøvre.

Den russiske ambassadør Vasilij Nebenzia talte strengt til sine modparter i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, »Jeg vil stille det retoriske spørgsmål: Forstår I den farlige tærskel, I bringer verden til?«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche opsummerede det mandag: vi sidder på en krudttønde. Hvis Trump går i fælden og går med i dette her, og, f.eks., en russisk soldat i Syrien bliver dræbt på en eller anden måde, befinder verden sig i akut fare for en generel krig.

Tidlig mandag morgen affyrede to israelske kampfly otte missiler mod et mål i Syrien, en flyvebase i Homs, som indtil for nylig blev brugt af russiske styrker. Det syriske luftforsvar skød fem missiler ned, men tre ramte målet og dræbte 14 mennesker, inkl. tre iranere. Ingen russere blev ramt. Israel gav ikke Rusland noget forhåndsvarsel; Israel informerede imidlertid Det Hvide Hus. Hvad sker der nu?

Præsident Trump, der mandag nat skulle mødes med militærrådgivere, gentog om morgenen, at han er 24 til 48 timer fra at beslutte, hvad han vil gøre mht. anklagerne om syrisk giftgas. Han og den franske præsident Emmanuel Macron talte i telefon søndag og sagde, de ville koordinere deres respons, sammenholdt med det, der sker i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd mandag, og udstede deres handleplaner dagen efter, eller kort tid derefter.

Samtidig med, at alt dette finder sted, rykkede FBI mandag ud med endnu et træk mod Trump, på vegne af den britiske Trumpgate-operation, med et raid om morgenen mod Michael Cohens kontor i New York City; Michael Cohen, der er mangeårig personlig advokat for præsident Trump.

I USA kommer der nu nogle responser, inkl. et åbent brev i dag til forsvarsminister James Mattis fra pensionerede oberst i hæren, Pat Lang, der kræver en kompetent efterforskning af, hvad det var, der skete i Douma, med det formål, ikke at blive offer for »et omhyggelig konstrueret propaganda-svindelnummer«. Blandt kongresmedlemmer advarede Thomas Massie (R-KY) om, at kun Kongressen har retten til at beslutte en militæraktion, såsom i Syrien. Han angreb hårdt ideen om »evindelig krig«.

Vær i højeste alarmberedskab; rød alarm. Dette er meget alvorligt. Kontakt alle med sandheden.

Se den nye Erklæring fra LaRouchePAC: »Nu er det Nok!«  

9. april, 2018 – Vi, De forenede Stater, står over for at lancere et angreb mod Syrien, med de russiske styrker, der er til stede dér, baseret på perfide, britiske løgne; baseret på det, der kunne vise sig at være historiens endegyldige og sorteste efterretningssvindel, den, der gjorde det af med den menneskelige race. Samtidig blev præsident Trumps personlige advokats kontor i dag, 9. april, 2018, udsat for et raid, baseret på en henvisning fra den særlige anklager Robert Mueller. Spørgsmålet skulle angiveligt dreje sig om beskyldninger i forbindelse med, at præsidenten skulle have haft en årelang affære med den løgnagtige og afskyelige pornostjerne, Stormy Daniels. Dette anses af Mueller og vores korrupte FBI for at være så alvorligt, at det Sjette Tillæg til USA’s Forfatning også blot kan kastes til side. Disse to uhyrlige begivenheder er fuldstændig relateret. Med mindre I nu rejser jer sammen med os for at stoppe det, er dette land i alvorlig, alvorlig fare. Det kategoriske forsøg på at afpresse denne præsident ind i den krig, han blev valgt til at stoppe, er nu blevet optrappet ud over enhver forstand.

I 2016 stemte millioner af amerikanere for Donald Trump, fordi han sagde, han ville afslutte unyttige, evindelige krige på vegne af et intellektuelt dødt og finansielt bankerot, angloamerikansk system, dette imperium, der går tilbage til tiden umiddelbart efter Anden Verdenskrig. Dette system, centreret omkring Wall Street og City of London, har snydt of bedraget sig til verdens værdier og ødelagt den engang storslåede amerikanske nationaløkonomi, en kendsgerning, der blev fuldstændig indlysende for tænkende mennesker, da systemet krakkede i 2008. Donald Trump søgte bedre relationer med Kina, der nu vokser frem som verdens mægtigste økonomi, samt med Putins Rusland. Trump faste beslutning om at etablere anstændige relationer med Rusland og Kina, og udelukkende kun denne faste beslutning, igangsatte det djævelske kup mod præsidenten, under anførelse af briterne og de mange nyttige idioter blandt vores elite, der er i trældom for briterne.

Dette kup, hvis manifestationer var det falske »beskidte dossier« om Donald Trump, forfattet af MI6’s Christopher Steele og betalt af Hillary Clinton, sang på sidste vers, da Storbritannien indledte sin nuværende offensiv. Senatorerne Charles Grassley og Lindsay Graham havde henvist Christopher Steele til USA’s Justitsministerium, til retsforfølgelse for kriminelle handlinger, og patrioter i Kongressen forfulgte en reel bestræbelse på at identificere og retsforfølge dem, der er ansvarlige for kuppet mod vores præsident. Så, den 4. marts, 2018, blev en russisk spion, der spionerede for Storbritannien, Sergei Skripal, samt hans datter, angiveligt forgiftet i Salisbury, England. Skripal færdes i de samme britiske spionkredse, som Christopher Steele er knyttet til. Premierminister Theresa May proklamerede omgående for hele verden, at Rusland stod bag angrebet, men har aldrig nogensinde fremlagt noget som helst bevis for nogen af sine krigsgale erklæringer. Præsident Trump blev af sine forræderiske rådgivere, inklusive H.R. McMaster, der i hele sin militære karriere var en fange af Storbritanniens Internationale Institut for Strategiske Affærer, hastigt puffet til at støtte Storbritanniens totalt ubegrundede påstande. Budskabet til præsidenten fra vore forrædere er klart: gå med i vores march mod krig og måske; måske, vil vi slække på kuppet.

Sluttelig nægtede Storbritanniens egne eksperter i kemiske våben i Porton Down at sige, at det kemiske stof, der blev brugt mod Skripal og hans datter, var fremstillet i Rusland, på trods af Theresa Mays og hendes vanvittige udenrigsminister Boris Johnsons påstande, uden beviser. Åbenlys tvivl var allerede blevet udtalt af flere europæiske lande, som afholdt sig fra at gå med i dette Storbritanniens opråb til krig. Blandt de kendsgerninger, der står til overvejelse: Den dødbringende nervegift, som Theresa May beskriver, ville omgående have dræbt Skripal og hans datter. Alligevel er de begge i live og ikke længere i kritisk tilstand. Redegørelser for, hvor giften blev givet, har varieret; den seneste lyder, at det blev smurt ud på hoveddøren til Skripals hjem. Alligevel lykkedes det på en eller anden måde for Skripal at forlade huset et par timer og spadsere rundt i landsbyen, spise og drikke på restauranter, indtil han pludselig blev syg. Formlen for den angiveligt anvendte gift var blevet offentliggjort vidt og bredt af dens russiske opfinder, en dissident, der nu bor i USA. Med dette svindelnummer, der nu er i færd med at falde fra hinanden, får vi at vide, at Skripal og hans datter, samt alle tilgængelige beviser, er i færd med at ’blive forsvundet’. Ifølge britisk presse vil Skripal og hans datter komme ind i et vidnebeskyttelsesprogram fra CIA. Deres hus, og alle påståede lokaliteter, der er involveret i dette svindelnummer, bliver nu bulldozet ned og ødelagt. Ingen mulighed for en reel efterforskning af dette svindelnummer må lades åben.

På trods af, at Donald Trump udtalte støtte til Theresa May, søgte han stadig at honorere sit løfte til det amerikanske folk. Han lykønskede Putin med valgsejren og inviterede ham til et snarligt møde i Det Hvide Hus til forhandlinger og nævnte det eskalerende og farlige våbenkapløb mellem USA og Rusland. Briterne og deres amerikanske venner gik, som respons hertil, amok. Man måtte lade en hammer falde på denne præsident, der nu oven i købet talte om at trække amerikanske styrker ud af Syrien og genopbygge USA.

Ind på scenen kommer så endnu et af briterne opfundet forgiftnings-svindelnummer, nu i Syrien, hvor russere, iranere og syrere ikke alene assisterede i besejringen af Isis, men nu var i færd med at feje de sidste tilbageværende jihadister bort, såsom Jaish al-Islam, en omdøbt, salafistisk jihadistisk gruppering, der kontrolleres af saudierne, samt al-Nusra-front, eller al-Qaeda. De endegyldige militære operationer, som konsoliderede sejren, er i løbet af de seneste dage blev afsluttet i Gouta, en forstad til Damaskus. Og efter således at have opnået sejr, lancerede Assad – sådan lyder den narrativ, som vore krigsmagere til medier vil have os til at tro på – et angreb med kemiske våben for at fejre denne sejr, vel vidende, at han således ville udløse helvede over sig selv fra Vesten.

Fotos af døende børn, som præsident Trump reagerede så følelsesmæssigt på for et år siden, da han lancerede missilangreb mod Syrien, er atter blevet præsenteret for ham. Der er al mulig grund til at tro, de er falske. Rusland og Syrien havde netop advaret om et sådant angreb under falsk flag, og som ville involvere kloringas, i over en måned, hvor de kom nærmere til den endelige sejr i Gouta. Den eneste information, der hævder, at et sådant angreb fandt sted, kommer fra De Hvide Hjelme, en nødhjælpsorganisation grundlagt af briterne, og som er involveret i at være involveret militært med al-Qaeda og er dybt involveret i tidligere svindelnumre omkring Assads angivelige anvendelse af kemiske våben. Sy Hersh dokumenterede denne historie fuldt og helt i London Review of Books, med hensyn til de falske nyheder om, at Assad brugte saringas i august, 2013. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

MIT’s Ted Postal og andre har vist, at det angivelige angreb med saringas, som præsident Trump responderede på med militære midler for et år siden, ligeledes var et britisk svindelnummer. Se Robert Parry, https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/07/a-new-hole-in-syria-sarin-certainty/

og James Carden, https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-is-there-a-place-for-skepticism/.

De Hvide Hjelme finansieres i fællesskab af britiske og amerikanske efterretningselementer, der er dedikeret til regimeskifte i Syrien. De har modtaget millioner og atter millioner af dollar til dette formål. De udgør afgørende komponenter i den interventionistiske udenrigspolitik for regimeskifte, som Donald Trump blev valgt til at udrydde.

I 2013, da Obama truede med krig mod Rusland over Syrien, intervenerede det amerikanske folk, løftede taget på Kongressen og stoppede det. Det er, hvad vi nu igen har brug for. Rusland ser, at der fra briterne og deres naive tåber i USA kommer en ubønhørlig offensiv for informationskrig. De ser dette, korrekt, som de første skridt mod krig. Vi må vende dette, med omgående start nu. Ring til din repræsentant i Kongressen eller din senator og sig til dem, at de skal stoppe dette fremstød for krig og lukke Robert Mueller ned, nu. Omstillingsbordet på Capitol Hill har nummer 202-224-3121.

Foto: Den amerikanske præsident Donald J. Trump, vicepræsident Michael R. Pence og deres hustruer byder tidligere præsident Barack Obama farvel under afskedsceremonien efter den 58. præsidentielle indsættelse i Washington, D.C., 20. jan., 2017.  (DoD photo)

8. april, 2018 – Den amerikanske militære efterretningsveteran oberst Pat Lang (pens.) nævnte briterne og deres medietjenere i dag som gerningsmændene bag forsøget på at opstille en fælde for endnu et amerikanske angreb på den syriske præsident Bashar Assad. Dette forsøg er, skriver Lang, baseret på endnu et britisk svindelnummer – at Assad brugte kemiske våben i Douma-distriktet i det østlige Ghouta, hvor den syriske hær næsten allerede har vundet kampen.

Præsident Trump angreb »Dyret Assad« i et tweet her til morgen og indikerede, at præsidenten således var hoppet med på endnu et britisk svindelnummer. De militante kæmperes forsvar er kollapset, rapporterer oberst Lang, i en grad, hvor de ikke engang har en teoretisk chance for at vinde kampen om Douma imod regeringsstyrkerne.

Oberst Lang citerer præsident Trumps tweet om »Dyret Assad« og skriver, »Vores kære præsident har endnu engang set lidt for meget tv-nyheder. Falder det ham mon nogensinde ind at tage telefonen og ringe til den vagthavende officer i CIA, NSA, eller hvor som helst, og spørge, om de mener, nyhedsrapporterne er korrekte? Alle disse informationer, der går til MSM (mainstream media) og derfra videre til [præsident] DJT’s ører er nyheder fra oprørernes propagandaapparat, og meget af det støttes finansielt af den britiske regerings udenrigsministerium og leveres via MI6. Hvad i alverden motiverer UK til denne djævelskhed? Og så er der selvfølgelig den ekstreme floktankegang på vegne af de amerikanske og europæiske medier, der som papegøjer efterskræpper disse påstande, der ikke er objektive beviser for.«

Dernæst går Lang ind i, hvordan Pinnochios næse voksede, med de første rapporter fra oprørsgruppen Jaish al-Islam, som sagde, blot 15 mennesker er skadet efter angrebet. 8. april skriver Lang, »historien har nået MSM og dødstallet er nået op på mindst 70«. Han fortsætter, »Den berygtede, al-Qaeda-tilknyttede propagandaorganisation De Hvide Hjelme spillede, som altid, en hovedrolle i at udbrede historien« og udtalte, at de »Hvide Hjelme samarbejdede tæt med den syriske gren af al-Qaeda – Jaish al-Islam, og fortsatte med at samarbejde med gruppen, efter den blev omdøbt til Jabhat Fatah al-Sham og dernæst Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

Lang gav sin artikel overskriften: »Animal Assad Strikes Again! – This Time To Celebrate Victory?« (Dyret Assad slår til igen – denne gang for at fejre sejren?) http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/04/

Foto: Pensionerede oberst Patrick Lang. Arkivfoto.

Introduktion:

Den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump, den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin kunne, i løbet af de næste par måneder, sammen træffe en række af de absolut vigtigste beslutninger, som ville indvirke på menneskeheden, siden renæssancen i det 15. århundrede. Den mulige løsning på Korea-spørgsmålet er blot et enkelt eksempel. De rette beslutninger, truffet af disse tre nationer og deres allierede i de næste par uger, kunne, i den nærmeste fremtid, begynde at fjerne fattigdom, kolonialisme og krig fra planeten. Løsningerne for at fjerne dette tredobbelte onde ligger både i stjernerne og i os selv.

Britiske imperiekræfter har midlertidigt mistet kontrollen over den svigtende transatlantiske, geopolitiske proces. Nu forsøger de at genvinde fordelen. Ligesom med den britiske efterretningsagent Christopher Steeles Russiagate-svindel, er det nu svindlen med »Rusland forgiftede Sergei Skripal og hans datter«, der efter planen skal drive en kile ind mellem præsident Trump og Vladimir Putin. Hvis denne bestræbelse lykkes, vil alt det arbejde, der er udført af Devin Nunes’ Husets Efterretningskomite og andre, for at afsløre den korrupte rolle, som FBI, Justitsministeriet, Udenrigsministeriet og andre har spillet i det britiskkørte kup imod det amerikanske præsidentskab i 2016, have været forgæves.

Evindelig krig, som de amerikanske administrationer Bush 41, Bush 43 og Obama var fortalere for, kan nu erstattes med en ny økonomisk platform og en ny kulturel platform.

Lørdag, 7. april, er Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche hovedtaler på denne konference, der skal samle amerikanerne omkring dette optimistiske perspektiv. En vedtagelse af de økonomiske forholdsregler og standpunkter, der kendes som LaRouches Fire Love[1] samtidig med en accept af det stående, kinesiske forslag [om USA’s deltagelse i den Nye Silkevej] ville give grundlaget for at skabe en hurtig forøgelse i amerikansk, produktiv beskæftigelse, levestandarder og uddannelse af ungdommen i USA.

Grundlaget for en dialog mellem de »tre store« præsidentskaber er indeholdt i et dokument af Lyndon LaRouche fra marts, 1984, med titlen, »Udkast til aftalememorandum mellem USA og U.S.S.R.«[2]

Indledningen lyder således:

»Det politiske fundament for varig fred må være: a) Alle nationalstaters ubetingede suverænitet, og b) Samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater med det formål at fremme ubegrænsede muligheder for at blive delagtig i fordelene ved teknologisk fremskridt, til gensidig fordel for enhver nationalstat, og alle nationalstater.

Det mest afgørende aspekt ved en aktuel implementering af en sådan politik for varig fred er en dybtgående ændring i de monetære, økonomiske og politiske relationer mellem de dominerende magter og de relativt underordnede nationer, som ofte klassificeres som »udviklingslande«. Med mindre de uligheder, der stadig dvæler i kølvandet på moderne kolonialisme, gradvist afhjælpes, kan der ikke være nogen varig fred på denne planet.«

Sidstnævnte tema vil blive behandlet på mødet 7. april i en præsentation af Jason Ross, medforfatter af Schiller Instituttets Specialrapport, »Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika: En vision for en økonomisk renæssance«.[3] Med en befolkning på størrelse med Indiens og med den yngste befolkning i noget kontinent i verden, ville Afrikas fysisk-økonomiske udvikling gennem fælles arbejde, udført af USA sammen med Kina, gøre de gamle koloniregimers racister tavse for altid. Verdens to største økonomier kunne, ved hjælp af Sun Yat-sens og Abraham Lincolns »Tre principper for folket«[4], udgøre spydspidsen for en anti-koloniudvikling og fjerne den fattigdom, som er udløser af racisme og krig.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale:

 

 Schiller Institute Conference with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
        New York City, April 7, 2018

A DIALOGUE OF THREE PRESIDENCIES:

