Helga Zepp-LaRouche talte om den særdeles dystre og farlige situation i landet; det faktum, at kupoperationen er i højeste gear for at inddæmme præsident Trump til at gøre præcis det modsatte af, hvad han havde lovet (dette vil vi uddybe nærmere under den efterfølgende diskussion), og af hvilken grund han naturligvis vandt valget, nemlig, at genrejse økonomien, og specifikt at begynde med at genindføre Glass-Steagall, og dernæst at standse de forskellige krige; kort sagt, at gøre en ende på den britiske imperiepolitik.
Vært Lynne Speed: God aften. Jeg er Lynne Speed og vil være aftenens mødeleder. Det er torsdag, 24. august, 2017. Jeg vil gerne indlede aftenens telefonkonference med at citere en diskussion, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche havde i går med kolleger, og som blev yderligere understreget i deres diskussion med kolleger i dag.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche talte om den særdeles dystre og farlige situation i landet; det faktum, at kupoperationen er i højeste gear for at inddæmme præsident Trump til at gøre præcis det modsatte af, hvad han havde lovet (dette vil vi uddybe nærmere under den efterfølgende diskussion), og af hvilken grund han naturligvis vandt valget, nemlig, at genrejse økonomien, og specifikt at begynde med at genindføre Glass-Steagall, og dernæst at standse de forskellige krige; kort sagt, at gøre en ende på den britiske imperiepolitik.
Denne situation vil først og fremmest kræve vores energiske aktivitet. Og, som Helga udtrykte det, så er det afgørende spørgsmål fortsat at erstatte det gamle paradigme med det nye paradigme for udvikling og fred. Husk, at Donald Trumps valgsejr den 6. november, 2016, ikke var et nationalt spørgsmål, men derimod et internationalt spørgsmål af stor og historisk betydning. Man må se på nutidens spørgsmål ud fra menneskehedens lange, historiske bue. Faren for et Maidan II i USA er i slægt med faren i USA og Europa på Weimar-republikkens tid. Præsident Franklin Roosevelt fik USA ud af depressionen med sin New Deal, men Europa sank ned, og vi så fremkomsten af fascismen. Folk må lære af historien.
Lyndon LaRouche tilføjede følgende; han udstedte en opfordring til handling og sagde: »Jeg er dybt bekymret over den situation, vi her diskuterer. Men pointen er, at vi må påtage os ansvaret for at bakke det op, vi har talt om, og som mine medarbejdere gør. Vi må vinde dette her. USA’s fremtidige eksistens afhænger af, at vi gør vores job. Det drejer sig ikke om at komme med forslag, men om at vinde en sejr over de ting, der er i færd med at ødelægge USA og forhindre, at det udfører sin mission. Og held og lykke til os alle!«
Så dette var aftenens indledning. Vores emne her i aften er »at tænke på det niveau, der kræves for at vinde«, og vores gæst i aften er Will Wertz. Mange, der er med os i aftenens telefonkonference, er bekendt med hans arbejde. For to uger siden gav han en fremragende præsentation på Manhattan Town Meeting. (https://larouchepac.com/20170805/manhattan-town-hall-event-will-wertz)
Han har ligeledes talt på LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcasts og har givet en dybtgående fremlæggelse af briternes forræderiske rolle i deres forsøg på at underminere præsidentskabet og USA’s Forfatning. (https://larouchepac.com/20170818/charlottesville-was-staged-event
og https://larouchepac.com/20170811/larouchepac-friday-webcast-will-wertz).
Jeg vil stoppe her, og hvis du er på, Will, så fortsæt herfra, og når du er færdig, vil vi fortsætte med spørgsmål og svar.
Will Wertz: Tak, Lynne. Jeg mener, at vi må se på dette historiske øjeblik sådan, som den tyske digter, skuespilforfatter og historiker, Friedrich Schiller, så på perioden med Den franske Revolution. Han skrev et kort digt med to linjer kort tid efter Den franske Revolution, med titlen, »Øjeblikket«; og det lyder som følger: »Århundredet har affødt et stort øjeblik. Men dette store øjeblik har fundet et lille folk.« Og det er netop den udfordring, der ligger foran os på dette historiske tidspunkt: at overvinde en småtskåren tankegang og ikke lade sig opsluge af infantile besættelser, for nu at udtrykke det således. Vi er i en situation, hvor vi har potentialet til at gå fremad for en fælles skæbne for hele menneskeheden. Valget af præsident Trump, især i visse afgørende områder, repræsenterer et potentiale for, at USA kan tilslutte sig denne storslåede strategi for menneskeheden. Og som Lynne Speed netop sagde, så er der især to områder, der er afgørende. For det første, så afviste han hele politikken med regimeskifte, som vi har været involveret i, med evindelige krige, hen over de seneste par årtier, især under George W. Bush og dernæst under præsident Obama. Han afviste krigen i Irak, han kritiserede stærkt indsatsen i Libyen, der resulterede i mordet på præsident Gaddafi; han har, om end langsomt pga. angrebet på ham for hans angivelige ’aftalte spil’ med Rusland, satset på at arbejde sammen med Rusland for at besejre ISIS og al-Nusra i Syrien. Dette er meget positive udviklinger og det er selvfølgelig lydhørt over for det, præsident Putin foreslog tilbage i september 2015 på FN’s Generalforsamling, og som er en forenet, international koalition for at bekæmpe terrorisme i lighed med den koalition, der voksede frem for at besejre nazisterne under Anden Verdenskrig.
Det andet område har han i det mindste givet udtryk for sin forpligtelse til i løbet af kampagnen og siden. Det er at gennemføre Glass-Steagall, der, som de fleste mennesker ved, ville adskille legitim bankaktivitet, der er involveret i investering i reel produktion, reelle samfundstjenesteydelser, fra spekulativ bankaktivitet af kasino-typen, der har ødelagt vores økonomi. Han har ligeledes, siden han blev valgt, holdt en række taler, hvor han har krævet en tilbagevenden til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, og han har i denne sammenhæng citeret Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay og Abraham Lincoln, blandt andre. Selv her i den seneste situation i Charlottesville kom han med en udtalelse, der sagde, at måden, hvorpå de menneskelige relationer, inklusive relationerne mellem racerne, kan forbedres i dette land, er en reel forhøjelse af levestandarden for alle mennesker i landet, og det forudsætter skabelsen af produktiv beskæftigelse til en højere løn, så folk ret faktisk har råd til at forsørge en familie og har råd til at forpligte sig til en lysere fremtid for den næste generation, der, når alt kommer til alt, er én af de afgørende ting i ethvert menneskes liv; nemlig gennem sit eget liv at bidrage til at forbedre vilkårene for ens børns liv, eller, hvis man ikke selv har børn, for alle børn, for de efterlevende. Dette er altså de to områder, der virkelig er afgørende.
Med hele operationen, der går ud på at udføre et kup imod præsident Trump, har han ikke fuldt ud handlet på disse spørgsmål, og har i visse områder faktisk handlet i modstrid med dette løfte. Det var tilfældet, da han, uden nogen beviser for, at Syrien rent faktisk var engageret i brugen af kemiske våben, som det blev påstået, bombede den syrisk luftbase. Den nylige tale, han holdt om Afghanistan, har tilknyttede farer, fordi der ikke findes en militær løsning i sig selv i Afghanistan, og vi har allerede været der i seksten år uden de store resultater; ja, faktisk er én ting, man har opnået i Afghanistan, at verden er blevet oversvømmet med heroin fra opiumsafgrøden i dette land.
