4. juni, 2017 – Den russiske viceudenrigsminister Sergei Ryabkov sagde i går til Sputnik, at man snart vil aftale dagsordenen, rammerne og tidspunktet for mødet med USA om dialogen om strategisk stabilitet. »En fundamental aftale om en genoptagelse af Moskva-Washington-dialogen om strategisk stabilitet blev opnået under kontakter mellem [udenrigs]ministeren [Sergei Lavrov] og udenrigsministeren [Rex Tillerson], og blev dernæst bekræftet ved mødet mellem viceudenrigsministeren og daværende under-udenrigsminister Thomas Shannon den 8. maj i New York«, sagde Ryabkov til Sputnik. Han sagde også, at det var på høje tid, at Rusland og USA tog en vurdering af spørgsmålet om strategisk stabilitet på en omfattende måde og fastlagde en køreplan for at opnå fremskridt i dialogen.

Den 2. juni sagde den amerikanske præsident Donald Trumps særlige assistent for ikke-spredning, Christopher Ford, »Vi ønsker at genoptage [dialogen], men faktisk skabe orden i processen for dialog om strategisk stabilitet«, rapporterer Sputnik.

Ryabkov sagde, »Rusland og USA, som de to atomstormagter, bærer et særligt ansvar for at opretholde international fred og sikkerhed, strategisk stabilitet. Og vi vil afholde denne dialog, baseret på denne forståelse af vort ansvar«. Hvis en sådan dialog om omfattende, strategisk stabilitet skulle blive genoptaget, sagde han, ville Moskva være rede til at drøfte ballistisk missilforsvar (BMD).

Ford sagde, at diskussioner mellem Rusland og USA om BMD ville være anderledes, hvis Nordkoreas og Irans trusler blev bragt under kontrol.

Rusland, sagde Ryabkov, er »rede til at diskutere disse spørgsmål og vil selvfølgelig diskutere dem«, når de to nationer er blevet enige om parametrene for genetableringen af dialogen for strategisk stabilitet. Men han bemærkede, at det nu var en anden (amerikansk) administration, der var ved magten. »Hvis den nye administration skaber en mere fornuftig fremgangsmåde, vil vi hilse dette velkommen, men vi ser fortsat ingen tegn på dette … Jeg har på fornemmelsen, at USA [tidligere] har indført en eller anden form for restriktion mht. at indgå nogen som helst aftaler med Rusland pga. politiske motiver, der ikke har forbindelse til en sikring af global og regional sikkerhed. Efter 2014, hvor Obama-administrationen med fuldt overlæg afsporede alle eksisterende praksisser og ødelagde mekanismerne, der brugtes til denne dialog, blev dette [spørgsmål] overhovedet ikke diskuteret.«

Foto: Ruslands viceudenrigsminister Sergei Ryabkov.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 5. juni, 2017 – I denne uge vil vi få endnu en runde at se i det, der har været et nu næsten et år langt hysteri à la McCarthy-perioden, med de »liberale« og de »liberale medier« i USA versus Donald Trumps plan om at genoprette fundamentale samarbejdsrelationer med Rusland – og, med Kina.

En ledende, Demokratisk blodhund, senator Mark Warner fra Efterretningskomiteen, indrømmede søndag på Tv, at der ikke findes beviser for, at Trump skulle have indgået et »aftalt spil« med russere: »der er blot en masse røg«, sagde senator Warner. Så de »liberale« kaster sig over anklager mod Trump for at »hindre retfærdighedens gang« ved at fyre FBI’s direktør.

Det rette spørgsmål blev stillet til amerikanerne af den russiske præsident Putin i dennes interview til NBC-TV, hvor han gentagne gange blev anklaget for at undergrave og forsøge at kontrollere USA:

»Er I alle sammen gået fra forstanden?«

Efter næsten et årti med økonomisk fiasko, og sågar fortvivlelse i nogle dele af den amerikanske befolkning, ønsker de »liberale« nu at genoplive J. Edgar Hoover og senator Joe McCarthy for at finde undskyldninger?

Siden de amerikanske bankers og nationaløkonomiens krak for ni år siden, er der i verden vokset en ny, økonomisk orden frem, med infrastrukturudvikling, kredit til højteknologisk industriudvikling, videnskab og udforskning af rummet. Denne orden udvides omkring Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, eller den Nye Silkevejs økonomiske vækst og forbundethed; Og Rusland er fuldt engageret i det. Det samme er asiatiske, afrikanske og sydamerikanske lande, inklusive Amerikas hovedallierede i Asien, Japan og Sydkorea.