BENDING THE ARC OF THE MORAL UNIVERSE TOWARD JUSTICE 

DIANE SARE: Good afternoon.  I’m Diane Sare with the
Schiller Institute here in Manhattan and at the conference
called “The Dialogue of Three Presidencies:  Bending the Arc of
the Moral Universe toward Justice.”
Fifty years ago this year, our nation suffered two major
assassinations:  The first, on April 4th, 1968, was that of
Martin Luther King, Jr.,[5] who was gunned down while he was
participating in organizing for a sanitation workers’ strike in
Memphis, Tennessee; then, on June 6th, Robert Kennedy — the
second Kennedy to be assassinated — who was likely on a
trajectory to become the President of the United States.  I think
it’s very important to reflect on that change in the United
States 50 years ago.  I was very struck a few weeks ago, having
heard about a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping, where he
spoke in China of the Century of Humiliation.  Starting in 1840,
the Opium Wars against China, which were absolutely devastating
and destructive, run by the British Empire — which is still the
enemy of civilization today; to the Japanese occupation in the
1940s, under which 35 million or more people died.  What
President Xi said to these young people is that, in effect, we
have to take this as a source of strength; that our sacred honor
is that we will never allow ourselves to be humiliated in such a
way again.  And that we will never impose such humiliation upon
any other human being.
So, I was reflecting on the last 50 years in this country,
what we have tolerated.  And before I came here today, I was
reading a little bit from Martin Luther King’s book about the
process leading into his leadership of what became the Montgomery
Bus Boycott.  He described that the unity of the people —
because people may know, it wasn’t just that Rosa Parks refused
to move to the back of the bus and got arrested and somehow there
were demonstrations.  People went on for nearly a year, refusing
to ride the bus.  That meant that people with the postal service
were organizing all these elaborate carpools; and people in their
60s and 70s were walking 12 miles a day to not take the bus.  And
I was thinking to myself, how many Americans today would be
prepared to walk 12 miles a day until we got the Manhattan subway
system fixed, for example?  Or until we found out who actually
was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks?  Or until the torture of
people, which is completely degrading to man as in the image of
God?  How many Americans would be prepared to do that kind of
hard work over an extended time?  I began to think that this is
the — when Lyndon LaRouche a few years ago, we did a series of
memorial concerts on the 15th anniversary of 9/11; and he talked
about the humiliation of Americans not having done anything.  I
thought that’s kind of an odd term; what does he mean
“humiliation”?  When I was reading what Dr. King had to say this
morning, I thought, “Well, of course.  We should be humiliated.”
In a sense, we should be ashamed that we have allowed our nation
to be in the shape that it is, and not have acted sooner.  If we
would take this opportunity this year, to come to that conclusion
firmly as strongly as Xi Jinping means it in China, then there is
absolutely nothing that can stop us.
The person whom I am about to introduce, has been a very
important leader for 40+ years, 50+ years, in that fight.  It is
a very challenging world right now.  The American people clearly
rejected a continuation of British imperial perpetual war and
Wall Street bail-out policies when they rejected the election of
Hillary Clinton.  Because President Trump represents an
opportunity, as this conference is called “Three Presidencies:
Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping.”  Because there is a potential
represented by this administration to end the long reign of the
evil British Empire; everything is going a bit crazy.  I heard
this morning, apparently there was a car that plowed into a crowd
in Muenster, Germany, killing several people and injuring many
others, today while we’re here.  In the United States, we are
bombarded; the American news media is violent in its coverage,
because what it does to you is, it causes whipsaw.  You’re
reading one thing one day, another thing the other day. President
Trump says he wants to get the troops out of Syria; and then we
hear, “The White House says the troops must remain in Syria.”
Well, who is the White House?  It’s apparently not the same thing
as President Trump.  So, this causes a great deal of confusion
and anxiety among the American people.
Mrs. LaRouche, who not only is the founder and chairwoman of
the international Schiller Institute, is also a brilliant writer
and scholar.  She is an expert on Nicholas of Cusa, who wrote a
very important paper called “The Coincidence of Opposites.”  So,
I am confident that her address to us here today, will help all
of us to make sense of the situation and give us an idea of how
we can conduct ourselves to end this 50 years of humiliation in
the United States.  So, with that, I’d like to introduce Helga
Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I want to say “Hello” to you, and I’m
very happy to talk to you, at least via video, so I can share
with you my ideas.
I think in the recent weeks, many people in many countries
have been very distraught about the so-called Skripal affair.
This was the assassination attempt, the poison gas attack on the
former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Immediately,
the Theresa May government accused Russia that they did it.  I
think that this particular situation has demonstrated in a way we
have not seen it ever, what is the role of the British Empire,
the British government, British policies in the present
escalation against Russia, and in a certain sense against China.
This affair was immediately made an issue of NATO, of the
European Union.  Many EU members immediately declared
unconditional solidarity with Theresa May, and they agreed on the
formulation that there is no other plausible explanation than
Russia did it.  I think this reaction is very telling, because it
shows on the one side, the degree of British control in NATO, and
in part in the European Union.  Fortunately, about half of the
European Union members did not agree.  But it also demonstrated
the incredible Orwellian character of the present Western
democracies of the so-called “liberal” Western system.  Because
the idea that you immediately abandon the principle that {in
dubio pro reo}, that the innocence is relevant until proven
guilty; that this was abandoned and that truth was replaced by a
consensus among countries.  If that is the principle of
international policy, then we are all in very bad shape.
The immediate danger is naturally that this thing is not
just leading to mass expulsions of diplomats.  The United States
expelled 60 diplomats; the British expelled a similar number, and
Germany four.  Altogether, I think 23 diplomats in the other
European countries.  But obviously, this has the implication of
leading to a broader escalation of confrontation with Russia and
possibly even war; because this is a prewar propaganda.  If you
look at the timing of this affair, first of all the two Skripals
fortunately seem to be in much better condition.  That raises a
whole bunch of questions because if it was Novichok nerve gas,
then the question is, how did the British have so quickly an
antidote that they are now happily surviving?  Or, maybe it was
not Novichok.  How could they come so quickly to the conclusion
that it was Russia, when Scotland Yard said it would take several
weeks to find out what really was the nerve gas agent used in
this attack.
The timing was at a point where, in the United States, the
whole focus of Congressional investigations of the House
Intelligence Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, similar
committees in the Senate, was about the role of the British
Empire in the Russia-gate affair, or the Trump-gate, or the
Mueller-gate, depending on how you want to call it.  The focus of
several committees started to really put into the limelight the
role of Christopher Steele, the so-called “former” MI6 agent, the
role of the British government, the collusion not with Russia but
with the British in the whole attempt to make a coup against
President Trump.  So, that was very convenient, because all of a
sudden, it was the Russia issue again.  May, in these days, you
could always say that the days of Theresa May seemed to be
numbered; because she was in such an unstable position.
Now, cui bono?  Who has the motive?  In whose interest
would be such an affair?  Well, Russia really has no motive; why
would this occur just weeks before the Presidential election in
Russia?  Would Putin really want to have such notoriety just
before the election, and just before the World Soccer World Cup?
So, also Russia would have had many opportunities to kill
Skripal; he was, for many years, in a Russian jail, he lived for
many years in Great Britain without any problem.  Nevertheless,
despite that, Merkel and Macron, half of the EU immediately came
out saying, “No, it is the only plausible explanation that it was
Russia.”  Boris Johnson gave an interview to a German radio
called Deutsche Welle, where he said that he had absolute
scientific proof from the scientists of the Porton Down
laboratory, who had definitely said that they had 100 % proof that
it was Russia.  In the meantime, the scientists refused to
provide the after-the-fact evidence, and the head of the lab, Mr.
Aitkenhead, said that they could identify that it was Novichok;
but that they absolutely could not identify the source of the
origin of this poison gas.  This was a very lamentable situation,
so the Foreign Office immediately deleted the tweet in which this
was stated; which now has Boris Johnson’s stand there as a liar.
That does not prevent the Theresa May government from continuing
to push the lie that Russia did it.
Many officials in Russia — Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov; Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman [Maria] Zakharova, the head of foreign intelligence
[Sergey] Naryshkin — the all pointed to the fact that the {cui bono} and
the likelihood, and who has the capacity and motive, actually
points to British intelligence.  This whole operation — and this
was pointed out by many experts and commentators — this
absolutely parallels what the British did in the Iraq case in
2003; where also MI6 produced a dossier supposedly proving that
Saddam Hussein was in the possession of weapons of mass
destruction which could reach every city within 45 minutes around
the globe.  That Saddam Hussein supposedly had absolute
connections with al-Qaeda; which was a blatant lie, because
Saddam Hussein used to throw al-Qaeda people into jail and other
things.  But this was then used as a pretext.  So, Colin Powell
gave the famous speech in the United Nations motivating U.S.
participation in the Iraq War.  Then, the war against Iraq
occurred, with many hundreds of thousands of people losing their
lives as a result.
This is what some people in Russia in the meantime have
called “Goebbels” propaganda.  Why is there such a demonization
of Russia?  Why is there a demonization of President Putin coming
essentially from the same people who are also demonizing
President Trump and President Xi Jinping?  This is the same
foolishness which already led to the Second World War and which
could easily trigger a Third World War.  There is the danger that
these war-mongers are repeating the same methodological mistake,
stupidity, which led to two world wars.
What is behind that is a mixture of desperation because the
financial powers of the City of London and their Wall Street
backers and collaborators see clearly that their system is
failing.  Obviously, they have a complete fear that this would go
with a complete loss of their political and financial power.  But
it is also an obsession that their schemes will function, and if
they just have enough containment and escalation then their
system will be proven superior.  They are confronted with their
system not succeeding, but failing; they don’t have the intended
unipolar world, but they are confronted with the emergence of a
completely New Paradigm in the world.
If you want to understand why Russia is such a focus of
Russophobia right now, you have to take the situation back to the
end of the Soviet Union.  Because in the United States, at a
point when the Soviet Union started to disintegrate and there
would have actually been the possibility for a peace order for
the 21st Century, you had in the United States the consolidation
of the neo-cons.  They revived the American Century doctrine,
which originally was formulated by Walter Lippmann in 1943, when
he published a book with that name which then became the entire
basis for the post-war order; the legitimacy of NATO, the whole
Cold War.  It was the idea to revive that with the project for a
new American Century and the idea that you would replace the two
superpower system with an unipolar world based on the
Anglo-American special relationship, and a neo-liberal monetarist
system.  This was essentially a continuation of the idea that you
would control the developing countries, keep them in relative
backwardness, and deregulate the financial system in order to
bring back the power of Wall Street and the City of London, and
basically control the world that way.
In 1989, when the German reunification happened, this was
actually combined with the promise that NATO would never expand
eastward.  You have to remember that the Soviet Union agreed to
the dissolution of the GDR and German reunification without the
use of force.  You could say, in light of the history of the
Second World War, where the Soviet Union had suffered tremendous
losses of life and naturally had a very terrible memory of Nazi
Germany that it was extremely generous of the Soviet Union to
agree to that.  The promise was clearly given not to expand NATO
eastward; this was emphasized many times by the former American
ambassador in Moscow at that time, John Matlock.  In the recent
publications of the archives from George Washington University,
it was also clear that this was, indeed, a promise made.
In 1990, the General Secretary of NATO at that time, Manfred
Wörner, made a speech in Brussels which is worth remembering.  He
at that time said, “The goal for the next decade is the creation
of a European security structure, including the Soviet Union and
the states of the Warsaw Pact,” and that the Soviet Union would
play an important role in the construction of such a security
system, and that he would understand the wish of the Soviet Union
not to be excluded from Europe.  “The West cannot answer to the
erosion of the Warsaw Pact with a weakening or dissolution of
[NATO]”; and therefore, “the only answer is the creation of a
security framework which includes both alliances” and which
includes the “Soviet Union into a cooperating Europe….  The
very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the
territory of the Federal Republic [of Germany] gives the Soviet
Union firm security guarantees,” Wörner said.
This is all proven by these new documents which have been
published that the West obviously, or the neo-cons and their
British partners, were clearly promoting a different policy and
making fake promises.  On the surface, the offer to the Soviet
Union continued.  Still in 1994, President Clinton said the NATO
expansion is not anti-Russian; it means inclusion instead of
exclusion.  But then, things became more dramatic.  In 1999,
there was the famous Tony Blair speech in Chicago, which was the
definite elimination of whatever relic of the Peace of Westphalia
system existed; and by that, also the elimination of the
principles of the UN Charter — namely, guaranteeing the
sovereignty of every country.  This was clearly a foreshadowing
of what Blair did later in 2003 with the Iraq War.  What replaced
the idea of respect for the sovereignty of countries was the idea
of “humanitarian” interventions.  Naturally, then in 2001 with
the September 11th attack, which was a complete assault on all
civil liberties and civil rights which had been fought for, for
decades.  And it imposed an international regime with the pretext
of the war against terrorism.
What followed then was regime change, color revolution.  You
had the Orange Revolution in 2004 in Ukraine; you had the Rose
Revolution in Georgia.  In the meantime, both the Russian and
Chinese militaries respectively stated that they regarded color
revolution as an absolute total form of warfare.  Naturally, the
Maidan coup against the Ukraine government belongs in this chain.
Also, already in 2002, the United States abandoned
unilaterally the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty, and
proceeded to build up a global ABM system, which Russia had said
at the very beginning, they could not tolerate the Phase 3 and
Phase 4 of it to be implemented, because it would completely
undermine the strategic stability and therefore be a threat to
the security interests of Russia.
In the 16 years of Bush, Jr. and Obama, these
interventionist wars continued.  Bush declared the “Axis of
Evil,” and the various wars in the Middle East and northern
Africa started to eliminate governments which were not agreeable
to this idea of a unipolar world.  The world was slowly and
steadily going to more Hell, more refugee crises, more misery;
millions of people dying in the Middle East and northern Africa.
Then, in 2013, the world suddenly changed for the better.
President Xi Jinping announced a new model of international
relationships in Kazakhstan — the New Silk Road.  In the
tradition of the ancient Silk Road, which was an incredible
exchange not only of goods, technologies, cultures, ideas, but
also laid the foundation of a dialogue among nations; this New
Silk Road took on a development which is unprecedented I think in
all of history.  In the last 4.5 years, this new Spirit of the
New Silk Road started to catch on, so that by now, more than 140
countries are cooperating in Asia, in Latin America, in Africa,
even in Europe, with the New Silk Road.  You have a tremendous
sense of optimism in Latin America, where practically all Latin
American countries are now building and planning to build
bi-oceanic projects; bi-oceanic railway between Brazil and Peru,
bi-oceanic tunnels between Argentina and Chile, and many other
projects.  So, the Spirit of the New Silk Road has definitely
caught on in the Caribbean and Latin American countries.  It is
for sure the case in the Asian countries, and many corridors are
being built.  Africa has completely changed with the building of
railways from Djibouti to Addis Ababa; all along the eastern
African countries, the western African countries.  If you look at
the map of Chinese investments in railway systems and industry
parks and hydropower in many other agricultural projects, there
is a completely new spirit and self confidence among the Africa
nations that they can now overcome poverty and under-development
for the first time, in the near future.  Even in Europe, where
the EU has been absolutely blocking any cooperation, the New Silk
Road Spirit has absolutely caught on.  You have the 16+1 Eastern
and Central European countries; you have the Balkan countries.
Italy is now engaged together with China in a major project
called Transaqua, which will change the lives of 12 African
nations and bring industrialization into the heart of Africa. But
also, Portugal and Spain want to be the hubs not only for the
western end of the Eurasian part of the New Silk Road, but to be
also a hub for the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries in
Africa and Asia and Latin America.  So, the New Silk Road Spirit
is absolutely on the agenda.  Also in Switzerland, in Austria,
and even in Holland, Belgium, and some of the Scandinavian
countries.
This is based on the idea of a win-win cooperation of
respect for the sovereignty of the other country and respect for
the other social system.  This has been an incredible
development.  It’s already 12 times larger than the Marshall Plan
was, but the amazing thing is that for 4.5 years where this
project is now progressing, the Western mainstream media and
Western politicians have virtually ignored it; they have not
reported it, and only in the recent period have they suddenly
realized this is unstoppable.  What is now occurring is a flood
of attacks from the main think tanks, saying this is just an
authoritarian effort by the Chinese to replace the Anglo-American
imperialism with a Chinese one, and they want to take over the
world.  It was quite a sudden change in the coverage and in the
comments.
A similar shock happened when they realized that Russia was
absolutely not a regional power as Obama had told, but that
basically it was about to become, under the leadership of
President Putin, a major power again.  So therefore, when Trump
suddenly won the election, the same apparatus which is now behind
the Skripal affair — British intelligence in collusion with the
intelligence heads of the Obama administration — started a
policy of a coup against President Trump.  There was an article
in January 2017 by the British paper {The Spectator}, which said
that President Trump would be gotten out of the White House
either through a coup, impeachment, or an assassination attempt.
That was obviously the policy which these people followed, and
the aim clearly was to prevent President Trump — who had
promised in the election campaign to improve relations with
Russia and bring it back on a stable and good basis — to prevent
Trump from doing it by saying, “If you dare to speak to President
Putin, that just proves you are a Russian agent.”  It took indeed
until the G-20 meeting in Hamburg last year, before Putin and
Trump had a personal meeting and actually hit it off very well.
Also, between President Trump and President Xi Jinping,
contrary to what Trump had said in the election campaign where he
was actually on a quite strong China-bashing mode, he received
President Xi Jinping in April last year at his private residence
in Mar-a-Lago.  And they established a very good positive
relationship between the two of them.  Then, when President Trump
went to Beijing for a visit in October last year, President Xi
Jinping returned this and gave Trump what they called a “state
visit plus.”  President Xi Jinping had the Forbidden City closed
down to visitors for an entire day, and gave a huge long history
lecture on Chinese history to President Trump and his wife.  They
established and deepened their relationship.
In the meantime, also Russia and China established the
deepest strategic partnership in their history.  Putin gave a
speech on March 3, 2018 to the Federal Assembly, where he
announced new weapons systems; basically, a long-range missile
which does not follow the ballistic curve, but is highly
maneuverable. Then also, a nuclear-powered cruise missile which
the West absolutely does not have, and a nuclear-powered
underwater drone which is quicker than above-water ships, and
laser weapons.  This combination of these and other weapons means
that all of sudden, the entire global ABM system the United
States had proceeded to build is obsolete.  President Putin said,
well, the West refused to even respond to all the offers made by
Russia since 2002; but now, they have to respond.  It is quite
amazing that, except the demand of four American ambassadors,
they have not yet responded.  Western media tended to belittle
these new weapons systems, or ignore them for the most part.
[Chinese Foreign Minister] Wang Yi and the Chinese Defense
Minister Wei Fenghe just attended the very large 7th Moscow
International Security Conference, which was attended by 900
guests and 700 media.  Wang Yi said that Russia can pursue its
own interests and play a larger role in the international and
regional stages.  The Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe said he
came in order to send a signal to Washington that the
Russian-Chinese alliance is absolutely the strongest and that
there is a very close cooperation between the Russian and the
Chinese armed forces.
All of these things have to be seen as a dynamic process,
where we are now on the verge also of a full-fledged trade war.
Admittedly, the trade deficit of the United States with China is
untenable; but when President Trump said that he wants to impose
tariffs first on $60 billion trade deficit, and then on another
$100 billion trade deficit, this was met by an unusually sharp
response from the Chinese.  Global Times wrote yesterday that
China will not submit to the U.S. trade intimidation; that China
is prepared to react with a full list of their own tariffs on
American imports; that the trade war will cause pain for China,
but the Chinese society will rally and unite around the
government and the Party; and that they will also present a
detailed plan to respond, and then the Americans would have to
choose if they back their President in doing so, or if they hold
him accountable for the consequences.  China Daily even
mentioned that the Chinese countermeasures could include the
dumping of U.S. Treasuries, of which they have $1.4 trillion as
securities.
All of this comes at a moment where, at any moment, we could
have a new financial crash much worse than that of 2008, because
all the central banks did absolutely nothing to remove the root
causes of the crisis of 2008.  They just did quantitative easing,
zero interest rates, and naturally many corporations took that
gratis money to buy back their own stocks so that their stock
exchange values would go up, but the corporate debt would
increase.  Now, as the Federal Reserve is trying to increase the
interest rate, the blow-out of these corporate debt situations
could trigger a complete systemic collapse.  That is just one of
the many facets of this crisis.
An insider in the banking system, a well-placed one, told us
very recently that there is actually the possibility that some of
the financial forces could even deliberately trigger a crash
which they know is inevitable to come, as a deliberate plan to
pull the rug out from underneath President Trump; to bring back
the neo-cons, and that way to solve the problem which they could
not solve with the failed Russia-gate attempt. One thing is very
clear.  If that would happen and the neo-cons would get fully
back in the United States, World War III is as good as secure and
certain.
In the middle of this Skripal affair, President Trump and
President Putin telephoned; and President Trump absolutely
refused to send out tweets on this affair or otherwise join in
the present Russia bashing.
I want to make the strong point that there is a solution to
all of the problems I just mentioned.  That is, that there are
many possibilities.  For example, when Presidents Trump and Putin
will have a summit in the near future, they could discuss this.
Also, the Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang had recently pointed
to the fact that there is actually another way to solve the trade
deficit; namely, by massively increasing the trade.  President Xi
Jinping has offered to the whole world, including all the
European nations and the United States, that they should
cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative.  China could decide
and choose not to dump U.S. Treasuries as a punishment for the
U.S. trade measures, but they could invest the $1.4 trillion in
U.S. Treasuries in infrastructure in the United States.  Diane
mentioned the Manhattan subway system in her remarks, and if you
look at the infrastructure — not only in Manhattan, but in all
of the United States — the condition of the highways, the
absolute absence of a fast train system; it is very clear that
the United States urgently needs investment in infrastructure.
President Trump had promised in the election campaign that he
would invest $1 trillion in infrastructure build-up; but so far,
he has not been able to find any financing, because the private
investors want an 11 % to 12 % return and a complete return of
their capital within 10 years.  Which means it is not possible to
finance it through private investment.  The neo-cons in the
Senate and in the Congress do not want to spend it in the Federal
budget.  The idea to distribute it to the regional and state
governments is just not practical.
So, if on the other side, China, which has a fantastic fast
train system of I think 25,000 km of fast train, and is planning
to connect every major Chinese city with a fast train system and
build 40,000 km of fast train systems by 2020; China could help
to build such a fast train system in the United States and
connect every major city with a fast train system going 350 mph
and in that way, completely transform the infrastructure of the
United States.  This would help not only to overcome the trade
deficit, but it would open the way for joint ventures between the
United States and China in third countries.  In Latin America
where, contrary to what former Secretary of State Tillerson had
said, China is not trying to build an imperial system in Latin
America.  But China and the United States could join hands in
building up the industries of the Southern Hemisphere.  Also, the
same could happen in Asian countries along the Belt and Road; and
also naturally in Africa.  It could happen in the reconstruction
and economic build-up of the war-torn region of Southwest Asia,
and naturally of Africa in general.
This could even include Great Britain eventually, if they
change their government and if they get their crimes cleared up
which they clearly have committed.  But it would mean absolutely
the necessity to reform the financial system of the United States
and Western Europe.
My husband, Lyndon LaRouche, has already developed several
years ago a package which together would absolutely remedy the
situation.  It would mean that the United States should go back
to a Hamiltonian banking policy, to a banking system in the
tradition of Alexander Hamilton; including the Glass-Steagall
banking separation of Franklin D Roosevelt.  Then, have a
national bank, a credit system, then have a crash program for
thermonuclear fusion and joint space cooperation with other
countries in order to increase the productivity of the economy in
a qualitative way.
What people really don’t realize, or most people don’t
realize, is that the present Chinese model of economy and the
early U.S. republic model are very similar.  They’re based on
Hamiltonian principles.  In China, they have now made a huge
effort to eliminate the speculative area, to forbid Chinese
investors abroad to invest in speculation.  It is very clear that
China, even if they don’t call it way, is actually very close to
the American System.  And it is no coincidence that the most
popular economist in China is Friedrich List, the German
economist who was sort of the predecessor to Henry C. Carey, and
who wrote important writings about the different between the
British and the American systems.  Germany also has a tradition
of that; namely, the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the Credit
Bank for Reconstruction, which was based on the Roosevelt
Reconstruction Finance Corporation and was the basis for the
German economic miracle in the post-war reconstruction.  So, also
in Europe, you have some relevance and memory of this system.
Now after Xi Jinping had announced the New Silk Road, the
Schiller Institute and our organization published a study which
we had worked on for 26 years with the name “The New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” which is actually the absolute
blueprint and outline for an international economic cooperation
of all nations overcoming geopolitics.
Now just imagine if we could mobilize the American people to
exert pressure on President Trump and give him backing, and he
would accept the offer of Xi Jinping to cooperate with the New
Silk Road in this way and also the European countries would
eventually recognize — most of them are doing it already — but
even the remaining ones would recognize that the cooperation with
Russia, with China and the other nations who already have jointed
the Belt and Road initiative–that this would be much more in
their self-interest, than the present course of the British
confrontation with Russia and with China.
If such an international economic cooperation could be
realized, it would also be the realistic basis for a global
security architecture which would include among others also
Russia and China.  It would then require that we do exactly what
Xi Jinping has said many times, that mankind needs to move in a
new phase of international cooperation, what he calls the “shared
community of the future of mankind” or a “community of destiny,”
then we could start to focus on the real problems, the common
aims of mankind.  We could build a system to make nuclear weapons
obsolete, a new form of the SDI, what my husband had proposed, in
the end of the 1970s and then it was in the works for several
years; and then on March 23, 1983, President Regan had announced
the SDI as a way for both superpowers to cooperate to make
nuclear weapons obsolete. I think in light of the present danger
of a new arms race and the already-existing arms race and the
danger that this gets out of control, we need such an approach as
a new SDI; and also a new SDE [Strategic Defense of the Earth],
because the planet as a whole is threatened by dangers from
space, from asteroids, from comets, which could really extinguish
life on this Earth.
We should instead concentrate on the common aims of
mankind–the alleviation of poverty, the creation of a living
standard for a decent life for every human being on this planet,
and a system of earthquake precursors and joint space research
and travel.  We should concentrate on space colonization as the
necessary and possible next phase of the evolution of the human
species. I think that if we combine that with a dialogue of
cultures where each nation would emphasize and revive the best
traditions of its own culture, and then have a dialogue among all
of these nations and cultures, we could absolutely create the
basis for a new Renaissance.
Skeptics would say that this is completely unrealistic.  But
I’m saying that the fact that you have these three
Presidents–President Putin, who is obviously recognized and
loved by the Russian people, and has just been reelected with an
overwhelming majority; with Xi Jinping, who is an exceptional
leader who obviously is equally loved by the Chinese population,
and basically they decided to eliminate the limits to his term in
office so that he can guide China in these very, very important
coming years; and President Trump, who is absolutely not what the
media are making out of him, but who has shown again and again
that he has outflanked a pretty difficult factional situation in
his own party, and naturally with a Congress and a Senate which
are very obstructive for the most part.  I think that if the
three Presidents join hands and do what they clearly did very
successfully so far, in the attempt to solve the crisis of the
Korean Peninsula, I absolutely think this is a realistic option.
However, we should not sit on our hands, but we should
really get into an international mobilization to propose this
agenda, and do everything in our means to make it possible.  It
is the life of civilization which depends on it.
Thank you. [Applause]

SARE:  Thank you. We can now take questions from the
audience here. Please say your name, and if you represent an
institution or a press agency, please state what you’re
representing as well.