På hjemmefronten er der blevet skabt mange jobs gennem de forholdsregler, han hidtil har truffet, inklusive ikke at overholde frihandelsaftalerne, og andre lignende bestræbelser for at bringe jobs tilbage til USA, i modsætning til at outsource dem under disse frihandelsaftaler, men generelt er situationen ikke forbedret. For at gøre dette må vi vedtage Glass-Steagall, og vi må vedtage Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love, der omfatter Glass-Steagall; som omfatter at udstede statskredit gennem en (statslig) Nationalbank, hvor vægten ligger på kapitalintensive former for varefremstilling, og det omfatter, at vi forpligter os til fremtiden ved at udvikle fusionskraft og ved at genoplive rumprogrammet (der, der i LaRouches Fire Love kaldes en videnskabsdrevet økonomi, -red.). Det er, hvad der er nødvendigt lige nu, og Helga og Lyndon LaRouche har krævet, at vi lancerer en hasteaktion i dette land for at sikre, at disse politikker rent faktisk nu bliver implementeret, for man er i færd med at inddæmme præsident Trump. Han er ganske bestemt kampklar over for sine fjender, men han bliver i stigende grad inddæmmet. Vi har vilkår i landet, som kineserne sammenligner med Kulturrevolutionen under Mao Zedong med hensyn til det tyranni, der etableres af nyhedsmedierne og af de tidligere efterretningsagenter som Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Mueller og hans stilling som særlig anklager, og af Demokrater og også modstandere af præsident Trump i det Republikanske Parti. Vi har betingelser som under McCarthy-perioden, der er i færd med at blive skabt i landet, og som er ekstraordinært farligt, og det forhindrer den form for samarbejde, der kræves, med især russerne og kineserne.
Vi har længe været fortalere for, at USA tilslutter sig BRIKS-nationerne, dvs., Brasilien, Rusland, Indien, Kina og Sydafrika, i forbindelse med det, der nu er blevet kendt som Kinas politik for Ét Bælte, én Vej, eller Silkevejen, eller det, vi har kaldt Verdenslandbroen, og som blev initieret af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche for årtier siden, og som kineserne har vedtaget. Vi må arbejde med på dette projekt, som er et projekt for fred, der er baseret på økonomisk udvikling. Vi ser, at der er mulighed for succes gennem de fremskridt, der nu gøres i Syrien som resultat af det faktum, at USA, efter præsident Trumps møde med præsident Putin, har aftalt at etablere en deeskaleringszone i det sydvestlige Syrien. Og vi har nu en situation, hvor der ganske vist ikke er direkte, fælles militæraktioner mellem USA og Rusland imod ISIS og al-Nusra, men ikke desto mindre, så, som den russiske forsvarsminister netop har udtalt, er borgerkrigen i Syrien de facto forbi. Og vi har nu en meget succesfuld indsats for at udslette ISIS, ikke alene i Irak, men også i Syrien.
Dette er altså et eksempel på, hvad der kan gøres. Tager vi andre områder i verden, Nordkorea, så kunne man få samarbejde mellem Kina, Rusland, Japan og Sydkorea for at løse denne situation, men man må aftale at gøre det, russerne og kineserne har krævet, og som tyskerne faktisk også har været fortalere for, og som er en dobbelt indefrysning, hvor nordkoreanerne indvilger i ikke at afholde flere missiltests, ikke flere atomraket-tests, og USA og Sydkorea indvilger i ikke at afholde flere militærøvelser, som i hvert fald før i tiden omfattede at fjerne den nordkoreanske regering. Dette er de tiltag, man må gennemføre. På samme måde i Afghanistan; se på situationen dér. I stedet for, at USA går sammen med NATO efter seksten års nederlag, så bør man i stedet gå i samarbejde med Rusland, Kina, Indien, Pakistan og Iran for at afgøre krisen i Afghanistan. Det er der en fremtrædende mulighed for at gøre, men det kræver, at man faktisk træffer beslutningen om at gøre det. Lignende kriser, som den i Ukraine, kan løses på samme måde.
Dette repræsenterer altså et Nyt Paradigme for tankegang, hvilket er, hvad Helga Zepp-LaRouche har refereret til. Man har det gamle paradigme, der bygger på geopolitik, bygger på frihandelsøkonomi og en ganske bestemt form for selviskhed. Og så er der det Nye Paradigme, der bygger på det, kineserne kalder en »win-win«-fremgangsmåde. Dette er ikke kun en kinesisk opfindelse; det er faktisk den måde, hvorpå man fik en afslutning på Trediveårskrigen i Europa. Dette var en religionskrig mellem katolikker og protestanter, der lagde Europa øde i 30 år. Den blev afsluttet i den Westfalske Fredstraktat, i hvilken det princip, der afgjorde fredsprocessen, var, at man, når man handler, tager den andens fordel i betragtning. Det er den form for fremgangsmåde, vi må have. Det er en win-win-strategi.
På en vis måde har vi det fænomen, at størstedelen af resten af verden har vedtaget princippet fra den Westfalske Fredstraktat, og som vil sige, at man har en udenrigspolitik, der bygger på den andens fordel, og ikke på ens egen, snævert definerede egeninteresse. Vi har resten af verden, der er forpligtet over for en politik for fred og udvikling, hvilket var den politik, som nu afdøde Pave Poul VI (1963-1978) var fortaler for, i en encyklika (’pavebrev’) med titlen Populorum Progressio, og som grundlæggende set sagde, at det nye navn for fred er økonomisk udvikling. Det er det nye paradigme, og hvis vi ikke gennemfører dette nye paradigme nu, og kæmper for det nu – det er et globalt paradigme, men det må gennemføres her i USA i form af LaRouches Fire Love – men det må være en del af en global strategi for at opnå succes. Det er, hvad vi må mobilisere det amerikanske folk for, for at de forstår, at enten, så gør vi dette, eller også står vi over for en fare for, at situationen vil udvikle sig ude af kontrol; faren for totalt kaos i USA, og fjernelsen af en behørigt valgt præsident fra sit embede, af politiske årsager, ja faktisk af en udenlandsk regering, Det britiske Imperium. Og dét ville betyde faren for atomkrig.
Det er grunden til, at Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har sagt, at dette er en dyster situation, der kræver nødhandling. Og her vil jeg slutte, og vi vil sige mere om det i besvarelse af jeres spørgsmål.
Speed: Fint. Mange tak. Vi går nu over til spørgsmål; folk trykker stjerne 6 for at komme i køen, og mens folk tænker over deres spørgsmål, mener jeg, at det, Will sagde, giver stof til eftertanke; vi må tænke ’ud over kassen’; det er det afgørende netop nu.
Herefter følger spørgsmål og svar i engelsk udskrift. Telefonkonferencen kan høres her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_4ZjBMcgXk
SPEED: Okay, great. Thanks very much, Will. We will be moving to
the question portion of this. People hit star 6 to the queue and
while people are thinking of their questions, and I think what
Will said gives a lot of food for thought, we have to think
outside of the box; this is the key thing right now.