Hvis amerikanerne ønsker deres økonomi genopbygget og ønsker atter at blive en førende industrimagt og førende magt inden for videnskab og rumforskning – så må de have samarbejde med disse initiativer for økonomisk fremskridt. De må have det samarbejde, som præsident Trump har indledt med præsident Xi Jinpings Kina.

Og der finder en i stigende grad reel, international kamp sted, imod ISIS/al-Qaeda-terrorisme og massive blodsudgydelse fra samme ophav, i hvilken kamp Putins Rusland er en hoveddrivkraft.

USA’s økonomiske politik må ændres: Glass/Steagall-loven må genindføres, og der må skabes en statslig nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition; og rumforskning må atter gøres til en storslået, national mission.

Men samarbejdsrelationer med Kina og Rusland, og med den Nye Silkevejs nye system, er afgørende for, at USA kan genoprette sine egne, førende kapaciteter. De, der ønsker, at præsidenten, af disse grunde, skal afsættes ved en rigsret – og nogle, der endda ønsker, han skal myrdes – må midlertidigt være gået fra forstanden.

Foto: Den russiske præsident Putins interview til NBC.

3. juni, 2017 – Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin lagde ikke fingrene imellem under sin tale for panelet Russisk-amerikansk Forretningsdialog på Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum (SPIEF), der fandt sted 1.-3. juni. Putin indledte med at takke de amerikanske deltagere for at komme til begivenheden, i betragtning af »den sørgelige tilstand, som de amerikansk-russiske og russisk-amerikanske relationer befinder sig i«. Han sagde, at »det tog årtier at lægge fundamentet for samarbejde, der næsten er blevet udslettet i løbet af de seneste år. Vore bilaterale relationer forværredes til det absolut laveste punkt, siden den Kolde Krig«. Putin sagde, at der var mange samarbejdspunkter, og at Rusland havde behov for udenlandsk investering. Han sluttede ligefremt: »Jeg vil gerne sende bolden over til jer. Hjælp os med at genoprette en god, politisk dialog. Jeg beder jer på vegne af Rusland. Jeg henvender mig til vore amerikanske modparter. Hjælp den nyligt valgte præsident og USA’s nye administration.«

Forespurgt, om han havde et råd til Trump, svarede Putin, at »en mand som Trump har ikke brug for råd, især ikke, når det drejer sig om interne, politiske spørgsmål. Det er generelt set altid kontraproduktivt at forsøge at belære modparter … Jeg ønsker at etablere en konstruktiv dialog på basis af vore landes nationale interesser, og i behørig betragtning af disse interesser. Jeg mener, det er muligt at opnå dette i fællesskab, med den nuværende præsident. Hvad der vil ske i virkeligheden, ved jeg ikke.«

Foto: Ruslands præsident Putin taler på SPIEF (1.-3. juni).

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 4. juni, 2017 – Paris-»klimaaftalen«, som præsident Donald Trump har trukket USA ud af, er ikke »verdensordenen«, uanset, hvor meget, medierne i USA og Europa ønsker, folk skal gøre knæfald for den. Livet uden kulstoffer er ikke vejen frem for menneskeheden eller planeten. Derimod er mennesket, der nu hastigt rykker ud i Solsystemet, vejen frem.

Den reelt succesfulde, nye verdensorden, der nu konsolideres, er et økonomisk og videnskabeligt system for samarbejde: den Nye Silkevej. Det er de accelererende investeringer og udarbejdelse af transformerende, nye infrastrukturprojekter og videnskabelige fremskridt, der knyttes sammen under Kinas initiativ, over hele Eurasien, Afrika og ligeledes planlagt for Sydamerika. »Marshallplanen gange 20«, kalder nogen det. Det er en orden, der mere og mere støttes af Rusland og andre store nationer, så vel som mange andre, fordi det reelt udløser økonomisk fremskridt, produktivitet, ny beskæftigelse, til gensidig fordel for alle deltagende nationer. Som »Silkevejsdamen«, Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, siger, så er det i færd med at blive til Verdenslandbroen. Det er således åbent for USA at gå med i og genopbygge, men også kraftigt udvide og modernisere, sin egen økonomiske infrastruktur og industri.

Præsident Trump gør absolut det rigtige med sin plan om, at USA skal samarbejde fuldt ud med Kina og Rusland. Og med sin hensigt om, at USA atter skal blive en stor industrimagt, en stor videnskabelig og teknologisk magt, en stor rumforskningsmagt, der samarbejder med de andre rumfartsnationer.