Q:  I would like to ask you a question on behalf of Weiwei
TV. As you may know, President Donald Trump has already
instituted trade policies on China and China made a serious
response.  So I would like to know how you see the relationship
between the United States and China? And what direction do you
think this relationship is going to?  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think that we have a very serious danger,
because if it comes to this trade war, as I mentioned, you have
already a collapsing financial system of the trans-Atlantic
region.  And a trade war could easily be one of the elements
triggering a complete meltdown of the financial system and that
would obviously be much worse for the West than for China, which
has taken certain measures to eliminate speculation and put the
whole Chinese economy on a solid ground.  Nevertheless, the
consequences of a financial crash would be potentially extremely
dangerous.  As I said, if the neo-cons would come back and Trump
would be ousted in this context, we would be back to Hell in no
time.
On the other side, the trade war has not yet started.  So
far, it’s just lists, and there is room to put on the agenda a
different proposal.  I think Prime Minister Li Keqiang already
pointed to it, to increase the trade in joint ventures in third
countries.  I think that the more people talk about this idea of
U.S. investments in infrastructure and, for example, Xi Jinping
could reiterate the proposal for the United States to join the
Belt and Road Initiative, I think the trade war can still be
avoided. But it does need determined action.
And I think that the possibility exists simply because the
relationship between Xi Jinping and Trump has so far lasted over
a year, and they have telephoned around many crises; and
basically the Korea situation is on a very good course.  There
will be a summit between [Shinzo] Abe and Trump, who also wants
to play a positive role.  There will be a meeting between Putin
and Trump, hopefully very soon; and Kim Jong-Un and Trump. So I
think there is a diplomatic framework where many initiatives can
be made, and I think the New Silk Road is definitely the answer
to solve all of these problems.

Q:  Hello.  I think what you have said today is just
enlightening.  My name is Alan S.  I’m a screenwriter and
producer of a World War I mini-series, called “The 42nd Rainbow
Division.”  I think history is our greatest weapon and if we
start actually thinking back to what Russia actually did, for not
only World War II, but also World War I.  We would have lost both
world wars. And actually the United States wouldn’t have even
been in World War I, because we would have lost it before we even
got in.  They were a huge ally.
I think history needs to be taught to the young and that’s
why I’m doing this series, is because the younger generations
don’t realize that Russia has been an ally. And now we’re
vilifying Russia and making them into a villain when it should be
the opposite.  How do we actually teach this to the young?  The
younger generations are our hope and they’re our future.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think we need to change the narrative of
the neo-cons. Because when the Ukraine crisis started to develop,
President Putin said if it would not have been Ukraine, they
would have found another way to escalate the confrontation with
Russia. And I think that this is absolutely the case.
I think to change the narrative of the Ukraine, because this
is really when the total escalation against Putin as the demon
started, is a very urgent matter because right now President
Poroshenko has announced that he wants to basically have a
military solution for the east Ukraine, which could easily
provoke a war with Russia.
I think the narrative has to be replaced by the truth.  The
truth is that Victoria Nuland bragged that she and the State
Department spent $5 billion in building up NGOs to cause regime
change in Ukraine.  The former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt–even he
admitted that the Ukraine crisis started with the EU expansion
summit of Maastricht in 1992, when the eastward expansion of the
EU was decided, and the crisis was triggered when the EU wanted
to have the association of Ukraine (basically at the end of 2013,
which was the point when President Yanukovych decided he couldn’t
do it because it would have given NATO access to the Black Sea;
it would have flooded Russia with EU products.  This then
triggered the Maidan, which was immediately supported by these
NGOs financed by Nuland and the West, supported by neo-Nazis
which were then causing the violence, and finally the coup in
February 2014, imposing a fascist government as a reaction to
that. And the threat to forbid the Russian language, the people
in the Crimea decided to hold a referendum and they voted to be
part of Russia, so Crimea was not annexed, but it was a vote for
self-determination of the Crimean people.
I’m telling you all of this because part of the demonization
of Putin, is the Ukraine story and what he supposedly did with
Crimea, and all of this is not true.  I think we have to really
make an effort, to maybe produce many more movies and maybe we
can work together to this effect because we have documented many
of these wrong narratives and we must make them known. Because if
the mass media are just portraying this idea that Russia is about
to do everything, and behind every —  it is worse than the
McCarthy period and people are just hyped up which can only be
characterized as a prewar propaganda. Because why do you build up
an enemy image, because you want to make war against this nation.
This is a mortal danger in which the whole world is. And I think
this Skripal affair–the fact that it backfired, the fact that
the British were caught lying, is really also a chance.
I would suggest that we work together on making more movies.
We have already put out a lot of them, but I think we need and
call upon all of you to help to distribute them, and make them
known to as many young, middle-aged, and old people as we can.

Q:  Mrs. LaRouche.  Thank you very much for your speech.  I
think everyone here–we’re very pleased to hear what you said. My
name is Amber J. I’m political activist right now working with
several groups for supporting Trump and also for the midterm
election.  And also, I’m working for fighting for
Chinese-American minority civil rights kind of thing.
I have a question — I believe everybody came to this
conference understands your speech and understands the principle
of three countries cooperating with each other.  But there are
some Trump supporters, they stand for Trump because Trump is
starting a trade war right now.  How would you persuade those
Trump supporters to understand this win-win cooperation between
these three countries, to maximize the effort for these three
countries to cooperate together?
And also I believe a while ago, I heard India and Japan and
probably the U.S.A. talking about starting another kind of
international cooperation in terms of the infrastructure.  That
is the kind of thing similar to the Silk Road, the One Belt, One
Road.  How would you like to define that, or could you say about
something about it?  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think this is again another narrative
which needs to be replaced by truth. And that is, what is
actually the Chinese policy?  Part of this problem is that for a
long period of time the Western media and certain political
circles in the United States have also painted a very negative
picture about China.  I think Chinese-Americans, and you yourself
could help to correct that.
I must say, my image of China is incredibly positive;

because I was there for the first time in 1971.  This was in the
Cultural Revolution.  And this was an unbelievable experience
because at that time, the country was completely distraught.
People there were unhappy.  The Red Guards took people out of
their homes in the night.  They painted all the cultural
buildings, the Summer Palace and other places in Beijing, with
red paint.
Anyway, I’m just reporting that to say that when I returned
to China after 25 years, in 1996, already with the idea of the
Eurasian Land-Bridge, the idea of the New Silk Road, where I
attended a major conference on that subject in Beijing as a
speaker, the country had already been completely transformed as a
result of the policies of Deng Xiaoping.
But if you now go to China, it is unbelievable.  The country
is prosperous; there is a large well-to-do middle class.  People
are optimistic about the future.  They have an absolute vision, a
self-confidence about China, about eliminating poverty by 2020.
President Xi Jinping has a hands-on policy, going to the
villages, talking to individuals; finding out what measures must
be taken to eliminate poverty.
It’s just such an incredibly optimistic situation–where
also, culturally, China is pursuing the revival of Confucianism.
Xi Jinping personally has made a big emphasis that Confucian
philosophy is being taught on all levels of society.
I think that if people, especially in the Chinese-American
community would amplify our efforts to show the real, true
picture of China, I think the Trump supporters would absolutely
understand, that it {is} in the best interest for the United
States and China to cooperate.  If you think about it, if the two
largest economies in the world cannot cooperate, the danger of
world war is very big.
Many people have talked about the Thucydides trap.  This
refers to the rivalry between ancient Athens and Sparta, which
led to the Peloponnesian War, and the final disappearance of
Classical, ancient Greece.  If there would be a Thucydides trap
between the United States and China; if the United States would
react to the rise of China by a military confrontation, the world
as a whole would not survive it.
China has (especially the Chinese ambassador in Washington,
Cui Tiankai stressed that it is not the intention to replace the
U.S. as the strongest power, but to have a special great power
relationship, where both of them respect the sovereignty of the
other, respect the different social system of the other, and then
join hands and cooperate in all strategic matters.
I think there must be a very big mobilization where the
image of China in the United States is being straightened out,
because once people know the beauty of Chinese culture, the
optimism of the Chinese population, everything will change.
It is right now that the United States has a big moral and
cultural crisis.  You have for the first time the life-expectancy
going down.  For two years in a row, you have the life-expectancy
of all categories of life in the United States shrinking.  If
there is any parameter for a collapsing economy, it is the
life-expectancy. And that is naturally due to the new opium
epidemic, the rate of suicides because of depression, alcoholism,
and the terrible culture of death, which expresses itself in the
youth culture, violence of the video games, in the whole
entertainment industry, which is contributing to these many
school shootings.
You do have a cultural problem.  And I think you have to go
back to the philosophy of Benjamin Franklin, the founder and
father of America, who used to be a complete Confucian
philosopher.  He recognized the wonderful aspects of the moral
philosophy of Confucius and modeled his own moral system on the
basis of Confucius.  There are many parallels.  You have the
Confucius tradition with Benjamin Franklin, and in China, you
have the American System of Alexander Hamilton in the early phase
of the American republic, and now, in the Chinese model.  And you
have many similarities which, once you see, you can see that
there are universal principles uniting these two countries, which
are much more deep and much more important than the superficial
conflicts.
I would say the best thing one can do to intervene in this
situation is, we have proposed the project for the China
investment in infrastructure.  This has been picked up by a
Chinese professor recently, John Gong.  It has been covered by
CGTN TV.  There is a very famous Trump supporter in California,
who just made a similar proposal.  I think that has to be talked
up. I think we have to talk up the idea of overcoming the danger
of a trade war, by putting instead on the table Chinese
investment in infrastructure, U.S. and China joining in joint
ventures in third countries, and start a real cultural dialogue,
so that the two people start to know each other and know the best
of each other. And that way we can overcome this crisis.

SARE:  Helga, I have a question which I think is related.
You may want to say more.  It comes from Sr. Pat C., of the
Dominican Sisters of Peace who is also a member of the alto
section of the Schiller Institute chorus.
She writes, “In your view, what concrete actions now will
help catalyze the transition from a competition of nations to
cooperation and mutual respect?”
I think you largely have addressed that, but there may be
more that you want to say.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think that the knowledge about the
incredible dynamic of the Belt and Road Initiative, once people
know that, it changes there view.  For example, take the case of
Austria.  Austria is a small country, but they want to take a
leading role in becoming a hub for the New Silk Road.  They just
had a conference planning to broaden the gauge of the railway
from Vienna all the way to Moscow, so that they can be better
integrated in the container trains and similar things.  All the
Balkan countries are completely on board.  The Eastern European
countries, the Central European countries are all planning to be
hubs and bridges.
The excitement in Africa– I mean, if people would know,
there is a completely different spirit!  No longer do the
Africans want to be receivers of donations.  They want to be
treated as equal partners. They want to have investments, and the
spirit of the New Silk Road has absolutely changed the
self-esteem and self-confidence of all the African leaders and
many of the people.
Just take this case of the Transaqua project.  Transaqua is
a project which was originally proposed by Bonifica, an Italian
engineering firm, already more than 30 years ago. And the
Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement were campaigning for
that for decades, because it is one of the key projects for the
entire continent.  What it would essentially mean is that you
would take about 3-4% of the water from the tributaries of the
Congo River, at a 500 meter height, and then by gravitation, you
can bring this water through a system of canals all the way to
Lake Chad, which is now dried out to less than 10% of its
original volume.  This affects the live immediately of 40 million
people in the Lake Chad Basin.  When you bring this water back
into Lake Chad, not only do you fill up this lake again, and
create large volumes of water for irrigation for agriculture; you
also create an inland shipping system for 12 countries in the
heart of Africa; you create hydropower; you create a system of
industry parks, of industrialization. So you bring in the
industrialization in the middle of Africa, and that with all the
other infrastructure projects, will mean Africa has a future.
By the year 2040, there will be 2 billion people living in
Africa, and they need these jobs, they need education, they need
the kinds of projects, so that people are no longer marching
through the Sahara and dying of thirst, which is happening now
more than people even dying in the Mediterranean–it’s just not
being reported.  These young people would instead help in the
building up of the African continent.
This is such a fantastic development, and if the Americans
would know about it — I mean, I’m only talking about the tip of
the iceberg — but if people would see the sheer volume of change
and the magnitude of change which is already happening, they
would become absolutely optimistic and change their view, and
recognize that in the history of mankind, geopolitics is
something that absolutely has to be overcome, if we are supposed
to survive as a human species.  In the age of thermonuclear
weapons, if you do not overcome geopolitics, we are going to be
the destruction of our own species; and nobody in their right
mind can really want that because even those warmongers, who are
pushing it, would be eliminated themselves, too.
I think that the moment has absolutely arrived.  If we go
into a mass advertising campaign, a mass education campaign,
about the existence of this New Paradigm, I think it can
absolutely inspire the Americans and make the change which is
necessary in the short term.

Q: Hi, I am an American citizen and a Confucian, I believe
in Confucianism.  I’m an independent scholar of language and
civilization.  I was an instructor of Chinese at Harvard
University, in the Department of Eastern Language and
Civilization.
I have the same idea as you that America needs to join
China’s One Belt and One Road plan.  I grew up 10 years ago,
during the age of reform of China. I worked as at the FESCO, the
Foreign Enterprise Service Corporation.  I think more than 20
years ago, many American, European and Japanese companies
invested in China, and gave us was a better economy, and I think
it was very important.
Now, I think in the 21st century, China’s economy is much
improved.  It’s time to bring China’s investments into America
and to help America’s economy.  That’s why in 2016, I was for
Donald Trump.  I want to work with American people; I want to be
the bridge to connect China and America, to bring China’s
investment into America, to best help America’s economy.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Very good!  So many you can join with the
Schiller Institute to help us, to get this message out widely.
Because you know, already now the states which are doing large
business with China, see the advantage.  When President Donald
Trump was in China last November, he had with him delegations
from several states — West Virginia, Alaska, and some others.
And in the case of West Virginia, he brought back trade deals
and investment deals worth $83 billion!  And the governor of West
Virginia is completely optimistic that this will give back hope
to all the people in West Virginia.
And there are many projects, for example, one very exciting
idea is that Beijing, and the region of Hebei province and
Tianjin, this is a region of about 130 million people, and there
is a now a huge project whereby this region will be changed,
where the heavy industry, which still has some environmental
problems, causing smog and pollution is now being outsourced into
Hebei province and modernized; a new city is being built, I think
its name is Xiong’an, which is in the middle between Beijing,
Tianjin and Hebei, and it’s completely modernized.  Beijing on
the other side, will have lots of research and development, which
is much cleaner for the environment, and all of this is supposed
to be connected through an infra-urban modern transport system,
including modern maglev.  And the recent “Two Sessions”
conference and the National People’s Congress in China, the party
discussed building a new maglev system of 600 kph speed, for the
connection between the cities, and an inter-urban slow maglev
system of 160 kph.
This is very good for urban transportation, because the
beauty of the maglev system is that it accelerates immediately:
You are in a few seconds at full speed, with the slow maglev
you’re only going 160 kph, which is enough for inner city
transport; and they want to connect this entire region with this
modern transport system, so that essentially no job will be more
than 20 minutes away from the home of the working person.  So you
save all this commuting time.
And my idea is that this model of the Tianjin-Hebei-Beijing
region could be a model for the modernization of New York, New
Jersey, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the Midwest, and you actually
do something like that inside the United States.  And I think
President Trump is a developer; he knows about infrastructure,
and I think we just have to make sure that the Trump supporters
know about these plans, and that we create an environment where
this is actually intersecting the present crisis and danger of a
trade war.
If you move quickly enough, and get the Trump voters all
inspired with this idea, I think we can do a miracle. And I
definitely believe in miracles, as long as we do them ourselves.

Q: [follow-up] Thank you very much.  I totally agree with
you.  I believe that to bring China’s investment and enterprise
is more important in the trade market.  And secondly, I was a
professional Chinese instructor:  I want to educate more
Americans and Chinese people to understand each other, and make a
friendship to develop together.

Q: I’m José V.: I’m here from New York City.  Earlier you
touched upon the youth culture and the culture of death, and I
was hoping you could touch more upon that, because in my
experience — and I’m only 19 myself, too — but from what I see
of people around me, but also my nephew who will be turning 15
this year, I see he’s more interested in violent video games and
yelling into the microphone to imaginary people who aren’t there,
and spending a lot of money on things that will never really help
him out in life: for example, he brought a $300 belt buckle,
because it said somebody’s name on it, I think it’s Gucci. He’s
more interested in reading violent comic books that display gore
and showing people’s insides — I don’t have to go into that, you
know about that.
My question is, how do we overcome this violence?  How do we
overcome this culture of death, and how do we overcome this
culture of violence?  And more importantly, how do we stop
getting young people wanting to escape from reality by taking
drugs and whatnot?  So that’s my question.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think what we need for that is a mass
movement for development.  Because, first of all, I studied this
question some years ago, when we had some guests and the children
who came with the guests asked me if I knew about Pokémon, and
naturally I had never heard about Pokémon.  And they said:  Oh,
it’s beautiful, it’s violent, it’s fighting.  So I was so shocked,

I started to look into it, and I discovered Pokémon as a sort of

introduction drug to video games, and then naturally, the
evolution, where these video games come from.
Well, they were developed by the military in the postwar
period, because people had recognized in the Second World War,
only 15% of the soldiers were ready to shoot the enemy, because
human beings have a sort of natural barrier inside them, which
they don’t want to overcome, and when they kill somebody it goes
against that.  So many people have a healthy block, — or had a
healthy block. So the military developed these quickly changing
targets, like in target practice, not having just one target but
having many, and they change and move, so that you would learn to
shoot quickly — shooting, shooting, one shot after the other —
in order to train people to overcome the normal adrenalin shock
which happens if you shoot at another person; if you are not
brainwashed, then you have an adrenalin reaction and you start
shaking and so on.  So they wanted to get away from this, by
having these video simulations, where people would learn to
shoot, to increase the killer ratio of the soldiers.
So this is the basis for these video games which then became
commercial.  And while, in the military, and obviously it’s a
terrible thing in the military also, but at least you have an
officer, you have some guidance, you have military discipline;
but when these video games, which have become more insane over
the decades, if they are accessible to young children, and these
young children have not had any kind of an inoculation through a
humanist education, through the recognition of beauty in
Classical culture, through moral guidelines given to them by
their parents, but where you have a culture where everything is
allowed, everything goes — movies become more violent, more
perverse, more pornographic; even snuff movies, where killing is
being filmed, or at least the illusion that people are killed is
being filmed, this is really deadly stuff!  This destroys the
cognition of anybody, but especially of young people.
And when young people, then, children, pupils, students,
become autistic because they are only living in their social
media, and have completely lost the ability to relate to each
other, this is the death of a culture.  And I think this is
what’s happening in the United States.  You would not have these
unbelievable numbers of mass school shootings:  Like after
Columbine in 1999, there were 38 mass shootings. And after the
Parkland shooting, you had 50 alarms in the schools per day,
where pupils would see another pupil having a weapon, or having
crazy messages.
Now, obviously, this brings us to the question of, who is
promoting this?  President Trump had a meeting in the White
House, where he met with the pupils of the school in Parkland,
and the producers of these videos.  So obviously, President Trump
is aware of it, and I think we have to strengthen his resolve to
move against it.  And it happens to be that the Parkland
incident, in particular, was also the work of the FBI, because
they established a system which is run by some uneducated call
center, and so, many of the hints which were clearly given
before, were missed.  And it now turns out that in the Orlando
case, the father of the shooter was a longtime FBI informant.  So
there is a lot of these things to be pursued.
But I think the key thing is a mass movement for
development.  Because, if young people have no hope for the
future, and have no perspective, because it’s now the common view
that the coming generations will be worse off than the present
one — this is the first time ever this has happened; because
it used to be a moral standard for families, for everybody, that
you work so that your children will have a better life than
yourself.  And this has been abandoned for the first time.  So
what will young people have as a perspective?  Well, they have no
future.  And that is a huge difference!  And I can assure you,
I have seen it in all cases: There is a gigantic difference
between the optimism of the youth in China, and the pessimism of
the young people and the population in general in the United
States, and in countries like Germany, for example.
So the absence of a vision, where the future of a nation, of
the world will be, is what is feeding this kind of culture of
death, because then it doesn’t matter, life doesn’t matter, life
is worth nothing, whether you shoot somebody or not it makes no
big difference.
So I think a mass movement for the kind of economic
development which we were talking about before, is an absolute
ingredient, so that people have a reason to study, to develop
their minds, to develop their cognitive powers, to be productive.
If you have the feeling that you can be an astronaut, that you
can be a scientist in the realm of a thermonuclear fusion
economy; that you will travel to the Moon Village in your
lifetime, you have a motivation to study!  And I think without
such a motivation, it is very, very difficult.
So I would not look at it as a separate issue:  I would look
at it as an integral question to the whole discussion we are
having here.