We have two important national meetings that are coming up
which will emanate out of Manhattan, but which are really
national and international meetings to address precisely the
crises we have just been identifying. The first will be this
Saturday and it’s a meeting, “Revive Hamilton’s American System
and the Presidency through LaRouche’s Four Laws.” That meeting
will be keynoted by Helga LaRouche via video on Google Hangouts.
She’ll be joined by Hal Cooper; she’ll be joined by others who
are leading construction managers and engineers in the area, as
well as by Jason Ross from the LaRouche Science Team. Everyone
should tune in for that. And then, in two weeks, we will be
hosting a very special meeting on September 9th, which is of
course the weekend of 9/11, and since we first conceptualized
this meeting the situation has changed rather dramatically. This
is the weekend where it would be very appropriate and lawful to
mobilize people to crush the British Empire by implementing
LaRouche’s Four Laws, and to implement the Four Laws by crushing
the British Empire, so it’s a self-reflexive idea. You can’t do
one without the other. We need everyone who is on the phone this
evening and those who will be listening subsequently to decide in
what way you can best expand the reach of particularly the
Saturday, September 9th webcast, that will be a live webcast.
Once again we will be joined and keynoted by Helga LaRouche, I
believe. Will Wertz, who is with us tonight, will be at that
meeting, and we will also have William Binney from the VIPS
organization and Raymond McGovern from the VIPS organization. Let
me correct that, I don’t know if Helga will be on that, but we’ll
have Will Wertz and the other two that I mentioned. We want to
have standing room only for the event, so any of you who can come
into New York at that time should do that, but we also want to
look into holding a series of satellite meetings around the
country where we could have possibly tens of thousands of people
watching the meeting in real time. And in this way we can create
a kind of surprise effect. Between now and then one of the ways
we could build this is through the gathering of the signatures on
our petition demanding that Trump investigate the charges of the
VIPS, that Russia-gate was not a hack, it was a hoax and to get
many people to subscribe to our publications. So I think this a
very appropriate period and opportunity right now to in fact use
the crisis to wake people up, shake people up and many people are
just disgusted with what is otherwise going on. They are hungry
for solutions and this is certainly what we are seeing in a lot
of our organizing in the field.
We are going to go to the questions that are lined up. Hit
Star 6 to get in the queue. Go ahead, can you hear me?
Q 1: This is Sarah from Indiana. And I just wanted to make
a comment, but I think it’s very important in light of what the
gentleman was talking [about], is that China has, within three
years raised up 700 million people out of poverty in only 3
years. There’s a new article floating on the internet that in
the last 15 years, the United States has increased terrorism by
6500%; so kind of a little bit of a difference there. The fact
that 700 million is over twice the population of the United
States. So, it is so vital for people to realize that within
three years the United States could be totally out of deficit, if
people choose it.
WERTZ: Well, I think the other thing to look at is that
China, under Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution, was a
horrendous, tyrannical society in which the population was very
much oppressed; particularly intellectuals. People who actually
thought, and not just the politically correct views of Chairman
Mao and his Little Red Book. Now what you have is a situation
where, not only — as you point out — over 700 million people
have been lifted out of poverty, but China is playing a very
positive role on a global scale, if you look at what they’re
doing. They’re a member of the BRICS, which I mentioned earlier,
which is Brazil, Russia, India, China, and the Union of South
Africa; a very unique organization because it represents a wide
range of countries in the world. They’re committed to a policy
of economic development. Now the BRICS will have, I think it’s
its 9th annual summit in China in early September; this will be
the 3rd to the 5th of September. The title of the conference is
“Stronger Partnership for a Brighter Future”. Of course the
Chinese have invited the United States to join this effort, which
is involved with the One Belt, One Road — or the Silk Road —
perspective. Obama, of course, refused. Obama put massive
pressure on other countries, including Japan, Australia, South
Korea, not to work with China in terms of the major development
bank which they set up. On the other hand, after his meeting
with President Xi, President Trump did send a delegation to the
One Belt, One Road summit which occurred in Beijing earlier this
year. So, the point here is that you’ve got — and this One
Belt, One Road effort now includes something like 69 countries;
and it’s a conception of nations throughout the world working
together to lift all of their populations out of poverty, and
also to counter the tendency under conditions of poverty for
people to be pitted against each other for racial, religious,
ethnic, tribal reasons. Not really good reasons, but to be
manipulated against each other under conditions of poverty.
So this, in a certain sense, is a model which we should
absolutely join at this point; and see it along with the
implementation of LaRouche’s Four Laws in the United States as
the means of actually accomplishing rates of growth in the range
of 7%-8% per year, as they have achieved in China previously.
That’s the kind of thing that we have as a potential which we
have to move with right now. Again, I stress, this is urgent;
it’s not something to be done in the distant future. It’s urgent
because it will also be a tremendous flank on the current effort
to unseat the duly-elected President of the United States. If he
moves with that, that will mobilize the entire population — the
forgotten men and women of this country that he references, as
did Franklin Roosevelt. It’s the way to actually unite the
country, as he said after Charlottesville. It’s also something
which Andy Young, who worked with Martin Luther King, emphasized
this past Sunday. He said the biggest problem in the country is
poverty, and that that’s what you have to focus on, as opposed to
turning everything into a race issue.
SPEED: OK, very good. If you would like to ask a question,
hit star 6. If you would like to get in the queue and ask a
question, you have to call in from a line in which your number ID
is registered. We do not take anonymous calls, and there’s one
caller in here now with an anonymous number, so maybe you could
hang up and call back in on a line that can be seen; and then we
can call on you. So, it’s star 6 to get into the queue, and
we’ll go to the next question. Go ahead.
Q 2: Hi, this is Sherry in New York. I’m very much aware
of what’s been going on. I have called into the White House
probably about three times in the last six days. One young woman
with whom I spoke yesterday had never heard about the program of
what’s been going on against Trump. What’s wrong with the
Congress; I think they all need Xanax, which is an anti-anxiety
drug. It’s a joke, I don’t mean it seriously.
SPEED: Sherry, we have a lot of people in the queue, so I’m
going to ask you and everyone else to be succinct and get to your
question.
Q 2 [cont’d]: Again, it is the problem that there is such a
barrage against the President. The fact that he can function at
all is amazing. Outside of our street demonstrations and calling
the White House with encouraging words, I don’t know what else to
do.
WERTZ: Well, first on the anti-depression drugs. I know
it’s a joke, but really what’s required is creativity. And an
actual passion for the good, which is traditionally been
identified with love for humanity, love for the truth. That
which goes to the issue of the Treaty of Westphalia again; that
you act to the benefit of others. But the problem is, we’ve got
a situation where the American people have to realize that they
also have to think out of the box in terms of how they’ve been
conditioned. I want to give you just one example, which I find
very useful. It’s the battle of Cannae, which occurred in
2016BC. This was in Italy, and it was fought between the Romans
and the Carthaginians. The Carthaginians were led by Hannibal, a
Carthaginian general. I’m citing this because it’s a good
example; it’s a classical military example. Of course we’re not
talking about a military implementation in terms of our action,
but we’re talking about a state of mind. What he did was, he
encircled the Roman troops. The Roman troops amounted to 85,000
total; Hannibal’s forces were much less — 56,000. They had
their backs to a river and the Romans were massing for a frontal
assault on Hannibal’s forces. What he did was, he created like a
V, and he drew the Romans into a frontal assault, just marching
straight into this V. They actually became entrapped, and they
were so densely packed that they couldn’t even use their own
weapons. Then what he did was, he used his cavalry to encircle
the Roman forces and to strike them from the rear. It’s an
enveloping flanking operation. The Romans were completely
devastated; Hannibal lost less than 6000 troops, and the Romans
— out of 85,000 — lost over 70,000 dead or captured.