»Dette er planer – hvad er hans resultater?«, siger kommentatorerne. Dette spørgsmål bør rettes til det amerikanske folk. Kina og andre eurasiske magter er i færd med at opbygge højhastigheds- og magnetisk levitations- (maglev)systemer, udforske Månen inklusive dens bagside, lægge planer for Mars, lægge planer for omsider at omspænde Afrika og Sydamerika med højhastighedsjernbaner og elektricitetsnetværk, bygge små, mobile, flydende kernkraftværker …

Tror amerikanere, når de håndterer spørgsmålet om infrastruktursammenbrud, økonomisk fortvivlelse og opiat-epidemier, på, at disse ting kan gøres? Det er det virkelige spørgsmål med hensyn til præsident Trumps planer, og resultater.

Det er det amerikanske folk, der må få Glass-Steagall vedtaget i Kongressen for at standse Wall Street i at kværke USA’s økonomi. Det amerikanske folk må kræve »økonomisk politik i den amerikanske tradition«; og en omgående oprettelse af en nationalbank til infrastruktur. Flere amerikanere end nogen sinde før forsøger at blive NASA-astronauter. Men, det er det amerikanske folk, der må kræve et hastigt udvidet rumforskningsprogram og nye teknologier omkring fusionskraft.

Amerika må gå med i den Nye Silkevej. Præsident Trump har en plan – glem hans foreløbige resultater – og dette er, hvad det amerikanske folk må gøre, hvis de ønsker, USA atter skal blive stort.

Foto: Præsident Trump meddeler 1. juni, at USA trækker sig ud af Paris-Klimaaftalen.

v/ Tom Gillesberg.

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/trump-melder-usa-us-af-paris-aftale-vil-han-melde-usa-ind-i-russisk-kinesisk-patnerskab

2. juni, 2017 – Præsident Putin talte personligt på panelet Amerikansk-russisk Erhvervsdialog på SPIEF. »Jeg vil gerne takke alle russiske og amerikanske arrangører, jeg vil gerne takke vore amerikanske venner for at komme til dagens begivenhed«, sagde Putin. Han mindede om, at Rusland og USA »som indflydelsesrige verdensmagter opretholder en dialog inden for rammerne af forskellige formater – i Gruppen af 20, i APEC og andre organisationer, og interagerer i væsentlige globale og regionale spørgsmål. Det er meget godt, Gud ske lov, at denne proces fortsætter. I løbet af de seneste flere år har vi set sammenbruddet af fundamentet for bilateralt samarbejde, som det tog årtier at opbygge. Vore bilaterale relationer befinder sig nu på et rekordlavt punkt siden den Kolde Krig.«

Han mindedes de reelle bånd, som Rusland havde til USA rent historisk, og henviste til den amerikanske hjælp til industrialisering under den tidlige sovjetperiode, samt Låne- og Lejeprogrammet under krigen med det fascistiske Tyskland. Han understregede, at Rusland havde betalt hele gælden, ikke alene fra den russiske side under sovjetperioden, men også hele gælden fra de tidligere sovjetstater.

Selv om handel og investering var lav selv før den aktuelle krise, bemærkede han, at »Store amerikanske selskaber opererer fortsat i dag i Rusland og opretholder en betydelig tilstedeværelse på det russiske marked. Der er omkring 3000 firmaer med amerikansk kapital i Rusland. Disse foretagenders totale aktiver beløber sig til $75 mia., og de beskæftiger flere end 180.000 mennesker.«

»Jeg er overbevist om, at normalisering af de bilaterale relationer imødekommer begge landes interesser«, sagde han, »og vi vil fortsætte dialogen med den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump og den nye administration. Men, for at opnå succes, er der behov for seriøse bestræbelser fra begge sider«. Han understregede, at begge sider vil behøve politisk vilje og bør være rede til at løse spørgsmål af gensidig interesse. Han udtrykte håb om, at erhvervsdialogen på SPIEF, initiativerne og ideerne fra repræsentanterne for russiske og amerikanske foretagender, vil være med til at skabe et favorabelt miljø til løsning af denne uafgjorte opgave.

Det bør bemærkes, at dette var den største, amerikanske delegation på SPIEF i flere år – over 300 personer – især, siden Obama åbenlyst afskrækkede deltagelse. Den omfattede den amerikanske ambassadør, Boeing og andre, førende selskaber.