Q: Thank you for your work, today, and throughout all your
time.
I’m Father Richard D., Franciscan Servants of God’s Grace.
My question to you, is we know that the President has written a
book showing that his way of dealing with a problem is to take an
{extreme} view, so he has room to compromise, to come back to
what he actually wants.  Do you believe he’s doing this with the
international trade situation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I don’t know; it may be.  Because I think
President Trump has said of himself many times, that he knows how
to make deals, that he would get better agreements that most
other people.  And it may very well be that such an idea exists,
that he makes big announcements of tariffs and so forth, and then
in reality, he’s negotiating and has his ambassador and other
people, trade negotiators, making such a discussion.
I don’t know.  I find it a little bit risky, because I saw
some Chinese articles where they said that some people may think
that they can get a better result this way, but that China will
not be intimidated into making compromises and basically will
answer back.
I don’t know.  I think it is not necessary.  I think this
particular idea that you make a huge attack, and then you go for
something less, is still, in my view, — and as you probably have
realized, I’m very positive about the potential of President
Trump; I’ve stuck my neck out a year ago, when I said that if
Trump is able to put the relationship with Russia and China on a
positive basis, he will go into history as one of the greatest
American Presidents, and I stuck my neck out.  And I’m repeating
this, here.  So, as you can see, I’m very optimistic and positive
that it could happen.
But I also think that this particular style of negotiation
is very dangerous, especially in an environment which is fraught
with dangers as I touched upon in my earlier remarks.  A much
better way, in my view, would be to just say, “We want the United
States and China to work together on a New Paradigm.” There is
already the Belt and Road Initiative. The United States could
have some program, they could call it the American Silk Road, or
the American FDR Revival, or the American Founding Fathers
Celebration, if they don’t want to be part of something which
already has been put out by China, it doesn’t matter, as long as
the content of the policy is the same on.
And I think the potential for things to grow into a higher
level of reason — I mean, here we are talking about the one
humanity.  I mean, I think the spiritual dimension, if you want,
has to be brought into this matter, because man is different from
all creatures, because we are gifted by God with creative reason.
And you don’t have to be a Christian, you can be a Confucian
philosopher, you can be a Buddhist, you can be just a good
person, to understand that we have reached a point in human
history, where we either recognize that we are all part of the one
humanity, or we will not make it as a species.
Since Diane mentioned earlier Nicholas of Cusa, I can only
say, that Nicholas developed a way of thinking which  — she
mentioned in the Docta Ignorantia, the “coincidence of
opposites,” which is the idea that because we are capable of
creative reason, we can think the One as having a higher quality
and a higher power than the Many: The one humanity being first,
and then the many nations being also important, but being not in
contradiction to the progress and wellbeing of the one humanity.
So I think if we understand that it is really the question
of addressing that in us, which makes us human, the creative
potential, then I think we can just find a way of shaping a New
Paradigm where mankind is defined from a common future, how do we
want to be existing as a human species, in 100 years from now, in
1,000 years from now, or even in 10,000 years from now?  Because
we can think the future!  No dog, no donkey, not goose can
think the future.  If you tell a dog, “Let’s have a walk
tomorrow,” the dog will hear the word “walk,” which the dog
probably knows, and jump to the door and wag its tail, and be
happy.  But if you say “tomorrow,” it doesn’t mean anything to
the dog!
But I think we need to raise the level of our communication,
and just really do our duty as a human species, and prolong our
existence indefinitely, by working together.

Q: My name is J.  I’m the author of two books, Evidence Not
Destroyed, and Spread Real Love.  I want to thank Mrs.
LaRouche; I want to thank this organization.  You’re some fine
people.  As I travel around America, I see many things:  I just
had to buy a new car, because the one I had had over 205,000
miles on it; and the one before that had 186,000 miles on it. But
I’m going around the countryside, and other countries, also,
spreading, putting this literature out for so many years.  And
I’m impacted with this organization.  It has some very find,
smart brains, that are sitting here in this auditorium today, and
I just thank God for you.
And when we come to a situation like we have today, I want
to know how we can go forward?  How we can promote civilization?
How we can carry on?  But if we have learned anything from our
history, we have to look back and look at our history, and look
at our results.  We have something that’s so profound here
today; we don’t get this kind of information on the TV no more. I
used to watch so much news, but now, they say the news is not
absolutely real! They say something about “fake” — I heard that
over and over again, so I turned my television off from the news.
And when I can come and get this type of real information, in a
setting like this, it makes one want to go forward.
So I’m here to help anyway I can.  I’ll put another 100 and
some thousands miles on the car I just bought, to get this
information out to the people, because if you don’t get it, the
news is not going to give it to you correctly, the way it should
be given.  So, I’m just thanking each one, and all of you that’s
working — just as I am;  Matt Guice, I’ve been working with him
since the ’90s; Lynne Speed and Dennis Speed, I’ve been working
with these people since the early ’90s.  And I’m so proud.
One thing, let me say, I think the reverend right before me,
a religious man — I sit in a church now, and I’m the only deacon
there!  Why is this?  Look where we’re going?  Why is that? We’re
reforming, we’re conforming, we’re complying to every situation
that’s not good.  And I think we have some real strength here,
and we can do some great things.  The main thing is, keep going
forward.  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think people have to be courageous,
because the paradigm shift which occurred in the United States,
which you, Diane, referenced in the beginning, which really
started with the murder of John F. Kennedy and then the murder of
Martin Luther King, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy, you
know, we had several years ago, a Mozart Requiem performance in
Vienna, in the suburbs of Washington, and also in the Boston
Cathedral, commemorating the paradigm shift which has occurred in
the last 50 years of America, where, the fact that the Kennedy
murder, and also the murder of Martin Luther King, was really not
avenged — or,  not avenged, but not even investigated, and the
real culprits made known and punished, which has led to people
becoming depressed.  I said many times, the Americans almost have
become like the Germans, because if you ask a German person to do
something, 99 % of the people say “Oh, you can’t do anything,
anyway,” so people are really depressed, and feel that they are
powerless in the face of what is happening.
And that has happened to America as a result of these
unclarified murders.  And since we have this event today, because
of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther
King, I think it’s a very good moment in history, to say, we will
not allow the murderers of King to be successful in eliminating
the hope which he represented.  I mean, Martin Luther King was
murdered at a moment when he had started to pick up many of the
same issues which are now being, in reality, changed by China.
Because he had started not only to take up the question of
economic justice inside the United States, but also he had
started to take on the question of jobs and overcoming poverty in
developing countries.  And that is what China is doing, exactly
today. And in the same way as the Schiller Institute has been
campaigning for, and LaRouche and his movement have been working
for, for almost half a century, is now becoming a reality.
So there is reason for optimism.  And I think that the best
thing we can do in a moment like this, thinking about the memory
of Martin Luther King, is to say, we will pick up the torch, we
will not allow the American people to be passive and desperate
and ignorant and all of these things, but we will all turn into
active members of the Schiller Institute, help to spread the
message; make the Schiller Institute a Renaissance movement, a
moment fighting not only for the economic buildup of the United
States, but also for a cultural Renaissance.  I think the two
things absolutely have to go together.
So I would encourage all of you to absolutely work with us,
because I think the solution to all of these problems are
absolutely within reach.

SARE:  As the next person is coming up I would just tell
everybody, during the break you will have the opportunity to do
exactly what Mrs. LaRouche has said, which is to become a member
of the Schiller Institute at our literature table.  And to
purchase copies of these very important, world-changing reports:
This is the one she mentioned, “The New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge,”  which we produced right after Xi Jinping
announced it. And this report, of which Jason Ross is a coauthor
on “Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa: A Vision
of an Economic Renaissance.”

Q:  Hi, I’m Donald C.  My quick question is about the
liberals.  How are they teaching curriculums to our kids, and
they’re not giving them the chance to learn the right stuff, and
they’re just forcing the kids what their beliefs are?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, that is a big problem, because it
started with John Dewey, to basically develop this liberal
pragmatic idea of education.  And unfortunately, you have
generations of people who have gone through different phases of
such elimination of Classical literature, of natural science, so
it is a real problem.  And I would think that the best way to
proceed on that, is if you look at the kind of materials which we
present in the present [What Is the New Paradigm?] class series,
which you can find on the LaRouche PAC site, and you can register
to be part of it, this is the kind of curriculum which was
developed especially with the ideas of my husband, Mr. LaRouche,
who did an incredible job, because he revived the best traditions
of the 2,500 years of European civilization, the traditions in
science which were the source of qualitative progress, the great
Classical arts; and this is something which is not taught in
American schools, for the most part.
And I think we have to form, basically, educated people, who
then hopefully, we can influence this present administration to
change that.  I think President Trump has repeatedly shown, at
least for certain areas, an understanding; he talked about the
American System of economy; he talked about Lincoln and Carey, he
talked about Hamilton. So in the economic field there is
definitely something there, which we can build on.  I think there
are many other people are equally concerned about the condition
of the school system.  But I think the best thing is that you
register for these classes [http://discover.larouchepac.com/]. And
if you haven’t already done it, you can also watch some of the
previous classes in the series.[6]  Get yourself absolutely a firm
grip on universal history, of the great advances in science and
culture, and then, you know, basically help us to organize
change.
Because it will come from many places.  There are many
people are realizing that at this point it is the scientists, the
engineers and such people, who will be much more important in the
shaping of things, than many politicians who are part of a party
system and partisan, and therefore, don’t really regard these
issues are the important ones.
But the best advice I can give you right now, is if you join
with our efforts, we find ways to address all of these issues,
and build a growing movement to demand such a change.

Q: Thank you very much.  Your comments were very insightful.
I believe in the paradigm where the United States, Russia and
China, essentially a triumvirate is essentially going to lead the
world, hopefully forward and out of the morass that we’ve been
in. Especially over the prior eight years before this current
President came into office.
The question, I want to ask is, what do you perceive would be
the case — because I don’t believe this economy in this country
would have lasted another year, under the current policies.  We
would have had a significant economic drop which would have led
to, since this country’s GDP is 25 % of the world’s, would have
had a worldwide, negative impact.  Having said that, what do you
perceive would be the consequences in this country, or the for
that matter the world, on the movement forward that has occurred,
if President Trump did not have the position he has?  He may be
President, but he may have a weakened political system, in the
sense of a House and the Senate: Would we be able to move
forward?  And what would be the consequences, and under what
conditions could we move forward?  Could this economy continue to
grow if he can’t implement his policies?  What would be the
international consequences of that, from your perspective?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the strongest situation is Trump’s
relation with his voters.  That despite all of the attacks by the
FBI, by the British, by the heads of the intelligence services
from the Obama administration, — I mean, he had a pretty tough
environment, and nevertheless, he goes back to his voters, he
holds a rally, and the support for him is actually growing in the
polls.  So I think that that is for sure, a very strong point
which we should build on, because if we keep strengthening that,
and if we keep informing the Trump voters on all the issues we
are discussing here, that can actually help to outdo the Congress
and the Senate.
And since there is a midterm election, there is actually a
very good moment to do that.  I mean, the danger is naturally
that Trump could be convinced that to take an anti-China stance
would help him in the midterm election.  I mean, I’m not sure;
I’m not close enough to the situation to make a judgment on that.
But I think the strong point is, Trump is close to his
voters, the voters still recognize what a change he means, and I
think that we need to have a mass mobilization — I think there
is no shortcut from that; because the danger is very acute. What
I said in my initial remarks, when we talk to some really
well-placed figure in Europe, who said that there is a discussion
to pull the rug out from under Trump with a new financial crash,
and if you think that this is a conspiracy theory — well, maybe
before the Skripal case, you also thought that such things are
conspiracies, but we have just seen a classic example of how you
can manipulate a whole international community of nations to go
into an attack on Russia, based on a lie!  So these things do
happen and they can happen.
Now, there are also many warnings.  Just today, I think some
representative of the firm of Guggenheim put out a warning on
this corporate debt question that a financial crash can happen
at any moment.  And basically, you have the European banking
system, the Italian banks are in terrible shape, you have a
policy where the trigger point of a collapse of the financial
system is many-fold.  It’s also like a minefield where it’s not
clear which mine will trigger the explosion, but once it happens,
you could have a systemic blowout, much worse than that of 2008.
Because the central banks have done absolutely zero, to eliminate
the root causes of the crash of 2008.  They have, instead, used
the so-called tools and instruments — namely quantitative
easing, negative interest rate, money pumping — but this has
reached the point where now the Fed is forced, or think they are
forced, to increase the interest rate, because a negative
interest rate is very bad for the real economy, it’s bad for the
savings of the people, it’s bad for life insurance, it’s bad for
real investment; and the hyperinflationary consequence of such
money-pumping is already visible on the horizon in the form of
the totally overvalued stock market, in the form of real estate
prices, in the form of many other such phenomena.  So the Fed
needs to increase the interest rate, but that is already bringing
the immediate potential for a new crash.
If that happens, I think we are in {real} trouble: So our
whole point, is we need the implementation of Glass-Steagall, and
the Four Laws developed by Lyndon LaRouche, before the crash
happens.  I think this is also a subject — there are these four
dialogues which have been established between President Xi
Jinping and Trump; one of them concerns the dialogue on economic
matters; China has put a lot of emphasis on the dangers to the
international financial system, at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou
[in 2016] and on other occasions.  So I think that this question
needs to be urgently addressed, also between the United States
and China in these negotiations.
And then, if you put the whole package together, the Four
Laws — Glass-Steagall, a National Bank, a credit system in the
tradition of Hamilton, a crash program for the increase in the
productivity of the labor force, and then joining hands in the
Belt and Road Initiative — all of these measures together are a
very, very practical and realistic way to overcome these dangers.
But it is very urgent, because we are sitting on a powder keg,
and I think it can be done, but we need a lot of people of good
will to become active with us.

SARE:  Helga, we’re just about up on time. We have two more
questions.  Do you want to take both, or one, or?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, maybe both together, and then I’ll
answer both.

Q: Hi Mrs. LaRouche.  My question to you is, is that right
after the shooting at Parkland, [Broward County] Sheriff Israel
was all over the news speaking about going to all members of
Congress to use the Baker Act, to detain and profile people that
have experienced some sort of depression.  And that’s of great
concern to me, because there are many people who have experienced
that, and I feel this country is becoming more like Germany back
in World War II.  So I’m kind of scared, and I’d like to know,
what’s your opinion on it?  Thank you.

SARE:  OK, next question.

Q:  Hello, my name is Steve S.  I would just like to ask,
how much of a role do you think that psychological warfare plays
in everything that’s going on?  And how can we counter it?  Are
there people out there who specialize in psychological warfare? I
hear people talk about history being erased; you know, the
projection of violence through videos and commercials and that
matter.
So, a lot of people are very confused, as well as myself,
even when you find something that you believe in sometimes, it’s
presented in a way that you accept it in the beginning, and then
it comes out to be a lie. And right now, clearly, lie is just
pounding on the truth.  I mean, you have one truth, but you have
so many lies that it seems too overwhelming to survive.

SARE: Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the concerns that both of you
expressed is very real.  I mean, it is the fact that the West is
already living in a police-state.  Just take the recent example
of the Facebook firm, Cambridge Analytica — they sold data on 50
million people for commercial purposes, for election manipulation
and who knows for what else?  If you go on the internet and you
go on any website, you immediately have the advertisement for the
next years of your life of whatever you looked at.
So we are already in a completely surveillance state, where
the NSA and the British equivalent, the GCHQ, are monitoring
everything — your phone, your smart TV, your laptop — it’s
omnipresent.  And obviously this needs to be reversed.
In the time when I was growing up, being a young person, we
had a big concern about data protection.  It was a civil right to
make sure that your privacy was protected.  All of this has gone
out of the window!  And also, naturally, the big change came on
September 11th.  Because September 11th was the pretext for a lot
of the elimination of civil rights which used to be a
constitutional right up to that moment.
And therefore, I think the inquiry of what really happened
on September 11th, is still one of the big tasks to be solved,
because it led to police-state measures inside the United States.
It led to a similar kind of change internationally. And right
now, you have the ongoing trial of the families of the victims of
the World Trade Center suing the government of Saudi Arabia for
their role in the September 11th attacks.  And the Saudi
government tried to appeal against the lawsuit, and a court in
New York overruled that, so the court case can go ahead.
Now, this goes very slowly, but this is a very important
aspect; because eventually, we have to go back to a
constitutional state.  So you are quite right to be concerned,
because there is a lot of this going on.
Again, I think there is no shortcut:  We need more people
taking an active role, and force the coming Congress to pass laws
to protect the rights of the people again. This is absolutely
possible.  The whole argument, for example, that you cannot
control these things, or not control the internet, is absolutely
not true:  You can block certain things, you can prevent things,
you can make laws which prohibit the profiling; you can make laws
which it a criminal act to do all of these things you are worried
about.  So it’s not a self-evident development.
But I think it does require that more people become state
citizens:  A state citizen, I would define a somebody who takes
responsibility not only for his life, his family, his country,
but for the outcome of human history.  And I think to be such a
world historical individual in a moment like that, where the
options are so rich, and so beautiful that there is no reason to
despair, but it is really the individual decision, to be part of
the solution which can and will make the difference. [applause]

SARE:  Thank you.  That was very beautiful and appropriate.
Do you wish to say anything else to us?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, just be happy, and be productive, and
feisty, and courageous, and then you can do everything you plan
to do.

SARE: Thank you very much! [applause]

 

[1] http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/category/nyheder/alle-kategorier/oekonomi/larouches-fire-love-feature/

[2] Kan læses på engelsk her: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2018/eirv45n06-20180209/22-28_4506.pdf  Dansk oversættelse er undervejs.

[3] Læs en dansk introduktion til rapporten af de to forfattere, Jason Ross og Husein Askary, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23600

[4] Abraham Lincolns Gettysburg-tale: » – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth«.

[5] Martin Luther Kings berømte tale ’I have been to the mountain top’ fra 3. April, 1968, kan læses her: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm

[6] Se lektionerne i dansk oversættelse her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/category/lpac-new-paradigme/

Introduktion: Den hysteriske og bidende retorik mod Rusland, der kommer fra Storbritanniens imperiale oligarker og deres efterretningstjenester og kanaliseres gennem Theresa May og Boris ’BoJo’ Johnson, narrer ingen. Alt imens nogle regeringer underdanigt er gået med i de farlige provokationer, så er andre, inklusive USA, blot kommet med symbolske handlinger. Mange nationer synes at ligge mere på linje med tankegangen hos den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov, der om May-regeringens ubegrundede beskyldninger i Skripal-affæren sagde, at det er »kun alt for åbenlyst, at vore britiske kolleger har mistet deres realitetssans«.

De ledere, som derimod ikke har mistet deres realitetssans, har i stedet været engageret i et imponerende opbud af diplomatisk og økonomisk aktivitet og har indgået aftaler om at deltage i Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ (BVI). Parallelt med disse bestræbelser er et russisk initiativ for at bringe fred i Syrien og arbejde sammen med Syriens naboer. De britiskdirigerede geopolitikere har uden tvivl bemærket, at, i takt med, at dette initiativ går fremad, har præsident Trump gentaget sit kampagneløfte om at afslutte al amerikansk militær involvering i Syrien og har gentaget sit ønske om et topmøde med Putin i den nærmeste fremtid.

Det, der ligger bag de britiske angreb mod Putin og Rusland, er ikke den svindelagtige påstand, at Putin beordrede forgiftningen af en tidligere russisk efterretningsofficer, lige så vel som at Mueller-efterforskningen intet har at gøre med »russisk indblanding« i det amerikanske valg. Målet for disse provokationer er det Nye Paradigme, der er knyttet til BVI, som City of London og dets Wall Street allierede korrekt har identificeret som efterfølgeren til deres fallerede system. Hvis USA tilsluttede sig Rusland, Kina og Indien sådan, som Lyndon LaRouche opfordrede det til i kølvandet på krakket i 2008, ville det være umuligt at forhindre fremvæksten af det Nye Paradigme.

 Her følger engelsk udskrift:

 

 

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger

from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to this week’s Schiller Institute

webcast for April 5, 2018, featuring our founder and President

Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

In the last couple of weeks, Helga has spoken about the

potential for a backfire as a result of the Skripal affair, that

Theresa May and her somewhat unhinged Foreign Secretary Boris

Johnson have been using as a way of attacking both Russia and the

United States.  Now, we’ve seen this play out in a very big way

in the last couple of days:  The fact that they came out in their

own name, and the name of their intelligence services and their

government, to attack Russia, has in fact, put “egg on their

faces” as some have said.  So, Helga, why don’t you catch us up

on what’s happened in the last days, because this is quite

significant, in terms of shaping the strategic relationships?

 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  I think it is incredibly

serious, because now you have a situation where I think the whole

group of nations which committed themselves to sort of

unprincipled solidarity with May and Johnson, they really have to

reflect on what has actually happened.  Just to mention some of

the recent developments:  The head of the research lab Porton

Down, Gary Aitkenhead, came out actually and said they could not

find any proof that the origin of this nerve agent was Russia;

that they could establish that it was Novichok, or belonging to

the group of Novichoks, but that they could not say that it came

from Russia.

This has led to quite a series of events.  One was that the

Foreign Office removed the tweet in which they had said very

clearly that there was no doubt that the origin was Russia, and I

think they even mentioned that the scientists of the Porton Down

lab had said so.  So, they were obliged to remove the tweet,

because that also is evidence that Boris Johnson was lying,

because he had said that he had heard from the scientists that

there was absolutely unrefutable proof that this came from

Russia.  This is the first thing.

Then the London {Times} had a comment about this, where they

say that the statement by Aitkenhead is threatening to bring down

the international coalition against Russia.  Well, that’s indeed

the case, because now naturally everybody is reviewing this, and

I think in the case of the German government, for example, they

gave a  press conference afterwards, in which journalists were

asking, did this statement mean that you’ve changed your

perspective?  And they basically refused to do so, which shows

you really the absolute grip in which these people are in, namely

the grip of the British Empire.

So, I think this is now backfiring very clearly.  The role

of the British government and the British Empire, for that

matter, is completely exposed, but they are not stopping the

confrontation with Russia, so that some of the Russian responses,

for example, people speaking at the Seventh Moscow Conference on

International Security which is now taking place in Moscow,

[Sergei] Naryshkin, who is the head of Russia’s foreign

intelligence [SVR], he said that this is basically as serious as

the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.  Others were saying, this time

these idiots went way beyond any line, and that is clearly the

case.  But you also have a whole series of people who are saying,

look, we cannot continue like that, we have to resume a dialogue

with Russia; we have to go back to straighten out the relations.

And I want to really point to the fact that, despite the

fact that naturally the United States expelled 60 Russian

diplomats, which is clearly part of this escalation, that

President Trump himself, who did not at any point use this

incident to attack Russia as the origin.  And I think this stands

clearly out.  And people who are always totally freaked out about

Trump, they should really review this and ask if their

perspective and their optical approach actually the correct one?