What I’m getting at here is an encircling action; I’m
getting at getting outside of the box. You’ve got to actually
encircle the enemy from the standpoint of the mind, the
standpoint of being creative. That’s why there are really two
initiatives which we’ve been engaged in. One is the petition
against the intervention in the United States by the British
Empire to overthrow a duly-elected US President. Also, to get
President Trump to move on the evidence presented by the VIPS —
the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — that it
wasn’t a Russian hacking; that it was a leak. The whole thing is
just a big lie, that’s all this is. Just like Adolf Hitler, a
big lie; that’s what Mr. Binney said.
Q 2 [cont’d]: If you’re going to lie, make it a big one.
WERTZ: Right. And even Scott Ritter, the weapons inspector
for Iraq said that having read this report, this borders on
sedition against a duly-elected President of the United States.
Now, that’s one initiative. The second initiative is to move to
get President Trump to realize that he has got to encircle the
enemy and hit them from the rear. The best way to do that is to
go with LaRouche’s Four Laws and to join the Silk Road; that’s
the policy that he needs to move on. So, that’s the use of
creativity, and you don’t get boxed in, you don’t operate on the
basis of the options which you think you’re presented with; which
are not good options. They lead to self-destruction. So, you
look for the flanking operation. And these are the two flanking
operations which Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have identified.
Q 2 [cont’d]: That’s exactly the point I made when I called
the White House. I think I call them two or three times a week.
I find that the number I use, instead of the 1111, I call the
1414; that’s 202 456-1414. I always get in on that line. They
ask me if I want the comment line; I say yes, and I get heard.
SPEED: OK, that’s good information, Sherry. We’re going to
go on, because we have a number of other callers, and we want to
get to a lot of people. It’s star 6 to get into the queue. One
question I would certainly have for everyone is, what is
happening on the petitioning? That’s a major flank we had
actually outlined last week. We got, while we were on the phone
and immediately subsequent to the conference call, we added about
50 signatures. It turned out that a number of the people who
were on the call had not yet signed, and I don’t know if that is
still the case. I see some new people on, so if you have not
signed, go to the LaRouche PAC website. It is the approximately
third item down; “President Trump: Investigate British Subversion
of the US” and click on that and sign the petition. Also, once
you sign it, you should immediately send it out to others to sign
it. I believe we’re at about 1381 signatures as of right now, so
it would be good if even during this phone call we can get over
1500. And then build from that. I think we certainly should
take as a goal over the period between now and the weekend, of
trying once again to get to 2500 as a basic plateau. So, people
should definitely sign on to that. OK, so we are going to go to
the next caller right now.
Q 3: Hi, this is Dallas in Florida. Several things. On
this petition, how many signatures are we looking for on the
petition?
SPEED: I don’t think we set a certain number, because we
don’t know what it will require to get Trump to move. He might
move if we have, certainly I would say a plateau of 5-10,000
signatures. We should be able to do much better than that, but I
think the idea would be to get to some sort of plateau like that
as rapidly as possible and see if we can get some motion, even
before the activities that we have that I mentioned a little bit
earlier that we have coming up on the weekend of September 11th;
that’s the September 9th conference.
Q 3 [cont’d]: OK, I’d like to suggest, what I do is I put
something up on Facebook, and I put something up on twitter, and
something on Tumblr, and then something on LinkedIn, and then
I’ll put the links let’s say on twitter. Then, there’s a website
called the 40billion.com; and they’ll get your twitter out to 2.5
million for $20 for a day. So, that’s an inexpensive way to get
that out there, get the tweets. I’m not real effective but I’m
up to like 7000 hits on my tweets for the last month.
SPEED: That’s great. Have you sent the petition out yet?
Q 3 [cont’d]: Yeah, I put it on my Facebook, but I didn’t
cross link it. See, you know, internet kinda goes on about where
you got it over here and over here and over here. It rises up in
the hits categories, you know? The search engines.
SPEED: OK. The tweet thing sounds great, where you’re
saying you can get it to an additional 20,000.
Q 3 [cont’d]: No, 2.5 million for $20!
SPEED: 2.5 million, OK! Sounds great. You should add to
that, notify people now that they should tune in live on
September 9th, where the authors of the VIPS memo, the leaders
who submitted the report to the President, will be directly
addressing a crowd in New York. We should see if we can create
the kind of shock effect surprise that I was describing a few
minutes ago; get something like 50,000 viewers all at one time.
Cause it to go viral instantly, and cause all of the people that
are tuning in to get more people to get involved. So, we will
send out in the follow-up, a link to how people can tune in to
the webcast and so on; and let’s just really build that over the
next couple of weeks and organize like Hell between now and then.
Q 3 [cont’d]: OK, that’d be good. Now one observation here,
one real quick successful action is, I got friends in Panama, and
there’s a Colonel Prado[ph] down there in Colombia that took out
that 100,000-strong rebel army down there; they call it the
Colombian Miracle. So, thinking out of the box, you might call
Colonel Prado in, and see what he did down there and solve some
things.
With the British, this is very good. The main thing that’s
caused me concern in the last 48 hours is this idea that it’s a
civil war that we’re having, and they’re promoting that. I think
it’s the Trojan Horse. Trump warned us about having a Trojan
Horse with these immigrants coming in, and I think that’s really
what it is. We don’t have a civil war, but we have a
Soros-funded mercenary army out there fighting with their
baseball bats and whatnot. The situation, they upped the ante in
the last 24 hours by saying they’re bringing in the UN, might
come in to protect the anti-fa and the Black Lives Matter as a
matter of human rights in case we got to having an armed conflict
with them, and it looks like they’re going to lose. So, that’s a
potential flare-up that needs to be squelched, and see what kind
of British influence is influencing the UN, when we’re talking
about getting the British influence out. Start squelching them
so we don’t have that possibility of a UN invasion.
WERTZ: I wouldn’t, I don’t think it occurs on that level.
The level on which you’ve got to look at this is how this entire
operation against President Trump started. It was started by
MI-6, which is the British equivalent of the CIA. A so-called
“former” MI-6 agent, Christopher Steele, was paid to put together
a dossier of unverified material which he then circulated very
widely to Obama’s intelligence agency stooges like Brennan and
Comey and Clapper. This is the roadmap on which they’re
operating; so this is straight British intelligence MI-6. The
second indication of this is something called the Government
Communication Headquarters, which is a pretty dull name for what
is the British equivalent of the NSA. They were the ones who,
according to the published accounts — and the published accounts
may not be completely true, but what the published accounts say
is that the head of the GCHQ went directly to Brennan. In other
words, they don’t have to operate under the US Constitution, and
the restraints of the US Constitution surveilling Trump
associates, so they surveilled Trump associates all over the
world. Then they go to Brennan, the head of the CIA, who’s not
supposed to operate domestically according to the charter; and he
puts together a six-intelligence agency taskforce to begin to
investigate Trump in the middle of the Presidential campaign.