Video med Vladimir Putins åbningstale på SPIEF, engelsk voice over, kan ses her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pjI4U5JGdU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. juni, 2017 – Præsident Trump annoncerede torsdag (1. juni), at USA forlader Paris-klimaaftalen og sagde blandt andet, at en exit af aftalen ville gøre det muligt for USA at flytte flere mennesker ud af fattigdom ved at udnytte energiresurser. Direktør for EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Scott Pruitt sagde, at præsidenten holdt sine løfter til »de glemte mænd og kvinder, til arbejderklassen og de fattige arbejdere«. Alle implementeringer af aftalen blev omgående stoppet.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 31. maj, 2017 – Præsident Donald Trump kan være tæt på endnu et betydningsfuldt skift, væk fra »globaliseringens« døde æra – denne gang er det et amerikansk exit fra Barack Obamas nulvækst »Paris-aftale« – og han er fortsat udsat for ubarmhjertige angreb fra efterretnings-staten. Med endnu et stort, tysk medie, der bringer mord på Trump på banen, denne gang Der Spiegel, raser ’globalisterne’ for at blive af med ham.

Men amerikanerne stemte for et fundamentalt skift i økonomisk politik for atter at gøre Amerika til en stor, industriel og teknologisk nation. Og nu bliver truslen mod Trump fra den såkaldte »deep state«, »staten i staten«, måske modsvaret af udfordringen med de dybe huller i vejene, og de dybe, økonomiske huller, som millioner af amerikanere er faldet ned i.

Det rapporteres, at Trump-administrationen midt i juni til Kongressen vil cirkulere et udkast til amerikanske investeringer i ny, økonomisk infrastruktur og anmode om, at der vedtages love om det hen over sommeren. Og endnu, mens den investering, Trump vil anmode om, synes at blive stadig mindre end de $1 billion, han talte om under sin valgkampagne, så bliver modforslag fra Demokraterne stadig større.

På vegne af den Demokratiske Progressive Gruppe og valgkreds og fagforeningsgrupper, der støtter dem, fremlagde henved et dusin Demokratiske kongresmedlemmer den 25. maj et krav – i form af en kongresresolution, ikke lovgivning – om mere end $2 billion i direkte, statslig infrastrukturinvestering hen over 10 år, med betragtelig fokus på højhastigheds-jernbaneprojekter og nye projekter for vandveje og vandkontrol. Dette fulgte i kølvandet på et lovforslag om $1,25 billion som statsbevillinger til ny infrastruktur over kun fem år, introduceret af kongresmedlem Brian Higgins (D-NY).

Der er to faktorer, der fremmer disse forslag: det alarmerende sammenbrud af offentlig infrastruktur i større byer og stater; og så entusiasmen hos dem, der kender til Kinas utrolige Bælt & Vej-infrastrukturplatforme og de offentlige tilbud fra Kina og Japan om at investere i en opbygning af infrastruktur i USA.

Beijings Bælt & Vej Forum den 14.-15. maj var en forbløffende succes. Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der gav en præsentation om »Verdenslandbroen« under topmødet og i årtier har arbejdet på spiren til dette Bælt & Vej-initiativ, beskrev forummet som at deltage i udformningen af verdenshistorien til det bedre. Lyndon LaRouche, ophavsmanden til ideen fra 1989 og fremefter, sagde i dag: »Vi har etableret noget på globalt plan, og det er godt.«

Kinas udstedelse af produktiv kredit for at styrke andre nationers økonomier så vel som sin egen, har været unik i verden i et årti, og en politik, der både er konfuciansk og i Hamiltons tradition. Politikken i traditionen efter Hamilton mærkes i Amerika som et potentiale.

En sigende artikel i Asia Times den 29. maj havde titlen, »OBOR: Hvordan infrastruktur overtrumfer politik«. Den lægger ud med at diskutere Japans »overraskende« vending mod Kinas initiativer, Bælt & Vej og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB). Men dernæst, efter en gennemgang af viften af projekter for jernbaner, havne, elektricitet osv. i mange asiatiske lande, vender artiklen sig mod USA.

»For USA er Kinas OBOR-initiativ blevet en multidimensional udfordring, der påvirker nationale anliggender, såvel som international politik. Kinas fokus på multilaterale udviklingsprojekter har fremhævet et ubehageligt, nationalt spørgsmål for Trump: den amerikanske, civile infrastrukturs affældige tilstand, og Kongressens modstand mod at bevilge de nødvendige midler til at gøre noget ved det … Amerikas næststørste by, Los Angeles, er indbegrebet af Amerikas smuldrende infrastruktur. På trods af, at byen håber at sikre sig rettighederne til at være vært for 2024-Olympiaden, holdes byen tilbage pga. dens gennemhullede veje med trafikpropper, et aldrende telekommunikationssystem og manglen på pålidelig, offentlig transport. Borgmester Eric Garcetti kom endda med en dybtfølt bøn til Trumps transportminister, Elaine Chao, om at forcere en pakke på $1,3 mia. til byens undergrundsbane – men det står ikke klart, om administrationen vil føje ham.