Because in many cases, it turns out that Trump is actually the

one who is not going for confrontation, and some of the people

who are so much for “democracy and human rights” that they can’t

even walk straight, because they’re so heavily burdened with

their responsibilities, that they are the actual warmongers.  So

I think this is really something to reflect about.

But I think the kind of procedure that NATO, however, the

European Union, the German and French government, they were all

immediately jumping on this, without evidence, condemning Russia.

And I think if you look at this, when the dust settles down, it

{is} a blow to the whole Western system, because if there is not

an establishment of scientific fact, first, and the condemnation

first so that basically Russia is declared guilty, and then maybe

you find the evidence sometime down the road, or not, I think

this does big damage to the Western system, because if you play

with these things lightly, it is contributing to the

discreditation of the governments that did that, and that is not

a good thing.

 

SCHLANGER:  Well, minimally, we could say this is a rush to

judgment, but more importantly, this is part of an established

pattern of British intelligence.  We’ve seen it with the repeated

charges, without evidence, that the Assad government was using

chemical weapons against his population; and of course, the

famous case of Tony Blair and Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,

which turned out to be another fabrication of the highest levels

of British intelligence.

But there’s another aspect of this which I think you may

want to comment on, which is the case of David Kelly, because

this also hits at home, where there was opposition from within

the scientific community in the United Kingdom against the

actions of the government and the intelligence community.

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  This is clearly a pattern.  And

before the statement by the head of the Porton Down lab came out,

the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, had

actually said that he had from high-level sources in the

intelligence community or the science community, that the

scientists would not basically produce the evidence — and they

didn’t.  And [Porton Down weapons inspector] David Kelly, at the

time of the Iraq war, had basically blown the whistle, saying

there were no weapons of mass destruction, and then he found an

early death under extremely dubious circumstances which were said

to be a suicide, but nobody really believes that.

So, I think this is really something — if you think the

Iraq War was based on lies, and I think Willy Wimmer, the former

vice president of the OSCE and former state secretary to the

minister of defense, pointed to the fact that the Iraq war, after

all, has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in Europe, in the

Middle East, in North Africa, and that the Chilcot Commission,

which from our standpoint was a relative cover-up, but

nevertheless, pointed to the fact that Tony Blair had willfully,

intentionally exaggerated the danger coming from Iraq and Saddam

Hussein at the time. And then [Bush Secretary of State] Colin

Powell used the MI6 “dodgy dossier” [on Iraq’s alleged WMD] from

that period, to argue in the UN for the U.S. joining the Iraq

War.

I mean, the fact that governments can do these things which

cost — really — if you look at the totality of these wars,

millions of people’s lives, and then, it just goes by and there

is no accountability.  And it’s a complete hypocrisy and

duplicity, when the people who are saying that they are the

defenders of human rights and democracy, then go around and make

these interventions into sovereign countries, which have these

horrible results.  And then they are self-righteous and pretend

that they are the good ones, and the Russians and the Chinese are

the bad ones.

I think we need to have, really, a review of this, because

this cannot continue.  It is very dangerous to world peace.

 

SCHLANGER:  And another aspect of this is that this was a

major feature of President Trump’s election campaign in 2016,

where he, at a very important debate in South Carolina, openly

accused George W. Bush of lying to create the Iraq War, and he

said that his administration would oppose these kinds of wars.

Now, this week the President announced that he’s preparing

to remove U.S. troops from Syria, despite demands from some in

the military, and the CIA, that the U.S. remain in Syria.

Helga, this is a fairly significant departure from the

standard Bush/Obama policy of pursuing these wars, isn’t it?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Oh, yes!  And, again, you can see certain

representatives of the U.S. military and others, who say, “no,

no, we still have a lot of fighting to do against ISIS,” but

Trump I think is clearly sticking to guns, and he has promised to

stop the interventionist wars, and I think he is going very far

to do so.  Especially, if you consider that in in this middle of

this whole hysteria, he telephoned President Putin, and has

reiterated that he wants to have a summit with Putin in the near

future.  And he was also meeting with the three Presidents of the

Baltic countries, who as everybody knows are extremely

anti-Russians, and he reiterated that to have a good relationship

with Russia “is a good thing and not a bad thing.”

So I think people should really review their slanders, or

their believing the slanders against both Trump, Putin and Xi

Jinping because it comes from the same circles:  it comes from

the neo-con/neo-liberal geopolitical faction who are seeing that

their system is clearly in bad shape and who are obviously

stopping short of nothing, if you look at this recent affair.

 

SCHLANGER:  You mentioned earlier the Moscow International

Security Conference.  Clearly, there’s a discussion going on

there, about something that your husband Lyndon LaRouche brought

up many, many years ago, and that you’ve been calling for, which

is the establishment of a new security architecture.  How is this

proceeding in Moscow?  Do you have some reports on what the

discussion process has been, there?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think it’s an extremely important event.

There are 95 countries represented, 840 guests, 700 media; and

obviously, this  alone speaks to the fact that Russia is very far

from being isolated, as some people in the West are trying to

portray.

The discussions were very focussed on the need to have an

international alliance to combat terrorism.  There was a warning

by the head of the FSB [Alexander Bortnikov], that there are

signs that ISIS and al-Qaeda are merging, and he basically said

this means you will have sleepers and cells in every country

around the globe, and the only way you can defend against that,

is to work together internationally.

Now, another very important aspect of this conference, is

that the Defense Minister of China went to this conference and

made a statement that this was meant as a signal to the West that

the Russian and the Chinese military are in an extremely close

strategic partnership, and that this is meant as a signal to the

West.

So there were many warnings, as I mentioned already, that

the present confrontation is approaching the danger of a Cuban

Missile Crisis, so people are obviously extremely attuned to what

is coming there from the British and their allies.  But on the

other side, it also shows who is talking in favor of

international solidarity, cooperation;  who is addressing the

real dangers of the world:  It is clearly not the West, but it is

clearly Russia, China and the countries that are participating in

this conference.

And again, this is really something people should reflect

about, rather than believing the propaganda.  If you read

{Bildzeitung}, this morning on page 2, they have a picture of

Putin, Erdogan, and Rouhani, and they say this is the “axis of

evil.”  This is ridiculous!  These three countries [Russia,

Turkey, Iran] have collaborated to bring about a solution to the

terrible crisis in Syria, and this is a very good thing.  Now,

not all aspects of the policies of these countries I would

always subscribe to, — I mean, there’s the unresolved tensions

between the Kurds and Erdogan, between Turkey and Greece —  so

not everything is perfect.

But I think on the larger picture, if you think that the

misery of the Syrian people who have had war for seven years [is

being addressed] because of the intervention of these countries,

and not to forget the cooperation between the U.S. and Russian

military under the leadership of Trump and Putin; I think people

should not just fall for these propaganda lines.  Because there

are some people who have suffered with their lives and their

livelihoods and their happiness, as a result of these

[geopolitical] policies, and for Syria, this [intervention] is a

good thing.

 

SCHLANGER:  Especially, this should have meaning for people

in Europe, because in 2015-2016, there was the explosion of the

refugee crisis, and with all the hand-wringing and crocodile

tears that were shed, nothing was done to support the Russian

intervention to stop the war in Syria.  And the fact that the

Russians, the Iranians and the Turkish government were meeting to

discuss this, is something that should be welcomed, as opposed to

a source for criticism.

Now, on the Russia-Turkey cooperation, there was another

aspect to it, because when you deal with these problems in the

real world, there’s always an economic element, and there was

just an agreement between Putin and [Turkish President Recep

Tayyip] Erdogan to move ahead with nuclear energy development.

Helga, this is part of the broader package of the New Silk Road

and economic cooperation that you’ve been talking about, isn’t

it?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  I think the remarks of President

Putin, who was at the opening ceremony of this [Akkuyu] nuclear

plant was to emphasize the extreme importance of nuclear energy,

giving a country cheap and secure energy, and leading to an

increase in the productivity of the entire economy; which is

absolutely the case.  And you have many, many projects, Russia,

China, India, having with developing countries the building of

nuclear energy in Africa, in Latin America, and in Asia.

So, soon, countries like Germany will be the only ones that

will not have nuclear energy, and if they keep this course, they

will be sidelined at the disadvantage of the population.  So, I

think this is really something we should change.

 

SCHLANGER:  The other story that’s getting a lot of coverage

internationally, and I think it’s being covered typically by the

media as a way of trying to drum up war, is this whole argument

that the discussion and the negotiations under way between the

U.S. and China on tariff policy is nothing but a trade war.  Now,

there’s a danger to this, as the Chinese have pointed out, but I

think it’s important for people to hear your perspective on this:

Because obviously, there are problems in the U.S.-China

relationship, a huge trade imbalance, but it’s not just a trade

war, there’s actually a much broader discussion under way.  How

do you see this evolving, from what you’ve seen over the last few

days?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  There are negotiations going on, and it must

not necessarily come to the execution of these tariffs, which

both sides have now drawn up, up to the value of $60 billion in

terms of products.  One thing is that the Prime Minister Li

Keqiang has pointed out that there is another way to overcome the

trade imbalance: namely by increasing trade, by especially

investments in joint ventures in third countries, that there are

many ways how you can get rid of this trade imbalance.

And there is a renewed discussion, something which we have

brought into the discussion early on, namely, that you have the

possibility of Chinese investments in the infrastructure in the

United States.  And that would also be a way to completely change

this dynamic.  If the Chinese investment in American

infrastructure would create many, many productive jobs for

Americans, it would create the infrastructure precondition for a

real industrial revolution: for the building of new cities,

science cities, connecting all American cities with fast trains

systems.

There are so many ways of changing this dynamic for the

better, and I’m absolutely convinced that China is having this

mind.  There was a program on the Chinese TV channel CGTN,

proposing exactly that, that there should be a dialogue on

infrastructure.  Then you have some Americans, a Trump supporter

who had already made such a proposal early on, also.  So I think

there is a discussion.  And I would imagine that President Xi

Jinping, who will give a very important speech at the “Asian

Davos” as they call it, the Boao Forum for Asia, which will start

in three days, where he is expected to make a major speech on the

continuation on international reforms, and opening up.  So I

think you can expect something important to come from there.

And I think the Chinese are also extremely aware of the fact

that we are sitting on a powder keg in terms the financial

system.  Xi Jinping has defined three priorities:  One, to

overcome the risks of the financial system; to alleviate poverty;

and to get rid of air pollution.  So I think the Chinese are very

much aware of the dangers of this present Western financial

system.  And you know, you had several articles warning that with

the outbreak of a new 2008 could happen at any moment, one of the

many new aspects which were mentioned is the difference between

the LIBOR rate and the Fed rate; and that was exactly the

beginning sign of the 2008 crisis.

So that really requires that the discussion which we and our

colleagues in the United States and in Europe have formulated, to

implement the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche — Glass-Steagall,

national bank, a credit system, and then cooperation of the

Western countries, with the financial systems of the New Silk

Road, the AIIB, the New Silk Road Fund; all of these things need

to be urgently discussed.  Because one danger which is clearly

there, that if you had now a financial crash, and some people are

even speculating that the same people who are making these

provocations against Russia, could also trigger, deliberately,

such a financial crash, to pull the rug out from underneath

President Trump, to bring the neo-cons back in, and just get rid

of this phenomenon of Trump.

So anybody who thinks this is conspiracy theory, or this is

totally over the top, well, look at the Skripal case, and learn

the lesson from that, how things can be manipulated and

orchestrated.

So I think the urgency is really to draw the lesson out from

all of this, and end this system of looting, which is only for

the privilege of the very few rich; it’s destroying the middle

class, it’s making the poor, more poor.  And we need really a

return to Hamiltonian economics.  This is what is the basis of

the Chinese economic miracle, as I have said many times: The

Chinese economic miracle, or Chinese economic model, is much,

much closer to the economic policies of the young republic of the

United States than people think.  It’s no coincidence that the

distinction which Friedrich List, for example, made between the

American System and the British System, that that is exactly what

is playing out today, and we need {clearly} a return to the

American System of economy.

 

SCHLANGER:  It’s also important to keep in mind that

President Trump has repeatedly referred to his great friendship

with Xi Jinping, and the strategic importance of a China-U.S.

relationship is also clear when it comes to the question of the

collaboration to bring a peaceful solution to the Korean

Peninsula. There’s a lot of diplomacy coming up:  The Trump-Putin

meeting; Trump meeting with Prime Minister Abe of Japan; and also

the coming meeting with Kim Jong-un.  So there’s a lot more at

stake here than just the question of a few dollars off the trade

imbalance.

And Helga, just to go back to one final note on the Belt and

Road Initiative:  I’m sure you took note of the importance of the

visit recently of the Swiss government to China and also a very

large delegation heading to China from Austria.  Maybe there’s a

lesson here for Germany, huh?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, one would hope so!

I mean, I’m very happy, because all the neighbors of Germany

are clearly joining the Silk Road, it increases the pressure on

those who are obviously too stupid or too arrogant to see the

potential for German industry which lies in this initiative.

Now, the Swiss Foreign Minister was just in China and he and

his Chinese counterpart, both [Foreign Minister] Wang Yi and also

[former Foreign Minister] Yang Jiechi, they declared that the

collaboration of China and Switzerland in the New Silk Road is at

the best historical level ever, and both emphasized the

importance of Xi Jinping’s visit last year to Switzerland, where

he addressed Davos as a keynote speaker, and then went to Geneva,

emphasizing the importance of Switzerland.  So they’re deepening

the relationship between China and Switzerland.

And the Austrian government, they have a huge delegation,

the largest ever:  It is President Van der Bellen, Chancellor

Sebastian Kurz; four cabinet ministers, and 170 CEOs from large

corporations, spending five days in China.  And what Kurz said

is, there is no ceiling to improve the relationship between

Austria and China on the New Silk Road.  The same, by the way, is

happening with Zimbabwe, where the new President [Emmerson

Mnangagwa] is going with a large delegation of 12 ministers and

also many, many CEOs.  So, you can see almost every day, a little

breaking development.  And as I have said many times, the Spirit

of the New Silk Road is, in my view, absolutely unstoppable,

except if we have World War III, which obviously some people are

risking.

But nevertheless, the idea of a new relationship among

nations, of respect for the sovereignty of the other nation,

respect for the difference of the social system, the ending of

internationalist wars, the idea of a win-win cooperation, this is

just a new model of international relations and a New Paradigm.

And the biggest problem is that because of the Western media

being so much in control of this geopolitical faction that most

people don’t know enough about it.

So, please, I would appeal to you:  Join the Schiller

Institute, help us to spread the knowledge about the New Silk

Road, and also the options to solve the present financial crisis

and many other crises around the world with such an approach.  I

would really appeal to you:  Don’t sit on the fence.  This is an

incredibly important historic moment, and the British have just

suffered a terrible defeat, which freaks them out, but it’s

visible for everybody and so therefore, it’s a good moment to

move forward and establish a completely different political,

social, and economic system on this planet.

 

SCHLANGER:  And we will be launching a new membership drive

for the Schiller Institute, and if you want to increase the

misery of the British intelligence establishment and the City of

London, become a member of the Schiller Institute, and help us

build the audience for these webcasts, so people have an

alternative to the lying media that otherwise is the only option

they have to allegedly find out about the world.

So Helga, I think that covers quite a bit.  Thank you for

joining us again, and we’ll see you next week.

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  Till next week.

 

 

Jason Ross: Ingen forstår briterne bedre end Lyndon LaRouche. Alt imens Storbritannien ikke længere hersker over havene eller verden med skibe, fly og imperiehære, så inficerer deres måde at tænke på kulturer i hele verden og former den måde, hvorpå folk analyserer og opfatter virkeligheden. Storbritannien udøver også magtfuld kontrol over verdens finanssystem gennem City of London og deres indflydelse over Wall Street. De har haft utrolig succes med at bondefange vore eliter til at være overbevist om, at amerikansk råstyrke med britisk hjerne bør kontrollere verden.

Men, hvor mange flere amerikanske liv skal ofres, og hvor mange flere ofre for unødvendige, geopolitiske krige skal dø og lide i hele verden på vegne af britiske, geopolitiske strategier, før vi udrydder dette barbariske system?

Lad os lytte til LaRouche:

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

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

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

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

 

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

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

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

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

Xi Jinping har, i alle sine skrifter, i alle sine taler, understreget, at dette »fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid« er baseret på total respekt for det andets lands suverænitet, total respekt for den andens samfundssystem, og der kommer ingen bestræbelse på at påtvinge noget andet land den kinesiske model. Det er ganske enkelt, at Kina har tilbudt især udviklingslandene at hjælpe dem til at overvinde deres underudvikling. Det er et win-win-samarbejde, hvilket er grunden til, at 140 lande i mellemtiden samarbejder med dette, for det er naturligvis i Kinas interesse – for det er en stor befolkning, et stort land, en meget rig kultur, 5.000 års meget rig kulturtradition, så det er et af verdens store lande, og måske endda det vigtigste, i betragtning af dets befolknings størrelse.

Men de påtvinger ikke nogen det, de anser for at være »kinesiske karaktertræk« – helt forskelligt fra de neokonservative og de neoliberale, der havde regimeskifte, ’farvede revolutioner’, eksport af ’demokrati’ og det, de kalder »menneskerettigheder«. Folk bør virkelig ikke være fordomsfulde, men bør se på det med friske øjne, selv læse Xi Jinpings taler. …

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 28. marts, 2018 – Farcen med premierminister Theresa Mays krav om, at verden skal bøje sig for den britiske krone og acceptere den åbenlyse løgn, at Rusland gennemførte en »ulovlig magthandling« mod UK samtidig med, at Kongeriget nægter at fremlægge så meget som antydningen af bevis, overbeviser ikke mange borgere i USA eller Europa og stort set ingen uden for NATO. Organisatorer fra LaRouche-bevægelsen i USA, Tyskland (Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet; BüSo) og andre steder finder, at der er et dramatisk skift i befolkningens respons, siden PM May lancerede sin kampagne for krig med Rusland. De svigagtige britiske anklager mod Rusland – som minder stort set alle om Tony Blairs løgne om Iraks masseødelæggelsesvåben, og om denne løgns forfærdelige konsekvenser – er begyndt at vække et spirende had til denne imperieholdning, som udstråler fra briterne og fra de spytslikkere for briterne, som i 16 år sad på det amerikanske præsidentskab, før valget af Trump.

Lad os se på timingen i dette fupnummer:

• MI6-kampagnen for at bringe USA’s præsident til fald gennem »Russiagate« er ikke alene kollapset, men dens gerningsmænd i FBI, CIA og blandt de neokonservative i både det Republikanske og Demokratiske parti, står nu selv over for mulige anklager for kriminelle handlinger for deres løgne, læk, ulovlige brug af føderale myndigheder og mere endnu.
• Theresa Mays regering hang i en tynd tråd, alt imens Labour-partiets leder Jeremy Corbyn blev set som en sandsynlig vinder, hvis der blev udskrevet valg.
• De kombinerede britisk/Obama-bestræbelser på at vælte regeringen i Syrien og overgive landet til kaos under krigsførende terrorgrupper, ligesom i Irak og Libyen, er blevet alvorligt undermineret af præsident Trumps åbne samarbejde med Rusland omkring udslettelse af terroristerne.
• Flere europæiske nationer har afvist dæmoniseringen af Rusland, og Italien befinder sig i processen med at danne en ny regering, som sandsynligvis vil afvise europæiske sanktioner mod Rusland i det hele taget.

Så briterne forsøger at gøre det, de plejer at gøre qua deres imperienatur – opfinde en krise, der kan retfærdiggøre krig, få USA til at stå i spidsen og tyrannisere deres fordums »allierede« til underkastelse.

Men, planen virker ikke så godt. Alt imens det er sandt, at Trump-administrationen gik med i masseudvisningen af russiske diplomater, så er det imidlertid klart for briterne, at Trump ikke vil opgive sine planer om at arbejde sammen med præsident Putin. Hans telefonopringning til Putin 20. marts, hvor de diskuterede løsninger på globale problemer uden at nævne den britiske Skripal-sag med ét eneste ord, slog Dronningen og hendes britiske Lords med rædsel, såvel som også den ynkelige Theresa ’M’ May, og som alle ser skriften på væggen: Enden på selve Imperiet.

Næsten et dusin europæiske lande har nægtet at udvise nogen russiske diplomater og har krævet først at se beviser. Briterne har omdelt seks power point-slides som »bevis«, som ikke var andet end en liste over deres svigagtige anklager om russisk »aggression«. Ligesom Christopher Steele-dossieret, vil anklagerne måske narre nogle, for en tid; men briternes troværdighed er slidt ned.

Men, hvad der er meget vigtigt, så har millioner af mennesker i løbet af de seneste halvtreds år hørt Lyndon LaRouche advare om, at USA er blevet holdt for nar af briterne, med at udkæmpe deres kolonikrige siden Vietnam og med at gennemføre deres finanspolitikker med det »frie marked«, på bekostning af det Amerikanske System for dirigeret kredit til industriudvikling. Alt imens mange har fundet dette vanskeligt at tro på, så ser de pludselig de afskyelige løgne og Londons lige så afskyelige politik for anstiftelse af krige, og de reflekterer over, hvem, det var, der i alle disse år fortalte sandheden.

For en gangs skyld er briterne blevet tvunget til at stå i spidsen af deres fupnummer i deres eget navn – og det er deres sårbare punkt. Trumps plan om at arbejde sammen med Putin og med Xi Jinping og afslutte imperie-æraen for krige for regimeskifte og truslen om en atomar udslettelse, må støttes og fuldt og helt gennemføres, og det omgående.

Foto: Dronningen og Prinsen af Wales forlader parlamentet efter dronningens tale, 2017.  Copyright House of Lords 2017 / Photography by Roger Harris. This image is subject to parliamentary copyright. www.parliament.uk

26. marts, 2018 – I et opkald tidligt i morges til reportere annoncerede Det Hvide Hus, at det udviser 60 russiske »efterretningsofficerer« af USA. Overordnede folk i administrationen sagde desuden under briefingen til pressen, at USA også lukker det Russiske Konsulat i Seattle, Washington. Dette skete, sagde en overordnet embedsmand, pga. det russiske »angreb på vores vigtigste allierede« med henvisning til de britiske beskyldninger om Ruslands involvering i Skripal-angrebet. »Vi er solidariske med USA’s nærmeste allierede«, sagde en af brieferne.