There are various reports as to when this occurred, some say it
was in the Summer of 2016, which is the time of the Republican
convention; others say it was before that. But the point is,
once Trump was a serious threat to win the nomination, the GCHQ
began to conduct what would be illegal surveillance in the United
States against Trump and his associates. This is all done in
collaboration with Obama and with Comey and with Clapper, and
with Brennan in particular. And of course, we’ve gotten
Wikileaks that Brennan put together a cyber warfare unit in the
CIA of over 5000 employees; it rivals the NSA.
So, this is what we’re talking about. And you see how
prominent Clapper and Brennan — even in the last few days — in
going after President Trump. So the point is, you’ve got a
Clinton-Obama-Comey-Brennan-Clapper operation, which is in fact,
funded by Soros. Soros, his pedigree is British; that’s what his
pedigree is. So, if you go after this and investigate this, then
you will upset the entire coup plot. But then combine that —
it’s got to be combined with the economic program. So, that’s
the way we have to do it. The other stuff becomes a lower-level
fixation which gets you not to think strategically. That’s what
you’ve got to do. You’ve got to clear your mind so you can think
strategically and creatively in terms of who the enemy is, and
how to defeat the enemy. What we’ve defined is two initiatives
which are critical to defeating the enemy right now; and we’ve
got to get President Trump to move on these as quickly as
possible.
Q 3 [cont’d]: What about Obama giving the internet to the
UN?
WERTZ: Listen, the UN has got all sorts of problems; but
frankly, it’s not the primary problem in the world. It’s
basically an assembly of nations; it’s as good as it’s made.
There are good things that are done at the UN when people
collaborate. When they don’t collaborate, and it’s used for
geopolitical purposes, including by the British, then it’s a
mess. For instance, the UN has backed all of the initiatives
that have been taken — I mean, look at Syria. You’ve got Turkey
and Iran working together with the Russians. A Sunni country, a
predominantly Shi’a country, and they’re working with the
Russians to defeat terrorism and to restore stability and
sovereignty to Syria. That’s a positive development which has
been backed by the UN Security Council. The UN as a whole in a
number of cases has actually positively responded to the Chinese
Silk Road, or One Belt, One Road Initiative. So, it’s really a
question of, do the countries who are members of the UN change
the way in which they function so they collaborate to solve
problems and create a prosperous future for all of mankind?
That’s the real issue. It has nothing to do with the UN per se
as an institution; it’s as good or as bad as its members make it.
But you have to look beyond the UN to the question of the
British; and you look at it through the whole history. We’re
talking about two systems, and it goes back before the British.
For instance, the German poet Friedrich Schiller, who I
mentioned earlier, he wrote a piece called “On Solon and
Lycurgus”. Solon was the head of Athens; Lycurgus was the head
of Sparta. They had two completely different systems. Under
Solon, as Schiller wrote, he had respect for human nature and
never sacrificed the people to the state. Never the ends to the
means; rather he let the state serve the people, and all paths
were open to genius. And the basic principle was, the progress
of the mind should be the purpose of the state. So, that’s
[inaud; 53:07], that’s like what our country was designed to be;
it hasn’t always been that, but that’s what we would want it to
be. That’s what you would want other nations to be like that.
Lycurgus, on the other hand, the way Schiller characterizes it is
as follows: The laws were iron chains which pulled down the
mind. All industry was barred; all science neglected. His state
could only persist under one condition — that the mind of the
people stagnates. If you look at it, there’s another Greek
mythology. Zeus on the one hand, was a tyrannical, Olympic
so-called “god”. He wanted to suppress mankind; he was
threatened by the idea that mankind might actually develop
technology, develop science, educate themselves, learn languages
and so forth. Prometheus gave man fire; that is, technology. He
also gave him a Promethean method of thinking, which is the
creative method of thinking. So, you have two systems. This is,
in a certain sense, like when Helga LaRouche talks about the New
Paradigm, she’s talking about the paradigm of Solon, the paradigm
of Prometheus; versus the imperial policy of depressing the
mental creative capacity of the population in order to maintain
political control. The British are like the Roman Empire, like
the Venetian Empire; the British Empire has a policy of reducing
the world’s population and keeping people dumb in order to
politically control them.
Q 3 [cont’d]: Exactly right.
SPEED: OK, great. We’re going to go on to the next
question here. Once again, hit star 6 to get into the queue.
Just say your first name and what state you’re calling in from.
Q 4: Hello, this is Wally in Denver. I was reading on the
computer about a problem. The Ukrainian government was
complaining that Russia was impinging on its sovereignty by
constructing a road to Crimea. Do you have any information about
that?
WERTZ: Yeah, sure. Here’s the, the picture is just
straightforward. Obama put Nazis in power in Kiev with the
backing of the British and many of the members of the European
Union. It’s basically part of a strategy to move eastward to the
borders of Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it was
agreed upon between George HW Bush and Gorbachev and other
participants, that NATO would not move eastward. But that’s
precisely what they’ve done, which is part of a geopolitical
strategy. So, they’re basically moving to try to encircle
Russia, and Ukraine was a critical aspect of that policy. So
what they did was, they backed Nazi groups in Ukraine to take
power. Now you had the duly-elected President — Yanukovych —
in Ukraine; and under the Constitution of Ukraine, a President
cannot be removed from office unless he’s impeached. They never
impeached him; they never brought impeachment. What they did
was, the thugs in the street who were members of what is called
the Right Sector, and these guys trace themselves back to an
actual Nazi who worked with Hitler, named Stepan Bandera. During
World War II, his organization was involved in killing tens of
thousands of Poles and Jews, working with Hitler. That’s what
this group traces its background to. The US knows that, because
after the war, people like Allen Dulles and MI-6 of Britain
brought Bandera and his top aide to London and the United States.
Because at that point, they wanted to use the Nazis against the
Soviet Union, particularly in Ukraine. The Soviet Union fell,
but nonetheless, that’s the policy which they’ve continued to
this day. So, they carried out a coup against the duly-elected
President, and among the things that they were going to do, is
outlaw the use of the Russian language as a second official
language in Ukraine. So, the people of Crimea voted in a
referendum, called self-determination under the UN Charter, to
sever themselves from Ukraine where a coup d’état had been
carried out by Nazis, and to join Russia. So, Russia
acknowledged that democratic vote, based on the principle of
self-determination in the face of a Nazi coup. See, here you’ve
got people in the United States up in arms against Nazi KKK white
supremacists; but in fact, Obama put Nazis in power in Ukraine.
John McCain backed Nazis in power in Ukraine. The political
establishment in Washington DC is backing Nazis in Ukraine; white
supremacists in Ukraine. These people who support Nazis then get
upset about a staged incident in Charlottesville, which was
staged probably with provocateurs both among the Nazis and KKK,
and also within the anti-fa — the anti-fascist organization —
the guys with the black masks, black helmets, and black uniforms
who carry out violence in all of these events.
So, this thing was set up. If you look at the people
involved on the Democratic Party side in Charlottesville, they’re
all former employees of the State Department, they’re all funded
by George Soros. This is the mayor, Michael Signer; it is the
guy who took the video of the deranged guy who mowed the
protester and injured others — his name is Brennan Gilmore; and
another guy, Tom Periello. They are all funded by, they all
worked with John Podesta’s Center for American Progress; which is
the center of the so-called Resist movement against Trump in the
United States. And they were all there, along with McAuliffe,
who’s a longstanding supporter of the Clintons. They basically
immediately used this to go after Trump; it was like you put two
chemicals together which you know will react with an explosion.
You don’t separate the demonstrators, and then you prepare to use
the incident — whether you planned the specific incident or not
— you use the incident to go after the President of the United
States. These are the same guys who backed Nazis in Ukraine.
That’s the hypocritical irony of this entire operation.
SPEED: OK, excellent.
Q 4 [cont’d]: Then CNN wants to call it civil war, and
we’re calling that fake news; that it’s not civil war.
WERTZ: Sure. I mean, it’s like Syria. It wasn’t a civil
war. It was a deliberate policy on the part of Obama to carry
out regime change against countries which had nothing to do with
al-Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda; Libya had
nothing to do with al-Qaeda, except to put them in prison. Syria
had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia did. Britain did.
Because Saudi Arabia is just a satrap of the British Empire. But
the point is, that what happened in Syria was that they brought
in terrorists from all over the world — from Chechnya in Russia,
from Europe, from Tunisia, from Libya, and so forth — in a war
of aggression against a sovereign state which is a member of the
UN; and then they call it a civil war. But this was Obama; this
was one of the great crimes of Obama. This a guy who committed
extra-judicial murders against — among others — American
citizens after meetings that he held on Tuesdays every week with
Brennan in the Oval Office. It would be like Caligula at the
Coliseum; he puts his thumb up or down; this guy is to be killed.
And that’s what they did. So, this is what we’re talking about
here. This is the real evil in this thing, is people like Obama.
As Lyndon LaRouche has always emphasized, Obama was trained by
his stepfather, who was involved in the genocide in Indonesia
back in the 1960s; that’s where he grew up, with that stepfather.
Obama’s a murderer and a supporter of Nazis.
SPEED: OK, thank you. We have quite a few more questions,
so I’m going to move on to the next questioner.
Q 5: This is Greg from St. Louis. Just wanted to make a
couple of points for the question out there. One, obviously the
analysis of the regime change. The same thing is happening
that’s attacking the Trump administration, is an attempt to have
a regime change, if you will. We simply call it an
administration change. So we know all the tools and all the
games that they play are related to that. My real issue becomes
for me, is the psychosis of Donald Trump himself. I mean, we’re
putting a lot of marbles in this guy’s basket, so to speak. We
know he’s a wild card; we really didn’t know, but for me, it’s
important that we say what’s happening with him as well. It’s
not like he’s not aware of the VIPS report; not like he’s not
aware of many of these things. My question is, how do we really
get him to understand the need to push that VIPS report and get
that out there so that we can get at the crux of the Deep State
that’s attacking him, as well as pushing for this whole war
issue, not only within the United States, but across the world?
WERTZ: Well, that’s — it’s not like there’s some
particular series of tactics that will do this. What we’ve
talked about is two flanks in terms of what he needs to do. In
terms of going with the VIPS, going after the British, and on the
other hand, going with LaRouche’s Four Laws and the Silk Road.
But what you’ve got to do is, you’ve got to reach a certain
threshold of activity in the country, including among those who
support President Trump; but you’ve also in the process got to
create a situation where it becomes much more difficult as the
truth gets out, for certain Democrats and certain Republicans who
ran against Trump from carrying out the kind of insanity that
they’re engaged in. So, that’s the only way you can do this.
You have to mobilize people who support Trump to demand that he
take action on these, and that they will support him if he does
that. And similarly, you’ve got to create an environment in
which these people like Clapper and Brennan and Comey or Mueller,
that they’re not actually — you’ve got to box them in. That’s
why I raised this battle of Cannae in terms of encirclement. The
VIPS boxes in Mueller, it boxes in Comey and Brennan and Clapper.
But you’ve also got to box in the Democrats; these people say
they’re for Glass-Steagall — many of them. They say they’re for
working people, some of them; not all that many of them.
Certainly Clinton wasn’t too interested in working people. But
the point is, that is the party of FDR, the party of Kennedy; or
it used to be. So, you’ve got to really create the situation in
which you basically make it clear to them that if Trump takes the
initiative on this, that calls the bluff on these Democrats, who
are running around. They say they’re for Glass-Steagall, and yet
they’re calling for the impeachment of a President who’s for
Glass-Steagall when Obama was absolutely opposed to
Glass-Steagall; as was Hillary Clinton. And they know that.
So, they’re engaged in a certain kind of fraud, which needs
to be exposed by calling their bluff. If they’re real human
beings — and you hope that they are on some level — then
they’ll respond. So you’ve got to basically do both things by a
mobilization of the population.
Q 5 [cont’d]: How do we box in Trump? I understand boxing in
some of those people around him, but Trump himself? His own
psychosis is, you’re not sure what you’re going to get out of
this guy at any given time, so you have to force the office of
the President to do what you want it to do. So what is that that
has to box in Trump, so to speak? I know we’ve talked about
boxing in all these other folks, but he’s going to be the head at
the head of the arrow; so what are we doing to box him in?
WERTZ: We’re mobilizing in these two respects; which
includes “OK, you said you’re for Glass-Steagall. You say that
the best way to actually improve human relations, but
specifically race relations in this country, is to create jobs.”
Look at the drug plague. If you don’t have decent jobs, which we
used to have in urban areas. Baltimore used to have
shipbuilding; we used to have steel building, steelworks in
Baltimore. Now they’ve got a tourist harbor, and that’s it. You
don’t have the high-paying jobs that you need, so that people
aren’t prey to drugs and sales of drugs and so forth, and to
gangs — which are related to drugs. So, that’s what you’ve got
to actually get him to move on that, but in a certain sense, I
think you’ve just got to convince him that he’s combative, but
he’s not really being combative on the level that he needs to be.
He clearly thinks that he is under complete fire; and you can’t
deny that. They called for his assassination. I put together a
list for a webcast last Friday, of the calls for his
assassination, impeachment, or forced resignation, or the use of
the 25th Amendment against him. This started with the
{Spectator}, which is a British paper, started out saying “Will
Donald Trump be assassinated, impeached, or forced to resign?”
That was on January 21st. You know the other cases: Johnny
Depp, Madonna, Kathy Griffin. You can go through the list. So,
you know that this guy really feels that he is under siege. So,
he is combative with his tweets and so forth, but the issue here
is, if you put this out on the table, if you get this spread
widely enough, and he sees that there is support for taking these
kinds of actions; and sees that this is an effective flanking
operation against those who would destroy this country, then
you’ve got a shot at actually getting him to move on it. That’s
the only thing I can say.
SPEED: Yeah, and if I could just add to that. That is
precisely what the meeting we’re holding this Saturday is all
about. You may have gotten on a little after I went through
this, Greg. This Saturday, we’re having a major meeting on
Hamilton and LaRouche’s Four Laws as a solution for this crisis.
The only way you’re going to be able to crush the British Empire
is with the added flank of the Four Laws and the solution.