To af brieferne sagde, der stadig er mulighed for bedre relationer med Rusland, men at Rusland bør ophøre med sine aggressive aktiviteter. Den anden briefer sagde, at relationer med Rusland kunne forbedres, når de først har indrømmet, at de stod bag forgiftningen af Skripal! Disse handlinger, hævdede en briefer, »vil være med til at indskrænke Ruslands aggressive efterretningsaktivitet«. Seattle blev valgt, sagde de, pga. af dets nærhed til vigtige militær- og flådeinstallationer i området.

EIR spurgte, om USA selv havde analyseret det materiale, der blev brugt til at forgifte Skripal og hans datter, og om de havde gjort noget for at lytte til russernes anmodning om, at de også fik en prøve på materialet til deres analyse. Brieferen svarede, at USA havde enedes med briterne om ikke at udlevere prøverne, men indikerede, at OPCW ville blive inddraget i efterforskningen. »At udlevere prøver til Rusland ville ikke give større afklaring. Russerne ville blot skabe yderligere forplumring«, sagde han.

Brieferne sagde, at de her til morgen havde givet den russiske ambassadør besked om udvisningerne, og at de ville briefe Kongressen i løbet af dagen. De sagde også klart, at der i ugens løb havde været intense, internationale telefonsamtaler om sagen, med den britiske regering og med USA’s allierede. Trump skulle angiveligt også have talt med Theresa May om spørgsmålet. »Havde præsidenten været i forbindelse med præsident Putin om spørgsmålet?«, blev de spurgt. Trump havde ikke talt i telefon med præsident Putin, siden sidste tirsdag, sagde brieferen.

I en åbenlys koordineret reaktion til, og i umiddelbar forlængelse af, USA’s handling, udviste halvdelen af EU’s medlemsstater – 14 nationer inkl. Tyskland, Frankrig, Holland, Polen og Italien – ligeledes russiske diplomater for at støtte UK’s udokumenterede anklager mht. angrebet på Skripal og hans datter.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 25. marts, 2018 – I det aktuelle, globale miljø, med undertiden hektiske diskussioner om geopolitiske forholdsregler og modforholdsregler, om handelssanktioner og gengældelse, om udskiftninger af personer og personel i ledende regeringer i verden – side om side med det klare potentiale for dramatiske ændringer, som præsident Trumps nylige, improviserede opringning til præsident Putin var et bevis på – er det nyttigt at træde et skridt tilbage og vende tilbage til nogle grundlæggende spørgsmål, som begynder med et halvt århundredes fundamentale opdagelser af Lyndon LaRouche, især inden for videnskaben om fysisk økonomi.

Denne eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan gøre en ende på det nuværende, geopolitiske mareridt, som er Det britiske Imperiums system, og etablere det politiske fundament for en varig fred, skrev Lyndon LaRouche tilbage i marts 1984 (»LaRouche-doktrinen: Udkast til aftalememorandum mellem USA og U.S.S.R.«), er ved at sikre: »a) Alle nationalstaters ubetingede suverænitet, og b) Samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater med henblik på promovering af ubegrænsede muligheder for at blive delagtig i fordelene ved teknologisk fremskridt, til gensidig fordel for hver enkelt nationalstat, og alle nationalstater.«

Et afgørende spejlbillede af et sådant fremskridt er udryddelse af fattigdom og inkludering af voksende befolkningslag i teknologisk progressive former for produktion. Her har Kina i løbet af de seneste 35 år været ledende i verden og har reduceret sin fattige befolkning fra 875 million i 1981 til i dag 30 million. Tilbage i 1981 husede Kina 46 % af verdens fattige inden for landets grænser; i dag er denne procentsats mangefold reduceret, til 5 %.

Denne udvikling accelererede med begyndelse i 2008, da politikken med at bygge et netværk af højhastigheds-jernbanekorridorer blev sat i gang i Kina og bragte industrialisering og teknologisk fremskridt til alle hjørner af landet. Et resultat har været, at fattigdom i Kina blev reduceret med ikke mindre end 85 % mellem 2008 og 2017 – under et årti.

Med præsident Xi Jinpings lancering i 2013 af Bælte & Vej Initiativet, er denne samme drivkraft for udvikling begyndt at stråle ud over hele planeten – spredningen af den Nye Silkevejsånd, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche så ofte refererer til.

Lad os overveje Kinas præstationer i lyset af de indledende bemærkninger i Lyndon LaRouches artikel, »Om LaRouches opdagelse«, fra 21. november, 1993 (genudgivet i EIR, 11. aug., 2017):

»Det afgørende indhold af mit originale bidrag til Leibniz’ videnskab om fysisk økonomi, er skabelsen af en metode til at behandle det kausale forhold mellem, på den ene side, enkeltpersoners bidrag til aksiomatisk revolutionerende fremskridt inden for videnskabelige og analoge former for viden og, på den anden side, de heraf følgende forøgelser af den potentielle befolkningstæthed i de tilsvarende samfund.«

En lignende fremgangsmåde – om end uden den dybtgående, videnskabelige og filosofiske stringens, LaRouche har skabt – er i realiteten grundlaget for Kinas præstationer. Som præsident Xi Jinping præsenterede sine marchordrer for økonomien i en tale 9. juni, 2009:

»Udløs i størst mulig grad videnskabens og teknologiens enorme potentiale som den primære kraft for produktion … og udvikling, støttet af videnskab og teknologi, og som er rettet mod fremtiden, og fremskynd tempoet for opbygning af et innovativt land.«

Man kunne således udmærket karakterisere Kinas fremgangsmåde i dag som anvendelsen af det Amerikanske Økonomiske System med kinesiske karaktertræk, en fremgangsmåde, der har ført til en succes uden sidestykke i udviklingen af Kinas relative befolkningstæthed, og på det seneste, med Bælte & Vej Initiativet, hele verdens.

Tiden er inde til, at USA atter vedtager denne politik som sin egen og herved omsider gør en ende på fattigdom over hele planeten, og samtidig driver en pæl i hjertet på britisk geopolitik.

Foto: Kinesiske børn hilser præsident Trump med flag under hans besøg i Kina, november, 2017. 

Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er i dag den 23. marts, 2018, en meget gunstig dato: Det er nemlig 35 års dagen for en meget vigtig dato, som var 23. marts, 1983, hvor præsident Ronald Reagan annoncerede vedtagelsen af det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ  (SDI; Strategic Defense Initiative). I dag er det et meget passende tidspunkt for at bedømme den stadigt mere presserene nødvendige vedtagelse af en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur for planeten, og den samtidige nye økonomiske arkitektur, som må ledsage den.

Vi befinder os i et meget dramatisk øjeblik i verdenshistorien, og jeg mener, at, hvis vi træder et skridt tilbage og ser på det store billede, så står det klart, at verdensordenen, som vi har kendt den i de seneste 70 år, er i færd med at undergå en total transformation. Og udfaldet af de strategiske kampe, der raser netop nu, både på den nationale scene her i USA, men især på den globale scene; udfaldet af disse strategiske kampe vil afgøre menneskehedes historie i mange generationer fremover.

Med de begivenheder, der har fundet sted i løbet af de seneste tre uger, siden den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin den 1. marts annoncerede, at Rusland havde udviklet en helt ny generation af strategiske våben, baseret på avancerede fysiske [principper], og som er i stand til at gennemtrænge alle kendte forsvarssystemer, har vi set, hvor dramatisk nødvendigt det er, med det presserende i en sådan ny sikkerhedsarkitektur. Ikke én, der bygger på Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD; garanteret gensidig ødelæggelse), men derimod én, der bygger på win-win-overlevelse og økonomisk fremskridt for alle nationer på denne planet; nødvendigheden heraf bliver i stigende grad mere presserende. Jeg vil gerne fremhæve, hvad præsident Putin selv sagde i denne tale 1. marts til den føderale forsamling:

Han sagde:

» … lad os sætte os ved forhandlingsbordet og sammen udtænke et nyt og relevant system for international sikkerhed og bæredygtig udvikling for menneskelig civilisation. … Dette er et vendepunkt for hele verden og for dem, der er villige til, og i stand til, at forandre sig; de, der handler og går fremad, vil tage føringen.«

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957

Men, snarere end klart og nøgternt at vurdere denne ændrede, strategiske virkelighed, med denne game-changing tale af Ruslands præsident, og besvare dette tilbud for at forhandle, med hans ord, »et nyt og relevant system for international sikkerhed og bæredygtig udvikling for menneskelig civilisation«, for endelig at bringe denne nihilistiske dødsspiral med stadigt mere dødbringende masseudslettelsesvåben til en afslutning; snarere end at gøre dette, har briterne og deres såkaldte »partnere« i Europa forsøgt at oppiske en generel støtte til en krigskonfrontation mod Rusland ved anvendelse af det, Labour-partiets leder, Jeremy Corbyn, meget korrekt karakteriserede som det, han kaldte »fejlbehæftet efterretning« og »uvederhæftige dossiers« af den type, som blev brugt til at retfærdiggøre invasionen af Irak. Og som Jeremy Corbyn advarede om, så bør vi ikke »affinde os med en ny Kold Krig … og en intolerance over for dissens som under McCarthy-perioden«.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går understregede i sin internationale webcast, så har briterne og Theresa May, i deres forsøg på at gennemtvinge en sådan krigsprovokation, overspillet deres hånd. Deres metoder og deres mål står nu afsløret for hele verden at se. På trods af Theresa Mays bestræbelser på at presse præsident Trump over i et hjørne, hvor han ikke ville vove at forsøge at tage skridt, der ville gøre det muligt for ham at honorere sin forpligtelse til at forbedre relationerne med Rusland; snarere end at lade sig blive bakket ind i et hjørne, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, så udmanøvrerede præsident Trump imidlertid hele operationen ved at tage telefonen og ringe til præsident Putin og lykønske ham med genvalget og hans næste periode som Ruslands præsident, og fortsatte med en meget sober diskussion mellem de to statsoverhoveder om nogle af de meget vigtige, fælles bestræbelser og fælles udfordringer, som disse to nationer, USA og Rusland, sammen konfronteres med; og som, hvis vi fik lov at gøre det, vi kunne arbejde sammen om at løse, såsom krisen i Syrien; såsom muligheden for et totalt gennembrud for fred på Koreahalvøen; såsom den igangværende situation i Ukraine; og meget signifikant, såsom at forhindre et nyt våbenkapløb.

Umiddelbart efter denne telefonsamtale, blev pressen, som I kan tænke jer, hysterisk, og Det Hvide Hus’ pressesekretær Sarah Sanders holdt en pressekonference i briefing-værelset i Det Hvide Hus, hvor hun ikke mindre end et halvt dusin gange understregede den absolutte betydning af at opretholde en dialog mellem USA og Rusland på lederskabsniveau, omkring fælles interesser og fælles udfordringer.

Jeg vil afspille nogle eksempler på nogle at disse gentagne udtalelser fra Sarah Sanders på denne pressebriefing i Det Hvide Hus.

 

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet:

 

SARAH SANDERS:  We want to continue to have a dialogue with
Russia, and continue to talk about some of the shared interests
we have, whether it’s North Korea, Iran, and particularly as the
President noted today, slowing the tensions when it comes to an
arms race, something that is clearly important to both
leaders….
We want to continue to have dialogue so that we can work on
some of the issues that concern both countries, and we’re going
to continue to do that, while also continuing to be tough on a
number of things….
The President once again has maintained that it’s important
for us to have a dialogue with Russia so that we can focus on
some areas of shared interests…
These are conversations that sometimes take place, and
certainly the President finds there to be an importance in having
that dialogue with Russia so that we can talk about some of the
big problems that face the world….
We disagree with the fact that we shouldn’t have
conversations with Russia.  There are important topics that we
should be able to discuss, and that is why the President’s going
to continue to have that dialogue.
Again the focus was to talk about areas of shared interests.
We know that we need to continue a dialogue.  It’s important for
a lot of the safety and security of people across the globe.  We
would like to be able to work with them on things like North
Korea, on Iran, and also both countries shared interest in
lowering the tensions when it comes to an arms race, recognizing
that that’s not the best thing for either country, and so we want
to be able to have those conversations and that was the point of
today’s call…. [end video]

OGDEN:  So, that’s a very clear message, obviously.  Now, on
the same day, President Trump himself reiterated exactly the same
points in a couple of tweets that he posted, and I would like to
just read you those tweets.  He said:
“I called President Putin of Russia to congratulate him on
his election victory (in past, Obama called him also).  The Fake
News Media is crazed because they wanted me to excoriate him.
They are wrong!  Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good
thing, not a bad thing.”
“They can help solve problems with North Korea, Syria,
Ukraine, ISIS, Iran, and even the coming Arms Race.  Bush tried
to get along, but didn’t have the ‘smarts.’  Obama and Clinton
tried, but didn’t have the energy or chemistry (remember RESET).
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!” he concludes.
Now of course that final phrase is a quotation directly from
President Ronald Reagan.   And this direct reference is a very
timely one, and perhaps is not merely a coincidental one:  As I
said, today, March 23rd, is the 35th anniversary of one of the
groundbreaking moments in modern history, and it’s one which
completely reshaped the global, strategic geometry at that time,
and which remains immediately relevant all the way up to the
present day.
That moment, March 23rd, 1983 was representative of a
complete shock, a shock wave which was felt around the world.
This was the surprise announcement by President Ronald Reagan at
the conclusion of a live, national television broadcast which was
an address to the nation, nominally on national security.  But
what President Reagan did at the conclusion of that broadcast, to
the surprise of almost all of his leading advisors in the White
House even, was to announce what came to be known as the
Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, what President Reagan
called a “vision of the future, which offers hope.”
In the speech, what President Reagan did was that he
committed the United States to a crash program, a crash
scientific program for the development of advanced technologies
which would be based on new physical principles to
(quote/unquote) “free the world from the threat of nuclear war.”
And so, in so doing, President Reagan completely overthrew the
ideology of retaliatory nuclear deterrence through the threat of
instantaneous, total nuclear response in the event of the
detection of a nuclear attack against the territory of the United
States.  This was what was so-called Mutually Assured Destruction
(MAD).
President Reagan completely rejected the very premise of
Mutually Assured Destruction and in so doing, Reagan shocked the
world, and truly did change the course of world history.  So,
right now, why don’t we wind the clock back 35 years, and listen
to what the world heard on that night, March 23rd, 1983:

My fellow Americans, thank you for sharing your time with me
tonight.
The subject I want to discuss with you, peace and national
security, is both timely and important. Timely, because I’ve
reached a decision which offers a new hope for our children in
the 21st century…
The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple
premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never
be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and
defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.
Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the
risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking
genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making
sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States,
or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks
to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he
won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength;
weakness only invites aggression.
This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works.
But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one
kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more
nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now
that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful
nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the
ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning
to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable — quite
the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is
based on being prepared to meet all threats.
There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and
artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any
attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different
world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and
awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the
nuclear age….
Now, thus far tonight I’ve shared with you my thoughts on
the problems of national security we must face together. My
predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on other
occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power and have
proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent of
nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly directed
toward deterrence of aggression through the promise of
retaliation.
This approach to stability through offensive threat has
worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing nuclear
war for more than three decades. In recent months, however, my
advisors, including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have
underscored the necessity to break out of a future that relies
solely on offensive retaliation for our security.
Over the course of these discussions, I’ve become more and
more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of
rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by
threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe we must
thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing tensions and
for introducing greater stability into the strategic calculus on
both sides….
Wouldn’t it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are
we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by
applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly
lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.
After careful consultation with my advisors, including the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share
with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we
embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat
with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very
strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base
and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that
their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S.
retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and
destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own
soil or that of our allies?
I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may
not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current
technology has attained a level of sophistication where it’s
reasonable for us to begin this effort….
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations
and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with
offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive
policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations
firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our
country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great
talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us
the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and
obsolete.
Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty
and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies,
I’m taking an important first step. I am directing a
comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research
and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of
eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This
could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the
weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor
political advantage. Our only purpose — one all people share —
is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.
My fellow Americans, tonight we’re launching an effort which
holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There
will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it.
As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your
support.
Thank you, good night, and God bless you. [end video]

OGDEN:  That was 35 years ago today.
Now, just as a side note, incidentally, President Trump is
not ignorant of this history.  In 1999, far before he ever was a
candidate for President, in a an interview with none other than
Wolf Blitzer on CNN, President Trump actually addressed what he
thought of as the necessity for the Strategic Defense Initiative,
but also the necessity for sitting down and having talks to work
out the tensions between the United States and Russia.  Here’s
just a quick quote from President Trump.  He said:
“As far as nuclear is concerned, this country, us, we need a
shield….”
Wolf Blitzer said, “A Strategic Defense Initiative?”
And Trump affirmed that, saying, “Because Russia is
unstable. We need a missile defense shield.  People used to
criticize Reagan, but now it’s very developable.  We need a
shield…. We need a change.  The ABM Treaty was 1972.  Who knew
what technology would develop?  We have to sit down with the
Russians and many others.”
So, that was just a side note.  That was Nov. 28, 1999.  But
as I think you can see, now-President Trump remains committed to
that inclination to sit down with the Russians and many others —
North Korea, for example; and to resolve these nuclear threats.
If you just go back again to that date in 1983, this was 35
years ago.  In President Reagan’s own words, he said that what he
announced that night would, indeed, change the course of world
history; and it did.  And, it took most of the world completely
by surprise.  But, it didn’t come out of nowhere, and this
history is very important for viewers to understand.
Let me just read you a portion of what Lyndon LaRouche had
to say at that time.  This is a statement that he issued the
morning following that historic speech, so this is from March 24,
1983.  What Mr. LaRouche had to say was the following:
“Only high-level officials of government, or a private
citizen as intimately knowledgeable of details of the
international political and strategic situation as I am
privileged to be, can even begin to foresee the Earth-shaking
impact the President’s television address last night will have
throughout the world…. [T]he words the President spoke last
night can never be put back into the bottle. Most of the world
will soon know, and will never forget that policy announcement.
With those words, the President has changed the course of modern
history.
“Today I am prouder to be an American than I have been since
the first manned landing on the Moon. For the first time in 20
years, a President of the United States has contributed a public
action of great leadership, to give a new basis for hope for
humanity’s future to an agonized and demoralized world. True
greatness in an American President touched President Ronald
Reagan last night; it is a moment of greatness never to be
forgotten.”
So that was Lyndon LaRouche, March 24, 1983.  Now, as
LaRouche alluded to in that statement, he was no bystander or
casual observer of the events of that night President Reagan
announced the SDI.  In fact, the grand idea behind what Reagan
announced that night, came directly from none other than Lyndon
LaRouche himself.  I would like to play for you a brief excerpt
of Mr. LaRouche, in his own words, speaking about the background
to what had shocked the world that night — March 23, 1983.  This
is taken from a video that LaRouche PAC published about ten years
ago, back in 2008, on the 25th anniversary of the SDI speech.
The video was titled “A Brief History of Lyndon LaRouche’s SDI.”
So, let’s listen to what Mr. LaRouche had to say in that video.

LYNDON LAROUCHE

:  I had been organizing the SDI
operation, including initially from 1977, long before it was
called an SDI.  I was the one who said, “We’re going to make a
project of this thing.”  So, I adopted this and stated this as my
program in 1979, when I was running as a Presidential candidate.
Then, I had this conservation with Reagan, and then as a
follow-up after he was President, we had a follow-up with various
people in the Reagan circle; including his National Security
Council.  I was working with the head of the National Security
Council on this operation, and with people from the CIA and this
and that.  I was sworn to this and sworn to that, so I was doing
the whole thing.  The SDI was my work, which they liked.  And
there was a faction, including the President, who liked it.  He
liked it because he was against, he always hated Henry Kissinger;
and he hated Henry Kissinger particularly because of the
so-called “revenge weapons.”  The idea that you build super
weapons, and if somebody throws a bomb at you, you obliterate the
planet.  That is not considered a good defense, and he was
against that.  When he saw from experts that what I was saying
was accepted experts — military and others — and this was
French intelligence, the leadership of the Gaullist faction in
France; this was the leadership of the German military; this was
the leadership of the Italian military, and all over the world.
So, I was the creator of the SDI.  Reagan liked it, he adopted
it.  I was creating the thing in direct cooperation during the
entire period, with the cooperation of the National Security
Council and the heads of the CIA.  People recognized that I was
right; I had the scientific capability and knowledge to do it,
and we were doing it.