Conversely, the only way you’re going to actually get the Four
Laws is by crushing the British Empire. So, the two things
really work hand-in-glove. What we have to do, is — and this is
really, we’ve got to go out and we’ve got to just get to the
American population. The support for Trump from Trump’s base up
until now has been completely inadequate. People might come out,
but very often these people have to be educated. They’ll come
out, and they’re talking about a wall or monument; they really
should be talking about Trump joining the One Belt, One Road; the
Silk Road perspective. That’s what we’ve got to have; and going
after the British. So, that’s a matter of us educating people.
But similarly, we talked about the Democrats. Frankly, the
Bernie Sanders supporters, which may have been greater than the
Hillary supporters; let’s bear in mind if anybody stole anybody’s
votes and manipulated the election, it was some things that were
going on around that campaign. Which, by the way, when that came
out, they’ve never said, “Oh, gee, that’s not true.” They said,
“Oh, well, the Russians did that.” So, therefore, yeah, it might
be true, but we can’t listen to it, because it was the Russians.
Why aren’t the Sanders supporters up in arms? I’m not really
asking that rhetorically; I think that’s a matter of us really
organizing and drawing this out.
Now, that is what we have been doing increasingly in the
streets in New York City; and we should expand this, and also
somewhat in the Midwest. But I’ll just give you a sense of some
of the results. On Monday, we had three teams out in Manhattan,
Staten Island, and Long Island which raised $1400; which is
extremely good. We got out about 500 copies of the
{Hamiltonian}; we collected a number of petition signatures.
What was interesting is that one of these deployments was in the
middle of Manhattan, which obviously did not go overwhelmingly
for Trump; in fact, it went overwhelmingly for Hillary. So, we
were deployed in front of the Fox News building in midtown; and
pretty much everyone who considered themselves a Trump supporter
who came up to our table had already come to the conclusion that
Russia-gate and Charlottesville were part of the same operation.
We were expecting far more hostility than what existed, and there
were several African-Americans who signed on to the petition.
Some of them had voted for Trump, some people had not, and so on.
And then you got a certain amount of confusion that existed.
We had another deployment, I think this was out in Queens
yesterday, where we actually had a gaggle of these women —
literally witches; they had everything but the black skirts and
broomsticks with them. They came out with signs and so on. It
was a very interesting deployment; it was about 10 or 12 of them
who rotated through the day, attempting to yell at people,
dissuade them from signing up, signing the petition and so on.
Their polemic — and this is how you could see it was really
organized — it was not around Trump, it was not around
Charlottesville; it was actually “Oh, Lyndon LaRouche. You don’t
want to sign up with LaRouche; that’s a cult. Stop signing up.”
The response by and large from people coming up was basically,
“Get out of my face! I don’t want to talk with you; I’m signing
up with these people” and so on. So, we ended up, I believe on
that deployment, getting something like six or seven people got
memberships; lots and lots of people giving their names — over
25 contacts — and so forth and so on.
So, that’s what’s out there, and I think part of it is that
we’ve got to out and tell the population themselves they’re not
doing enough. That’s how you box in Trump. We’ve got to
mobilize more of the population; they’ve got to be organized
around a strategic objective. Stop these wars, and go with the
economic policy. That’s what Trump was voted in for, that’s what
he’s got to do, and that’s what the American people have got to
demand. That’s what was put so beautifully and clearly by Andy
Young in his statement on “Meet the Press”. Everybody should
really read that, and I think that can be very useful in our
organizing. So, that’s just what I would add to what Will said.
WERTZ: It’s a very principled issue. The countries are
destroyed to the extent to which citizens of the countries don’t
take responsibility for the republic, for their Constitution.
That’s why the basic concept expressed in the Declaration of
Independence is the principle of government by the consent of the
governed. Similarly, what Lincoln said — government of, for,
and by the people. The basic point is, don’t depend on Congress;
don’t depend on a President. As good as the President may be,
they very often are going to operate upon pragmatic conceptions,
or what they think is opportune, or what they think is possible
for them to do. For instance, the Civil Rights movement had a
force. They had a force with Eisenhower, they had a force with
Kennedy, they had a force with Johnson to take action. That’s
the way you have to really look at this. The point is, if you
are operating from the standpoint of the vital interests of the
nation and of humanity as a whole, you’re operating on the basis
of principle and of reason; then you have authority within
yourself as a citizen of a country — and also the responsibility
as a citizen of a country, and as a citizen of the world — to
take action and see that those actions which are required are
acted upon by an elected official. They’re supposed to represent
us; they get elected by us, and they’re supposed to represent our
best interests. I think that’s really the issue. And you have
to educate yourself so that you know for certain with scientific
certainty, that what you’re advocating is actually a policy which
is required and must be implemented.
So, what we’ve defined is a policy that must be implemented.
Take the Four Laws. You have Democrats who say they’re for
Glass-Steagall, but they’re brainwashed in terms of Green
ideology. The rest of the Four Laws that Lyndon LaRouche has put
forward, put an emphasis on capital intensive forms of
investment, including nuclear energy, nuclear desalination, the
development of fusion, the expansion of the space program. Many
of these Democrats say they’re for Glass-Steagall, but what do
they mean by Glass-Steagall if they’re Green? Then on the
Republican side, many of them are not Greenies, in the sense of
being opposed to technological progress, but they’ve been
brainwashed in respect to a balanced budget or merely reducing a
deficit. So, they have no conception of the idea of public
credit, and no conception of what Hamilton put forward with a
National Bank, or what Lincoln put forward with greenbacks, or
what Franklin Roosevelt put forward with the bank that he used to
actually engage in investment in the economy — it was the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation. After the war in Germany,
they had the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, which is the Credit
Institution for Reconstruction; same principle. But the idea is
that the government can extend credit as a sovereign nation, can
extend credit for productive investment. The problem here is
that many Republicans have no conception of that.
So, you’ve got to educate both Democrats and Republicans to
understand a scientific conception of economics; which they don’t
have. It’s not clear exactly whether Trump has it; he may
reference Hamilton and Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln, but it’s
not clear from his actions so far that he has those conceptions.
So, it’s a question of educating, it’s a question of mobilizing
your fellow citizens to ensure that the policies the nation needs
— the world needs — are enacted. It’s a very basic principle
that the power of government to govern derives from the people;
but it has to be an educated people, not a mob.
SPEED: OK, great. Will, we have about five more minutes,
but we have about six more questions. So, we’re going to try to
get to as many of them as possible. I want to ask everybody to
keep your questions and comments at this point short and succinct
so we can try to get through as many of these as we can. OK, go
ahead.
Q 6: Yeah, this is Ken in Moline, Illinois. Is the CIA a
subsidiary of MI-6?
WERTZ: You have to go back to World War II and the
aftermath of World War II. The British Empire backed Hitler, and
they wanted him to go east against the Soviet Union; but Hitler
at a certain point decided that he was going to go west.
Churchill knew he couldn’t defeat Hitler on the continent, so he
needed to bring the US into the war. Roosevelt certainly wanted
to defeat fascism, but the British actually set up covert
operations of British intelligence, MI-6, MI-5, in the United
States and Rockefeller Center. They worked closely with Allen
Dulles who became Deputy CIA Director and then later CIA Director
after Roosevelt died. So, the point is, in 1946 there was an
agreement signed which was called the UK-USA Agreement. Then
later it became what’s called the Five Eyes, which is Australia,
New Zealand, Canada, Britain, and the United States. Basically
the problem here is that our intelligence agencies here in the
United States are working directly with British intelligence and
with other members of the British Empire, or what’s called now
the Commonwealth.
There may be patriots within these intelligence agencies,
many of them have become whistleblowers. But yet, this is how the
British have subverted US intelligence.
SPEED: OK, very good. We’re going to take two more
questions now; and in about three minutes or maybe we’ll go a
little bit over. Go ahead.
Q 7: This is Steve from Pennsylvania. What I’ve noticed
with the different organizations I’ve worked with — I work with
several different patriot organizations, including the Oath
Keepers and the Three Percenters and some militia that were there
in Charlottesville the day of that event. From my different
sources, I understand that these groups on both sides were all
hooked in with State Department and Obama appointees and
employees and Occupy Wall Street and those groups. Could
Charlottesville be considered like a false flag to try to push
this narrative of this race card thing, since the Russia thing
completely failed and they now want to push the 25th Amendment
thing and they want to push that Trump somehow has dementia?
WERTZ: You’re right; it’s a false flag operation. For
instance, one of the things that came out is that one of the
organizers of the demonstrators — a guy named Kessler was
basically, I think it was Charles Grassley who asked the
question, or another Senator — this guy was involved in Occupy
Wall Street. He was apparently a supporter of Obama. Then all
of a sudden, you’re expected to believe that there was this
transformation, and he ends up being an organizer of this
demonstration. So that’s on the one side. On the other side, as
I said at the beginning — I don’t know if you heard it or not —
all of the key players in Charlottesville are Democrats who have
worked with John Podesta at the Center for American Progress;
which described itself as the institutional center of the Resist
movement against Trump in the United States. And Podesta, of
course, is Obama, he’s Clinton — both Hillary and Bill. This is
all funded by Soros. So, the whole thing was in that sense, a
set-up. And it’s modelled upon what they did in Ukraine; where
it was the State Department, it was Soros, and so forth. Think
about how that thing operated. For instance, when Yanukovych was
forced to flee, he was accused of ordering snipers to shoot
demonstrators. But he denies that that was the case, and there’s
evidence that the snipers may have actually been members of the
Right Sector, the Nazis; or organized by them. So, it is a false
flag operation; and it’s like this whole operation was set to
take off after Charlottesville. Remember, Charlottesville was
declared by the mayor of Charlottesville, Signer, as a capitol of
the Resistance in a speech he gave on January 31st earlier this
year. The point is, Charlottesville was designed as a center of
the resistance to Trump before this incident occurred.
SPEED: OK, great. So, we are going to go to the next and final
question. We have a few more people in the queue, but
unfortunately we’re running out of time. So, OK, go ahead.
Q 8: Hi, it’s June from New York. My question has to do
with the two petitions and whether or not there’s been an effort
to contact the distribution list for Trump’s PAC from either Eric
or Don Trump? Maybe you could go through that way to get to them
to get it communicated out to the people who actually support
Trump?
WERTZ: I can’t answer specifically who we’ve contacted with
this. I know that we are trying to get the petition into the
hands of people who are close to Trump. But I can’t really say
whether we’ve gotten to those specific individuals either
ourselves directly, or indirectly through other people who are
supporters of Trump. But certainly, if anybody knows members of
the Trump family, they should be encouraged to speak to them; to
get this material to them. In general, we do want to get to
supporters of Trump to really give them a strategic conception of
what needs to be done right now.
SPEED: We’ve reached out to a lot of groups that are
working closely with Trump. I think there are people on the call
who are involved in that; who are involved in various networks.
So, if you have such networks, reach out; get in contact with
them, and try to come yourself if you’re based in New York. Come
to the meeting on Saturday at the Beacon Hotel; we can talk more
about this. We also are generally out in mid-Manhattan in the
vicinity of the Trump headquarters at least once a week. A
number of people affiliated and who are very active in his
campaign come by regularly there. So that’s another good way of
reaching out to people. We should expand this as much as
possible. We are doing that, we’re reaching out; and we would
urge anybody else with contacts to do that.
Also, again, I’ll just emphasize, we are just as interested
in those who oppose Trump; because we have to neutralize — or
better, win this group of people over. They should be fighting
against these foreign wars; they should be working for economic
development. Therefore, we want to free this President up to do
exactly that. I think there are a number of these people who can
be approached and recruited. Certainly the Veterans Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity give us a way that they can understand
this and act on it. But join us! Get people to sign the
petition. Let’s call people out.
Q 8 [cont’d]: Another question real quick. Is there a way,
or a contact list that you have for people that are located
within your area? I’m up in northern, up in Duchess County, and
I don’t know if there are any other people who are members that
are up in Duchess County that you could coordinate with to do
stuff up in this region. Is there some sort of list, or some way
you could get in contact with them?
SPEED: Yes, sure. That’s not too far away, June. What
we’ll do is, you can contact me; I will text you my cell phone
when we get off of this call, and we can be in touch in terms of
reaching out and contacting other people. We’ll also put that
out in the email, and other people on the call that have this
same number can contact various people in their regional offices
for further direction in terms of how we can get groupings of
people together.
So, Will, I wanted to invite you to make some final remarks.
This has clearly been an exciting phone call; we couldn’t even
get to all the callers. Those of you whom we could not get to, I
want to urge you to get on on Monday night. We’re doing these
activists’ calls now twice a week, on Monday and Thursday nights.
I want to urge everyone on to try to get additional people on the
calls. But Will, why don’t you give us some concluding remarks?
WERTZ: I just want to go back to the remarks that you cited
from Lyndon LaRouche at the very beginning to underscore the
urgency of the situation. Again, what he said is that we have to
win now; if we lose, we are finished because we will be destroyed
by the people opposed to what he is doing in terms of the
initiatives we’re taking. The existence of the United States
depends upon doing the job. It’s not making suggestions; it’s
getting victory against the causes of the things that are
destroying the ability of the United States to express itself
properly.
So, I just wanted to end with that. I thought the questions
tonight were very responsive and showed that people have a sense
of the urgency of this. So, our job is to organize a lot of
other people. I just encourage people to do that and just figure
out creative ways in which they can do that. Like the lady who
just spoke, get in touch with us in terms of what you might be
able to do with us or with others in our movement who may be in
your vicinity.
SPEED: OK; excellent. So, that concludes the LaRouche
activist call for Thursday. We’ll be talking with all of you
very soon. Hopefully, with lots more results on the petitioning
and other activities. Good night.
14. aug., 2017 – En bog, som en anmelder i den britiske avis Guardian favorabelt beskriver som en »politisk thriller«, fremlægger et scenarie for mordet på præsident Donald Trump, der forsøges udført af medlemmer af hans regering. Bogen, der blev udgivet den 4. juli, 2017, af HarperCollins, bærer titlen, To Kill the President, og er forfattet af Sam Bourne, et pseudonym for Jonathan Freedland. Freedland var Guardians Washington-korrespondent under valget i 2016 og skriver nu en ugentlig klumme og er derudover studievært på BBC’s serier om historie, »The Long View«. I begyndelsen af 1990’erne havde han en tjans som reporter for Washington Post.