OGDEN:  So, that’s the story in Lyndon LaRouche’s own words.
That is merely the tip of a very fascinating iceberg.  We
encourage you to watch that full video that I cited that that
excerpt was taken from.  But also, to visit the page on the
LaRouche PAC website which gives you the full background of this
story.  As you can see there, the link is larouchepac.com/sdi.
That gives you this full, historic background.  But as you heard
Mr. LaRouche say there in that video clip, this effort on his
part to craft the idea of what then became adopted by the
President of the United States in the form of the SDI, this
effort went all the way back to the mid-1970s.  Here’s an image
of a campaign pamphlet which was commissioned by Lyndon LaRouche,
titled “Sputnik of the ’70s: The Science behind the Soviets’ Beam
Weapon.”  In this pamphlet, Lyndon LaRouche called for an
international crash program to develop a space-based missile
defense system based on new physical principles.  A Manhattan
project-style mission which would provide the economic driver to
fuel global development.  The pamphlet proposed .”.. Long-range
economic and scientific collaboration with the Soviet Union,
among other nations, which would eliminate the danger of world
obliteration,” and it emphasized .”.. Tremendous revolutionary
industrial implications available to this nation and the world if
the political will of the United States forces a recommitment to
technological progress in the form of an International
Development Bank and its national concomitant Third National
Bank.”
So, as you can see, Lyndon LaRouche’s idea of this missile
defense system, was always framed around the idea of not
unilateral defense systems, but rather, a joint missile defense
and joint scientific and economic collaboration between the
United States and the Soviet Union.  To do so, would be to
unleash the revolutionary industrial and economic implications of
such technological breakthroughs as the basis for a new
international, economic order; something which he had been
involved in all the way back to at least 1971 when he first
issued the proposal for a new International Development Bank —
the so-called IDB.  So you can see in LaRouche’s idea, the kernel
of what became the SDI, always had with it a new international
security architecture, overthrowing this entire reign of terror
of Mutually Assured Destruction and revenge weapons.  But
concomitantly, a new international economic order, which would be
driven by the revolutionary, unprecedented economic boom that
would come out of the progress associated with such technological
breakthroughs around these new physical principles in the
collaboration of US and Soviet scientists to develop this joint
missile defense to make International Ballistic Missile and
nuclear war impotent and obsolete.
The history is as fascinating as it is extensive.  Here is
not the time or the place to go through every single aspect of
this history; but the full background, again as I said is
available on that webpage — larouchepac.com/sdi.  But if you
fast forward from that pamphlet “Sputnik of the ’70s” all the way
to the lead-up into the 1980 Presidential campaign in which
Lyndon LaRouche himself was a candidate for President of the
United States.  Let’s take a look at a picture here of Lyndon
LaRouche meeting face-to-face with then-candidate Ronald Reagan
at a candidates’ forum that took place in Concord, New Hampshire.
During this face-to-face meeting and in several other
opportunities to interface with the Reagan campaign team, Lyndon
LaRouche presented this idea, in principle and in detail.
Following Reagan’s victory and his election, Lyndon LaRouche and
representatives of his organization, were brought in for meetings
with first the Reagan Presidential transition team, and then with
leading members of the National Security Council and Reagan’s
intelligence community.  They discussed LaRouche’s idea for this
new strategic doctrine, and the related scientific and energy
policies that would go along with it.  So, Lyndon LaRouche
commissioned numerous reports and campaign pamphlets promoting
this idea.  As you can see here, this is from {Fusion}; this is a
special report titled “Directed Energy Beams; A Weapon for
Peace.”  Here’s the next one; this is an edition of the
{Executive Intelligence Review} magazine from November 30, 1982.
Again, before the March 23, 1983 announcement of the SDI.  This
was titled “Beam Weapons: The Science to Prevent Nuclear War.”
Here’s another one; this is a pamphlet.  “How Beam Weapon
Technologies Can Reverse the Depression.”  So, all along, this
was always an economic idea from Lyndon LaRouche’s standpoint.
As you can see, being an American at this point, in the years
preceding the 1980 Presidential election and then coming out of
Reagan’s victory, 1980, ’81, ’82, the idea of this Beam Defense
system which would be based on new physical principles, was
associated — including in the popular mind — it was associated
with Lyndon LaRouche.  And it had been associated with Lyndon
LaRouche for at least half a decade prior to Reagan’s historic,
groundbreaking speech.
The morning after Reagan’s March 23rd address, the media was
scrambling to try to find experts to interview to explain what it
was that Reagan had presented the night before.  Naturally, they
had to turn to representatives of the LaRouche organization.
Here’s a photograph of Paul Gallagher, who was at that time
Executive Director of the Fusion Energy Foundation, appearing on
CBS’ Evening News program on March 24, 1983 — the day following
Reagan’s address — to explain the science behind Reagan’s policy
that had been announced the evening before.
Immediately following Reagan’s address to the nation, Lyndon
LaRouche launched a mass educational campaign to educate the
American people as to what their President had just presented.
He published and commissioned the publication of numerous mass
circulation reports to inform the American people and also
policymakers on the details of how such a program would work.
This image here is an array of different publications that were
issued by the LaRouche movement, supporting Reagan’s announcement
of the Strategic Defense Initiative and detailing the scientific,
the economic, and the military-strategic implications of the
policy.  There you can see one pamphlet — “Support the
President’s Strategic Defense Initiative; Kill Missiles, Not
People.”
As should be very clear, Lyndon LaRouche was in a leading
position of authority following this groundbreaking announcement,
and the influence that his ideas had come to wield put him in a
position of real power inside the political structure of the
Presidency of the United States.  He used that influence to
launch and to escalate on his campaign to completely reorganize
the entire international economic and strategic architecture of
the planet.  Let’s take a look at a document that Lyndon LaRouche
released exactly one year following Reagan’s March 23, 1983
announcement of the SDI program.  This was called “The LaRouche
Doctrine:  Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the United
States and the USSR.”  This was published March 30, 1984.  Let me
read you some excerpts from what Lyndon LaRouche published under
this title “The LaRouche Doctrine.”  He begins by saying:
“The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) The
unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and b)
Cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of
promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits
of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all.
“The most crucial feature of present implementation of such
a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary,
economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and
those relatively subordinated nations often classed as
‘developing nations.’ Unless the inequities lingering in the
aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there
can be no durable peace on this planet.
“Insofar as the United States and Soviet Union acknowledge
the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the
planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both,
the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a
common interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic
policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of durable
peace between those two powers.
.”.. [T]he general advancement of the productive powers of
labor in all sovereign states, most emphatically so-called
developing nations, requires global emphasis on: a) increasing
globally the percentiles of the labor force employed in
scientific research and related functions of research and
development … b) increasing the absolute and relative scales of
capital-goods production and also
the rate of turnover in capital-goods production; and c)
combining these two factors to accelerate technological progress
in capital-goods outputs.
“Therefore, high rates of export of such capital-goods
output to meet the needs of developing nations are indispensable
for the general development of so-called developing nations: Our
common goal, and our common interest, is promoting both the
general welfare and promoting preconditions of durable peace
between our two powers….
“By supplying increased amounts of high-technology capital
goods to developing nations, the exporting economies foster
increased rates of turnover in their own most advanced
capital-goods sectors of production….
“The importer of such advanced capital goods increases the
productive powers of labor in the economy of the importing
nation. This enables the importing nation to produce its goods at
a lower average social cost, and enables it to provide
better-quality and cheaper goods as goods of payment to the
nations exporting capital goods.
“Not only are the causes of simple humanity and general
peace served by such policies of practice; the arrangement is
equally beneficial to exporting and importing nations….
.”.. [T]he general rate of advancement of the productive
powers of labor is most efficiently promoted by no other policy
of practice.”
Then a little later in the report, he reviews the situation
of strategic tensions between the USSR and the United States.  He
says:
“Since the rupture of the wartime alliance between the two
powers, U.S. military policy toward the Soviet Union has passed
through two phases. The first, from the close of the war until a
point beyond the death of Joseph Stalin, was preparation for the
contingency of what was sometimes named ‘preventive nuclear war.’
The second, emerging over the period from the death of Stalin
into the early period of the administration of President John F.
Kennedy, was based on the doctrines of Nuclear Deterrence and
Flexible Response …
“From approximately 1963 until approximately 1977, it might
have appeared, as it appeared to many, that the doctrines of
Nuclear Deterrence and Flexible Response had succeeded in
preserving a state of restive peace, something called ‘détente,’
between the two powers. This appearance was deceptive; during the
period 1977-83, there was an accelerating deterioration in the
military relationships between the two powers….
“Beginning shortly after the inauguration of President Jimmy
Carter, the deterioration of the military situation
accelerated….
“In response to this direction of developments, the U.S.
public figure Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. proposed that both powers
develop, deploy, and agree to develop and deploy ‘strategic’
defensive, anti-ballistic-missile defense based on ‘new physical
principles.’ This proposal was issued publicly by LaRouche
beginning February 1982; he proposed to U.S.A., Western European,
and Soviet representatives that the development and deployment of
such strategic defensive systems be adopted policy, as a means
for escaping from the ‘logic’ of Nuclear Deterrence….
.”.. The true solution must be found in the domain of
politics and economics, and the further shaping of military
relations between the powers must produce military policies by
each coherent with the direction of development of the needed
political and economic solutions….
“On the part of the United States of America, the government
is committed to avoiding all colonial, imperial, or kindred
endeavors in foreign policy, and to establish, instead, a growing
community of principle among fully sovereign nation-states of
this planet. This shall become a community of principle coherent
with the policies of the articles of this draft memorandum. If
any force should endeavor to destroy that community of principle,
or any member of that community of sovereign nations, the United
States will be prepared to defend that community and its members
by means of warfare, should other means prove insufficient. With
respect to the Soviet Union, the government of the United States
offers the Soviet Union cooperation with itself in service of
these principles, and desires that the Soviet Union might enter
fully into participation within that community of principle….
“Under these conditions, provided that all nations share in
development of the frontiers of scientific research, in
laboratories, and in educational institutions, all nations will
be made capable of assimilating efficiently the technological
by-product benefits of the military expenditures on systems
derived from application of ‘new physical principles.’
“To lend force to this policy, the powers agree to establish
new institutions of cooperation between themselves and other
nations in development of these new areas of scientific
breakthrough for application to exploration of space.
“To this purpose, the powers agree to establish at the
earliest possible time institutions for cooperation in scientific
exploration of space, and to also co-sponsor treaty-agreements
protecting national and multinational programs for colonization
of the Moon and Mars.
“At some early time, the powers shall enter into
deliberations, selecting dates for initial manned colonization of
the Moon and Mars, and the establishment of international space
stations on the Moon and in the orbits of Moon and Mars, stations
to be maintained by and in the common interest and use of space
parties of all nations.
“The powers jointly agree upon the adoption of two tasks as
the common interest of mankind, as well as the specific interest
of each of the two powers: 1) The establishment of full economic
equity respecting the conditions of individual life in all
nations of this planet during a period of not more than 50 years;
2) Man’s exploration and colonization of nearby space as the
continuing common objective and interest of mankind during and
beyond the completion of the first task. The adoption of these
two working-goals as the common task and respective interest in
common of the two powers and other cooperating nations,
constitutes the central point of reference for erosion of the
potential political and economic causes of warfare between the
powers.”
That was known as the “LaRouche Doctrine,” published March
30, 1984.  As you can see, what Lyndon LaRouche outlined in that
document was the basis for exactly what we’re calling now a new
international economic and strategic architecture.  In fact, the
one requires the other.  You cannot have a new strategic
architecture without resolving what Lyndon LaRouche characterized
as the root causes behind the conflict between these nations; the
persisting inequalities between nations.  And you cannot have the
kind of cooperation needed for the common, mutual economic
development and the application of these groundbreaking new
physical principles and the technologies that are derived from
those, without the establishment of a new international economic
order.  Elsewhere in that document, Mr. LaRouche described
exactly how such an economic order must take place; with fixed
exchange rates between currencies, massive credits — both
domestically within countries for the upgrading of the
technological and infrastructure platforms within those nations
— but also, international credit treaty agreements in the form
of what he originally described in 1971 as the International
Development Bank, or the IDB.
As you can see, and I think any astute reader of that
document now, almost 35 years later, that document laid the basis
for what we now see as the so-called “win-win” new economic
paradigm.  This idea of the common benefit of all; mutual
cooperation for joint development; the upgrading of the so-called
“developing” nations, which were still suffering under the
effects of colonialism and post-colonial policy.  So, when
President Xi Jinping of China speaks about “win-win” economic
development and a new community of nations with a shared destiny,
I think that the echoes couldn’t be more clear of what Lyndon
LaRouche himself was describing at that time in the middle of the
1980s, almost 35 years ago today.  When Xi Jinping offers the
United States to join this new “win-win” system, the Belt and
Road Initiative, which is already resolving these persisting
inequalities that the world has been suffering, such as in Africa
or Central and South America.  Or, when President Putin offers to
“sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and
relevant system of international security and sustainable
development for human civilization,” we should reflect on what
was laid in that document.  That LaRouche Doctrine now almost 35
years ago today, in the wake of that history-changing
announcement by President Ronald Reagan, at which he called a
spade a spade.  The world could no longer survive under the
dictatorship of Mutually Assured Destruction; that reign of
terror that President Kennedy characterized as the Sword of
Damocles hanging by the slenderest of threads over every man,
woman, and child on this planet, threatening nuclear
annihilation.  What Lyndon LaRouche characterized at that moment
as the “LaRouche Doctrine” is the principle behind the new
economic and new security architecture which must be adopted on
this planet today.  Not as a recipe, not taking everything
exactly as it was said, because clearly of course, the world has
changed; and we must apply the principles that lay at the root of
exactly what Lyndon LaRouche had in mind when he proposed the
Strategic Defense Initiative and when he proposed the subsequent
LaRouche Doctrine, and apply those to evolve necessarily to fit
the specific conditions of today.
One thing that Lyndon LaRouche alluded to explicitly in that
document, was the need for joint cooperation in the colonization
and exploration of space.  In fact, that is the form that the
idea of a revived SDI has actually been taken.  The proposal for
not an SDI, but what’s now called an SDE — the Strategic Defense
of Earth — to literally re-tool the strategic nuclear weapons
with these massive payloads that have been accumulated by the
United States, Russia, also other nations — China and India and
other nations.  To re-tool those nuclear weapons and also the
delivery systems, these high-power intercontinental ballistic
missiles, and also the new technologies that Russia has just
announced.  To re-tool these technologies and have what were
offensive weapons become defensive tools against asteroids and
other threats to planet Earth which we may encounter from outer
space.  While this was proposed under that name, the SDE, by
certain individuals inside Russia about five years ago,
coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the original SDI speech.
What this originally actually came out of, had its origins in the
late 1980s and the early 1990s with the scientist Dr. Edward
Teller.  Teller was actually one of the leading scientific
advisors of President Reagan in the 1980s around the SDI
initiative, but following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Dr.
Edward Teller travelled to Russia and visited some of the leading
science cities that had been involved in developing nuclear
weapons and their delivery systems.  He met with some of the
leading former Soviet scientists, the Russian scientists, and
proposed exactly this.  He proposed the idea of the United States
and Russia saying the Cold War is over; let’s now cease this
policy of aiming our nuclear missiles one against the other, and
let’s now aim them against the common threats that mankind as a
whole faces.  Especially with the latest news of an asteroid
which poses a credible threat — what’s called a “non-zero
threat” — to the Earth in the foreseeable future, which was
just discussed in the  media over the past week, this proposal is
all the more timely and all the more relevant today.
So, what I’d like is to just play an excerpt from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s international webcast that she delivered
yesterday.  She takes up exactly this idea, so here’s an excerpt
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I think that the SDI proposal,
which was absolutely not what the media made out of it, calling
it “Star Wars,” and things like that, the SDI proposal of my
husband, Lyndon LaRouche was an absolutely farsighted vision of a
New Paradigm!  And if you read the relevant papers about it,
especially the proposed draft for a dialogue among the
superpowers, which was published one year later, which you can
find in the archives or in the newer {EIR}s. This was a vision
where both superpowers would develop together, new physical
principles which would make nuclear weapons obsolete.  And I
think what Putin announced on March 1st in terms of new physical
principles applied for new weapons systems, is absolutely is in
this tradition. And Putin also asked, now they have to sit down
and we have to negotiate and put together a new security
architecture, including Russia, the United States, China, and the
Europeans.
This was all envisioned by my husband in this famous SDI
proposal, and it was a very far-reaching to dissolve the blocs,
NATO and the Warsaw Pact,  to cooperate instead among sovereign
republics, which is exactly what the New Silk Road dynamic today
represents. And it was also the idea to use a science-driver in
the economy to use the increased productivity of the real economy
for a gigantic technology transfer to the developing sector, in
order to overcome their underdevelopment and poverty.
And this is what we’re seeing today, also, in the
collaboration between China, Russia, and the countries that are
participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.
So I think, in a certain sense, part of this danger of peace
breaking out, that there is right now the very vivid tradition
and actualization of that tradition of the SDI, and I think we
should circulate this proposal by my husband again.  I think we
should enlarge it to become the SDE, the Strategic Defense of the
Earth, because it was just discovered that very soon, another big
asteroid is already taking course on the planet Earth. So we need
to move quickly to the common aims of mankind, and all countries
should cooperate and be a shared community for the one future of
humanity.
This is the New Paradigm which I think is so obvious.  I
mean, if you look at the long arc of history, we {have} to
overcome geopolitics and we have to move to a kind of cooperation
where we put all our forces together to solve those questions
which are a challenge to all of humanity — nuclear weapons,
poverty, asteroids — there are so many areas where we could
fruitfully cooperate — space exploration is one of them.  And I
think we are in a very fascinating moment in history, but we need
more active citizens.  So please contact us, work with us, and
let’s together make a better world.

OGDEN:  So, that was Helga LaRouche’s call to action, and I
think that’s a perfect concluding point for our webcast today, as
we observe this very auspicious date — March 23rd — the 35th
anniversary of President Reagan’s groundbreaking speech
announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative.  Let’s take that
kind of sense of victory and the optimism that indeed, ideas can
change the course of history, and consolidate this New Paradigm;
this new security architecture and new economic architecture for
the planet.  The opportunity is greater than it ever has been
before; but the need is ever more dire.
Thank you for joining me, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 20. marts, 2018 – Præsident Trump har netop trukket tæppet væk under den skøre lady, Theresa May, og den endnu mere skøre udenrigsminister Boris Johnson. Alt imens disse afdankede forsvarere af det døende, britiske imperium beskylder Rusland for krigshandlinger, beskyldninger, der typisk ikke er baseret på nogen beviser, ringede Trump i dag og talte med den netop genvalgte præsident Vladimir Putin. Trump ikke alene lykønskede Putin for hans valgsejr, men annoncerede til den amerikanske presse, at han og Putin »sandsynligvis vil mødes i en ikke så fjern fremtid« for at diskutere forholdsregler for at forhindre et våbenkapløb og finde fredelige løsninger på kriserne i Ukraine, Syrien og Nordkorea. Kremls udskrift af samtalen lød, at de to ledere »talte for at udvikle praktisk samarbejde inden for forskellige felter, inkl. bestræbelser for at sikre strategisk stabilitet og bekæmpe internatonal terrorisme, med særlig vægt på betydningen af koordinerede bestræbelser på at begrænse et våbenkapløb.« Kreml tilføjede: »Samtalen om økonomisk samarbejde afslørede en interesse i at styrke det. Energi blev diskuteret særskilt.«

Her til aften vil briterne bide i gulvtæppet. Ikke alene har Trump ødelagt deres kneb med at beskylde Rusland for et kemisk krigsangreb på britisk jord; men også svindelnummeret med »Russiagate« i USA, som køres direkte af MI6-agenten Christopher Steele og hans agenter internt i USA, er kollapset. Nu står aktørerne i dette kupforsøg mod den amerikanske regering – inkl. John Brennan, James Clapper, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton og flere nyligt fyrede FBI-operatører – over for mulige anklager om kriminelle handlinger for det mest åbenlyse forræderi i moderne amerikansk historie, alt sammen på vegne af Det britiske Imperium.

For at gøre det hele værre for den ynkelige, håbefulde »M« og hendes kohorte, har »BoJo«-Labour-leder Jeremy Corbyn, der efter al sandsynlighed ville vinde et valg mod May, hvis det blev afholdt nu, krævet, at May fremlægger beviser (hvis der eksisterer nogen) for den nervegift, der blev brugt i Skripal-angrebet, over for russerne og (ligesom præsident Trump) insisteret på, at forhandlinger med russerne er absolut nødvendigt. I et BBC-interview her til morgen mindede han også landet om de katastrofale resultater af Tony Blairs tidligere forfalskede efterretninger om Iraks masseødelæggelsesvåben.

Og, for lige at banke sømmet dybere ind, så bekræftede talsperson for Det Hvide Hus Sarah Sanders, at nervegiftangrebet i UK slet ikke blev nævnt i telefonsamtalen mellem Trump og Putin!

Det nye paradigme er ved at komme i fokus på globalt plan: ikke alene lykønskede Trump Putin med at vinde seks år mere på posten, men sagde også, at det var godt, at Kina har ophævet begrænsninger af embedsperioder – for, sagde han, Xi Jinping er en storslået leder.

I dag talte Xi Jinping for den afsluttende forsamling i den 13. Nationale Folkekongres og udtrykte tillid til, at den kinesiske foryngelse vil fortsætte og ekspandere, med Kina, der bidrager endnu mere til global regeringsførelse og global udvikling gennem den Nye Silkevej. »Lad solskinnet fra et fællesskab for en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden oplyse verden«, sluttede han.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i dag, at præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi viser sandt lederskab for verden, alt imens Det britiske Imperiums desperate handlinger er begyndt at give bagslag. Tidligere har britiske imperieintriger været støttet af svage, amerikanske ledere, der endda stillede sig i spidsen for håndhævelse af britisk politik, som i krigen i Indokina, Irakkrigen og krigen i Libyen, samt i de radikale politikker for det ’frie marked’, som holdt de tidligere koloninationer økonomisk tilbagestående samtidig med at ødelægge de industrialiserede nationer i Europa og Nordamerika.

Men Trump har nægtet at lade sig udnytte af den »særlige relation« og har i stedet fremført, at imperieopdelingen i Øst og Vest skal være forbi. I sin besejring af kupmagerne kan han også gennemføre sit løfte om at vende USA tilbage til det Amerikanske System for fysisk økonomi og opgive den fejlslagne, britiske »frie markedsmodel« til fordel for en dirigeret kreditpolitik i Hamiltons tradition til genopbygning af Amerikas industrielle infrastruktur. Situationen er stadig ekstremt farlig, men aldrig har vi været så tæt på at afslutte selve eksistensen af Imperium, én gang for alle.

Foto: Trump og Putin hilser på hinanden på APEC-topmødets første dag. 10. nov., 2017, De Nang, Vietnam. 

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

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

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 14. marts, 2018 – Først var det Tony Blairs »uvederhæftige dossier« om Saddam Husseins masseødelæggelsesvåben, som udløste, at den ynkelige George W. Bush forvandlede hele Mellemøsten (med Obamas hjælp) til et helvedeshul af terrorister. Dernæst kom påstande om Bashar Assads brug af kemiske våben, som narrede Trump til at gennemføre et missilangreb mod en syrisk flyvebase. Så kom britisk efterretningsagent Christopher Steeles eget »uvederhæftige dossier«, der lancerede et forsøg på regimeskifte mod USA’s regering, baseret på eventyrfortællinger om Trump og Rusland. Nu erklærer Theresa May, typisk uden beviser, at der »ikke er nogen alternativ konklusion«, men at den »russiske stat« er ansvarlig for angrebet med nervegift i London-området Salisbury, »en ulovlig magtanvendelse mod Det forenede Kongerige«. Vi må alle forenes mod de onde russere, hyler May og hendes kontrollers.

Det er alt sammen selvindlysende nonsens, men der er desperation i Det britiske Imperium. I 50 år har Lyndon LaRouche dokumenteret Det britiske Imperiums historiske had mod De forenede Stater og den systemiske overtagelse af den amerikanske regerings politik gennem Wall Street og andre aktiver, i kølvandet på FDR’s død og mordet på JFK. Få lyttede. »Det britiske Imperium er dødt«, lod man os ofte vide, efterfulgt af en påstand om, at det eneste imperium i dag er Det russiske Imperium, eller Det amerikanske Imperium, afhængigt af, hvilket af Det britiske Imperiums kontrollerede miljøer, man valgte at bo i.

Men det fungerer ikke så nemt denne gang. Londonavisen Guardian viste i dag graden af panik i Imperiet. Lederartiklen lyder: »UK arbejdede hårdt hele dagen i Washington for at overtale Trump til at skubbe sit ønske om et forhold til Putin til side og indse, at Rusland var det eneste land, der havde midlerne og motivet til at søge at dræbe Skripal«, den russiske dobbeltagent for MI6, som sammen med sin datter i sidste uge blev ramt af et angreb med nervegift. Men, klynker de, »Trump tilbød kun en modstræbende accept af det britiske tilfælde, men tilskrev ikke direkte Rusland ansvaret … Det ville være et slag mod de angloamerikanske relationer, hvis Trump nægtede at acceptere den britiske efterretningsvurdering, men siden sit valg har han følt sig under belejring pga. beskyldninger om, at han havde indgået et aftalt spil med Rusland for at vinde præsidentskabet, og han mener, at tidligere, britiske efterretningsofficerer har næret disse beskyldninger.«

Det gør han så sandelig, og denne bestræbelse på at bruge løgne, brygget sammen af MI6, for at bringe hans præsidentskab til fald, er nu blevet godt og grundigt miskrediteret. De tidligere efterretningsfolk fra Obamas tid, som bragte disse britiske løgne til torvs, er blevet taget på fersk gerning i at køre et forræderisk angreb mod den amerikanske regering, og de kunne (og burde) snart havne i fængsel.

Premierminister May har heller ikke bare frit løb internt i UK. Det bliver i stigende grad sandsynligt, at leder af Labour-partiet Jeremy Corbyn ville vinde et valg, hvis det kommer dertil, som det kunne, og Torierne sakker bagud i meningsmålingerne over de forestående lokalvalg. I dag udfordrede Corbyn direkte Mays handlinger mod Rusland i parlamentet og spurgte, om hun ville følge reglerne i Organisationen for forbud mod kemiske våben, OPCW, og give Rusland prøver på den nervegift og vente de krævede ti dage. May råbte op om, at hun havde givet russerne tid nok, og at der var konsensus fra alle menige i parlamentet om, at Corbyn trådte ved siden af, og at hun ville udvise 23 russiske diplomater. Med en manøvre, der nok skal jage russerne en skræk i livet, annoncerede hun ligeledes, at kongefamilien ikke ville deltage i World Cup i Rusland.

Men de britiske oligarkers frygt er legitim. Imperiet vil ikke overleve, at USA, Rusland, Kina, Afrika, Latinamerika – og endda befolkningerne i Europa og UK – kommer sammen i det nye paradigme, repræsenteret af den Nye Silkevejsånd. Disse oligarker er villige til at løbe risikoen for en atomkrig for at forhindre dette nye paradigme, men deres tid er ved at være forbi. Dette er et øjeblik med et stort potentiale, hvis den menneskelige race lever op til lejligheden.

Foto: George W. Bush og Tony Blair udveksler håndtryk efter at have modtaget besked om, at Coalition Provisional Authority havde genetableret fuld suverænitet i Irak og overført kontrol over nationen til den midlertidige irakiske regering, 28. juni, 2004. 

Vært Matthew Ogden: I sidste uge dækkede vi det, Helga Zepp-LaRouche karakteriserede som et »Sputnik-chok«, med den russiske præsident Putins annoncering af en helt ny generation af strategiske våben, som gør alle ballistiske missilsystemer impotente og forældede, kunne man sige, for på en noget ironisk vis at låne et udtryk fra præsident Reagan. Disse nye våbensystemer, der nu er blevet testet og bevist af det russiske militær, reflekterer et virkeligt gennembrud i fysisk videnskab; det må man ikke se bort fra. Nye anvendelser af højt avancerede principper, såsom Mach 20 hypersonisk flyvning; fremdrift ved atomkraft i miniatureformat; styret laserteknologi; plasmaer, styresystemer; listen fortsætter. De har alle fuldstændig ændret den strategiske spillebane. Som vi fastslog sidste mandag, så har Putins annoncering på meget dramatisk vis lagt den omgående nødvendige skabelse af en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur frem på bordet; en sikkerhedsarkitektur, der ikke er baseret på strategiske magtbalancer som under den Kolde Krig og gensidigt garanteret ødelæggelse (MAD-doktrinen), men én, der i stedet er baseret på gensidigt garanteret udvikling og win-win-samarbejde. Dette anerkendes på forskellig vis af ledende personer i USA og andetsteds, og dette adresseres meget, meget direkte af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som fastslog denne pointe og krævede denne nye sikkerhedsarkitektur i sin internationale webcast i fredags. Her er, hvad Helga Zepp-LaRouche havde at sige:

»Tiden er inde til at gøre det, udenrigsminister Lavrov og præsident Putin begge har opfordret til – at sætte sig sammen ved forhandlingsbordet om en ny, global sikkerhedsarkitektur, som garanterer alles sikkerhed; USA, Rusland, Kina, Europa og naturligvis også mindre lande som de to Korea’er og mange andre lande, der stadig har mange problemer.

Øjeblikket er virkelig kommet for en komplet ændring af den strategiske organisation mellem nationer, for at satse på en global sikkerhedsarkitektur og gøre det, min mand foreslog med SDI, for sluttelig at gøre atomvåben teknologisk forældede. For, denne kurs, der kunne føre til den menneskelige arts udslettelse, må virkelig absolut forsvinde for evigt.«

Det, hun selvfølgelig refererer til, er de termonukleare våbens konstant stigende destruktive kraft, som kunne udslette ikke alene menneskeligt liv, men alt liv på Jorden, flere gange, hvis disse våben nogensinde faktisk blev brugt.

Den selv samme dag, hvor præsident Putin kom med denne annoncering i sin årlige tale til den føderale forsamling, havde han tilfældigvis et interview med Megyn Kelly på programmet.[1] Hun var tidligere hos Fox og er nu hos NBC News; og naturligvis dominerede præsident Putins overraskelsesmeddelelse hovedparten af interviewet og gav ham en chance for at uddybe netop dette punkt, nemlig de presserende nødvendige, åbne og ærlige forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland og skabelsen af en eller anden form for ny sikkerhedsarkitektur. Hvor NBC kun udsendte en forkortet og meget redigeret version af dette interview, så blev det komplette udskrift af interviewet imidlertid offentliggjort, og det er vigtigt at høre et par uddrag af denne diskussion om dette spørgsmål, hvad præsident Putin sagde om dette spørgsmål:

Putin: »Alt det, jeg talte om i dag, skete ikke på vores initiativ; det er en respons på USA’s ballistiske missilforsvarsprogram og Washingtons ensidige opsigelse af den Antiballistiske Missiltraktat (ABM) i 2002. Hvis vi taler om våbenkapløbet, så begyndte den i det øjeblik, hvor USA trak sig ud af ABM-traktaten. Vi ønskede at forhindre dette. Vi opfordrede vore amerikanske partnere til, at vi arbejdede sammen om disse programmer. For det første bad vi dem om ikke at trække sig ud at traktaten, ikke at ødelægge den. Men USA trak sig ud. Det var ikke os, der gjorde dette, men USA. Alligevel foreslog vi igen, at vi samarbejdede, selv efter dette. Jeg sagde til min daværende kollega, ’Forestil dig, hvad der ville ske, hvis Rusland og USA slog kræfterne sammen i det afgørende område for strategisk sikkerhed. Verden ville ændre sig i lang tid fremover, og niveauet af global sikkerhed ville nå op på sit hidtil højeste.’ Vær venlig at lytte til mig og bring videre til jeres lyttere, hvad jeg nu vil sige. Vi holder diskussioner med vore amerikanske venner og partnere, folk, der i øvrigt repræsenterer regeringen, og når de påstår, at nogle russere blandede sig i de amerikanske valg, siger vi til dem – det gjorde vi for ikke så længe siden på et forholdsvist højt niveau: ’Men I blander jer konstant i vores politiske liv’. Vil I tro det, de benægter det ikke engang.

Ved du, hvad de sagde til os sidste gang? De sagde, ’Jo, vi blander os, men det har vi ret til, for vi spreder demokrati, og det gør I ikke, og derfor kan I ikke gøre det.’

Mener du, det er en civiliseret og moderne fremgangsmåde i internationale anliggender?

I går talte vi to om atomvåben, og om, at da USA og Sovjetunionen først indså, at de var på vej mod mulig gensidig ødelæggelse, så aftalte de regler for opførsel inden for sikkerhedssfæren, i betragtning af, at masseødelæggelsesvåben var tilgængelige …

Det er stadig uvist, hvad den amerikanske politik over for Rusland vil være under den nuværende administration.

Mange ting er fortsat uafklaret, eftersom det endnu ikke har været muligt for os at etablere normale kontakter.

Det står imidlertid absolut klart, at den nuværende amerikanske præsident vedtog en specifik holdning med hensyn til indenrigspolitikken og besluttede at række ud til de mennesker, der var parat til at støtte hans kampagneløfter. Dette førte til hans valgsejr, og ikke en eller anden form for udefrakommende indblanding …

Jeg mener, han er en erfaren person, en forretningsmand med stor erfaring, og han forstår, at, hvis man må gå i partnerskab med nogen, så må man behandle sin fremtidige eller nuværende partner med respekt, i modsat fald vil intet komme ud af det. Jeg mener, at dette er en rent pragmatisk fremgangsmåde … Selv om dette er hans første embedsperiode som præsident, så lærer han hurtigt, og han forstår ganske udmærket, at udveksling af beskyldninger eller fornærmelser på vores niveau er en vej, der ikke fører nogen steder hen. Det ville kun betyde at fratage vore lande deres sidste chance for en dialog, simpelt hen den sidste chance. Dette ville være yderst beklageligt … Hør her, Rusland og USA bør sætte sig ned og gennemdiskutere det for at sætte tingene på plads. Det er mit indtryk, at dette er, hvad den nuværende præsident ønsker, men han bliver forhindret i at gøre det af visse kræfter. Men vi er parat til at diskutere ethvert spørgsmål, det være sig spørgsmål relateret til missiler, cyberspace eller kontraterrorbestræbelser.

Vi er parat til dette når som helst. Men USA må også være parat til det.

Den tid vil komme, hvor den politiske elite i USA vil blive tvunget af den offentlige mening til at gå i denne retning.

Vi er parate i samme øjeblik, vore partnere er parate.«

Ogden: Jeg mener, at dette er et meget direkte tilbud om, at USA og Rusland kunne sætte sig sammen og genåbne denne form for strategiske diskussioner, som var blevet lukket ned i den følgende periode af Bush-administrationen og især, absolut taget af bordet under Obama-administrationen.

Denne annoncering fra præsident Putin har interessant nok haft en virkning med at vække nogle mennesker her i USA, inkl. folk, der tidligere havde givet sig selv lov til at blive revet med i hele dette Russiagate-hysteri à la McCarthy-tiden, og som absolut bragte os til et punkt for meget farlig konfrontation. Her kommer et eksempel: En erklæring er blevet offentliggjort af nogle ledende, Demokratiske senatorer, der kræver den omgående indledning af nye, strategiske forhandlinger med Rusland. Disse senatorer er Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Dianne Feinstein og Ed Markey, som man ser af denne pressemeddelelse, som blev udlagt på senator Markeys webside. Her kommer et uddrag af, hvad denne pressemeddelelse siger:

»Midt i en forhøjet spændingstilstand over for Rusland, opfordrede de følgende senatorer Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) og Bernie Sanders (I-VT) indtrængende udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson til at indlede en ny runde af strategiske forhandlinger med Rusland, uden tøven:

Kære udenrigsminister Tillerson:

Vi skriver for at indtrængende at opfordre Udenrigsministeriet til at sammenkalde til den næste Strategiske Dialog mellem USA og Rusland så snart som muligt. En Strategisk Dialog mellem USA og Rusland er mere presserende nødvendig i kølvandet på præsident Putins offentlige tale den 1. marts, hvor han refererede til flere nye atomvåben, som Rusland angiveligt er i færd med at udvikle, inklusive et krydsermissil og en atomundervandsdrone, og som i øjeblikket ikke er begrænset af New START-traktaten, og som ville være destabiliserende, om deployeret.

USA bør som hastesag engagere i dialog med Rusland for at undgå fejlberegninger og mindske sandsynligheden for en konflikt …

Der er ingen garanti for, at vi kan gøre fremskridt med Rusland om disse spørgsmål. Men selv på højdepunktet af spændinger under den Kolde Krig var USA og Sovjetunionen i stand til at gå ind i en i dialog om spørgsmål om strategisk stabilitet.

Ledere fra begge lande mente, som vi også bør i dag, at atomvåbens utrolige, destruktive kræfter er grund nok til at gøre enhver indsats for at mindske chancen for, at de nogensinde igen vil blive brugt.«

Ogden: Dette er selvfølgelig særdeles signifikant og er en refleksion af det faktum, at Putins annoncering er kommet som en slags alarmopkald. Andre ledende personer har genlydt af den samme alarm; prof. Stephen Cohen har sagt, at vi omgående må indlede denne form for strategiske forhandlinger med Rusland; hr. Ray McGovern har fastslået samme pointe i en artikel, der blev udgivet på ConsortiumNews. Men jeg mener, at det faktum, at disse fire, Demokratiske senatorer har udstedt dette krav, bør ses som et meget signifikant, potentielt brud i hele denne kontrollerede narrativ, som er blevet påtvunget Washington, og især det Demokratiske Parti. Og alt imens Demokraterne har givet sig selv lov at falde ind i denne form for partiske spil og er blevet overtaget i de seneste måneder af denne Obama-Hillary-krigsmagermentalitet; på trods af dette, og på trods af hele denne igangværende Russiagate-narrativ, så har præsident Trump fortsat fastholdt sin overbevisning om, at samarbejde med Rusland og med Kina, for den sags skyld, ville være ’en meget god ting, ikke en dårlig ting’, med hans ord. Der er virkelig reelle kriser, som denne planet konfronteres med lige nu, som kun kan løses gennem denne form for samarbejde mellem stormagterne, og ikke ensidigt gennem et enkelt lands handlinger. Et eksempel er antiterror-styrken, som præsident Putin har opfordret til i form af en alliance mellem USA, Rusland og andre lande for faktisk at bekæmpe international terrorisme; eller, et andet fremragende eksempel, og som nu giver gevinst, er det, præsident Trump har været i stand til at opnå gennem samarbejde med Kina og hans direkte relation til præsident Xi Jinping inden for området for at fremme muligheden for fred på Koreahalvøen i en grad, der går langt længere end vi har set i årtier.

Følg resten af Matthew Ogdens opdatering på videoen. Vi kan desværre ikke udlægge et engelsk udskrift.  

 

 

[1] Se https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mhi_AyQAyw

11. marts, 2018 – Otteogtres medlemmer af Obama-administrationen har dannet en organisation, National Security Action, (som måske burde hedde »68’erne«), der har til formål at ødelægge præsident Donald Trump og stå i spidsen for en mobilisering for krig mod Rusland og Kina. De har tydeligvis set skriften på væggen og er desperate for at trodse skæbnegudinderne.

Med fælles formandskab bestående af Ben Rhodes (Obamas nationale vicesikkerhedsrådgiver) og Jake Sullivan (viceassistent til Obama og Hillary Clintons chefrådgiver), overlader websiden ikke meget til fantasien:

* »At rette et skarpt lys mod Trump-administrationens ansvarsløse politikker, understrege deres farlige konsekvenser og udstyre amerikanerne med argumenter til at imødegå dem.«

* »Under præsident Trumps ansvarsløse lederskab står USA svagere i verden, er mindre sikkert og mere isoleret. Han trækker USA tilbage fra verdensscenen, underminerer vore efterretningstjenester og retshåndhævelsesorganisationer, der bevarer vores sikkerhed, underminerer det diplomati, der forhindrer krige, fornærmer vore allierede, angriber demokratiske traditioner og slesker for diktatorer og opgiver samtidig Amerikas forpligtelse over for universelle rettigheder og menneskeværd. Hans udbrud på Twitter har en destabiliserende virkning i udlandet og er under vort lands højeste embedes værdighed. Impulsiv, uberegnelig og rystende uvidende om, hvordan verden fungerer, er Trump uegnet til at lede vore mænd og kvinder i uniform, og han forringer vort lands anseelse i verdens øjne.«

* »I stedet for at afslutte Amerikas krige, fører han vort militær dybere ud i dyndet i udenlandske konflikter, uden at have nogen strategi eller planer for at nedtrappe dem.«

* »Præsident Trumps uberegnelige opførsel har øget risikoen for en katastrofal konflikt med Nordkorea [bemærk, at dette blev offentliggjort én uge før gennembruddet med fred i Korea! -LPAC’s red.], og hans trussel om at omstøde atomaftalen med Iran er en invitation til endnu en atomkrise eller krig i Mellemøsten. Ved at trække USA ud af Paris-klimaaftalen, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) og internationale organisationer – ofte imod indvendinger fra sit eget nationale sikkerhedsteam – overlader han kappen for global forvaltning til konkurrenter som Kina, som ikke deler vore interesser eller værdier.«

* »Med hans angreb mod vore demokratiske institutioner har præsident Trump forrådt vore grundlæggende idealer – som er blevet holdt i hævd af Republikanske og Demokratiske præsidenter før ham – heriblandt vore forfatningsmæssige friheder, retsstatsprincippet og opbakning til universelle værdier. På hjemmefronten sætter han den frie presse i fare ved at angribe journalister, truer retsstatsprincippet ved at angribe dommere og FBI og forsøger at unddrage sig at stå til regnskab ved at blande sig i efterforskninger.«

* »I stedet for at konfrontere Vladimir Putin over dennes skamløse og fortsatte angreb mod vort demokrati, bukker Trump for Moskvas luner samtidig med, at han underminerer efterforskninger af sine egne, skjulte finansinteresser. I stedet for at hævde sig over for Kina, så fik Trumps familieforetagender særlige aftaler, efter Trump mødtes med den kinesiske præsident.«

* »Ingen – end ikke præsidenten – står over loven, og de, der overtræder forfatningen eller begår forbrydelser, må stilles til regnskab. Vi arbejder også sammen med Kongressen for at gøre det, præsident Trump og hans parti ikke vil: konfrontere Rusland for dets fortsatte angreb mod vort demokrati og opbygge vort forsvar til at beskytte vor nation imod krænkelser mod vor suverænitet.«

68’erne er en ’blå bog’ over besætningen i Obama-administrationen og deres medløbere, inklusive:

Rand Beers, Tony Blinken, Barbara Boxen, Nicholas Burns, Kurt Campbell, Joe Cirincione, Brian Deese, Tom Donilon, Michele Flounoy, dr. Colin Kahl (som fik Nunes-spørgsmålene i sidste uge), Samantha Power, Penny Pritzker, Susan E. Rice, Wendy R. Sherman, Anne-Marie Slaughter og Jim Steinberg.

Foto: Daværende nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump, venstre, og tidligere præsident Barack Obama, ankommer til Trumps indsættelsesceremoni i Capitol i Washington, D.C., USA, 20. januar, 2017.

9. marts, 2018 – Fire amerikanske senatorer opfordrede, i et brev af 8. marts, indtrængende Trump-administrationen til at indlede en ny runde forhandlinger om strategi med Rusland, uden tøven.

Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov responderede allerede i dag, fra sit besøg til Etiopien, og sagde, »Vi er altid gået ind for yderligere dialog om strategisk stabilitet mellem Rusland og USA«.

De fire senatorer, Edward Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) og Bernie Sanders (I-VT), skrev til udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson, »En amerikansk-russisk strategisk dialog er mere presserende nødvendig efter præsident Putins tale den 1. marts, hvor han refererede til flere nye atomvåben, som Rusland angiveligt skulle være i færd med at udvikle, inklusive et krydsermissil og en atomundervandsdrone, der i øjeblikket ikke er nogen begrænsninger for iflg. New START-traktaten, og som ville være destabiliserende, om deployeret.«

Senatorernes brev anerkendte, at USA har uoverensstemmelser med Rusland mht. flere spørgsmål, inklusive angivelige overtrædelser af Traktaten om Mellemdistanceraketter og Atomvåbenprogrammer (INF-traktaten indgået mellem Reagan og Gorbatjov, -red.); angivelig russisk indblanding i amerikanske valg og udenrigspolitiske spørgsmål: »Det er imidlertid som følge af disse politiske splittelser, og ikke på trods af dem, at USA som en presserende nødvendighed bør gå i dialog med Rusland for at undgå fejlberegninger og mindske sandsynligheden for konflikt«, skrev senatorerne.

Brevet fortsætter, at INF-traktaten kan løse en angivelig »krænkelse fra Ruslands side gennem eksisterende bestemmelser i traktaten eller nye, gensidigt acceptable bestemmelser«. Brevet erklærer også, at den Nye START-traktat, som trådte i kraft i 2011, og som indeholder bestemmelser om tusinder af dataudvekslinger og on-site inspektioner, »også kunne regulere to af de nye våbentyper, som præsident Putin refererede til den 1. marts«.

Brevet slutter: »Der er ingen garanti for, at vi kan opnå fremskridt med Rusland om disse spørgsmål. Men selv på højdepunktet af den Kolde Krig var USA og Sovjetunionen i stand til at indgå i dialog om spørgsmål om strategisk stabilitet. Ledere fra begge lande mente, som vi også bør i dag, at atomvåbens utroligt destruktive kræfter er grund nok til at gøre enhver indsats for at mindske chancen for, at de nogensinde igen bliver brugt.«

Foto: USA’s præsident Ronald Reagan og Sovjetunionens sidste leder, Mikhail Gorbatjov, afsluttede den Kolde Krig med blandt andet INF-traktaten, der skulle fjerne mellemdistancevåben