»Garcetti går måske til Kina for investering.«

Det viser sig, at Kinas største producent af togvogne, CRRC Corp., allerede bygger 64 nye togvogne til Los Angeles’ undergrundsbane, og også til andre byer. Dette er kontrakter, der er udbudt til selskaber: men Kinas præsident Xi og ledere af statsbanker har gjort det klart, at Kina selv kunne investere i kreditydelse til store, nye infrastrukturplatforme, såvel som at være med til at bygge dem; det samme gælder for Japan.

Dette fordrer en statslig, amerikansk kreditinstitution. Ved de Progressive Demokraters begivenhed, understregede EIR-repræsentanter over for de tilstedeværende behovet for en nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition, som den centrale kilde til kredit, der kan gøre disse projekter mulige.

Foto: Shenzhen-strækningen af Guangzhou-Hongkong Højhastigheds-jernbanen under konstruktion. Maj, 2011. (Foto: Alancrh / wikimedia commons / CC BY-SA 3.0)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 30. maj, 2017 – 1.-3. juni træder Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum (SPIEF) sammen, under værtskab af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, der for to uger siden var æresgæst på Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde (BVF) i Beijing, og som netop i går i Paris førte strategiske forhandlinger med præsident Emmanuel Macron. I går gav TASS en forhåndsvisning af mødet i Skt. Petersborg, under titlen, »Fremtiden fødes i dag: Integration og infrastrukturprojekter i Eurasien«. Den rapporterer om den kendsgerning, at en opbygning af nationer nu er ved at komme sammen – EAEU (Eurasisk Økonomisk Union), SCO (Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen) og Bælt & Vej-initiativ (BVI), plus tre nationer i BRIKS – for at fremme storstilede projekter, der udføres ud fra et »globalt standpunkt«, til alles fordel. Der sættes fokus på specifikke projekter, såsom Vostochny Cosmodrome (Kosmodrom Øst), som Japan er interesseret i at deltage i; og den »Østlige Polygon« – det fjernøstlige program for forbundethed – konnektivitet – som involverer den Transsibiriske Jernbane, Baikal-Amur Hovedlinjen, regionale grænseovergange og havne.

Mødet i Skt. Petersborg er nu den optimistiske »nye norm« i Eurasien, ledet af Kina og Rusland; og billedet er ved at blive fyldt ud for andre dele af verden. I Afrika finder den storstilede åbning af Nairobi-Mombasa-jernbanen sted, hvis 480 km ses som den første strækning i den fremtidige, østafrikanske, længdegående jernbanekorridor. »At forbinde nationer og give mennesker fremgang«, lyder mottoet på den nye, kenyanske linjes lokomotiver.

Uvidende om denne kendsgerning om denne globale omgruppering for udvikling – eller værre endnu, med had til den – er de politiske kræfter, der er sat i gang imod dens succes, og som for størstedelens vedkommende kommer fra den depraverede, britiske imperieflok. Der er et grelt misforhold mellem virkeligheden og så atlanticisternes forslag. Fra Europa kommer der fortsatte angreb mod præsident Trump og mod de amerikanske vælgere, der indsatte ham i embedet, og mod Trumps modstand mod ’grønt’ folkemord og NATO-geopolitik. Mandag fortsatte kansler Angela Merkel i Berlin de bebrejdelser imod USA, som hun havde udtalt efter sidste uges G7-møde. I en tale på en konference for bæredygtig udvikling sagde hun, at hun fortsat er en »overbevist atlanticist«, og at man ikke kan stole på USA; »vi europæere må virkelig tage skæbnen i egne hænder«, især mht. klimapolitik. I dag krævede hun, at Europa er »pro-aktiv i internationale anliggender«. Den tyske udenrigsminister Sigmar Gabriel angreb Trumps »snæversynede« politikker, der har »svækket« Vesten og EU-interesser.

Her til morgen svarede Trump igen i et tweet, men sammenhængen går langt videre end til øje for øje. På spil står præsidentskabets eksistens, USA’s integritet som nation, og om USA – meget snart – vil stille sig på linje med det nye paradigme, med Verdenslandbroen/Ny Silkevej. Faren og bestikkeligheden ved angrebene på Trump fremgår af en artikel i Spiegel Online fra 20. maj, »Tiden er inde til at komme af med Donald Trump«. Med en hysterisk tirade imod Trump (ingen moral, ingen mål, ingen strategi, ingen hjerne, osv.), gennemgår artiklen, hvordan man kan afsætte ham, med reference til det uhyggelige »Game of Thrones«. Artiklen opfordrer medierne til at »fortsætte med at sige det, som det er: Trump må fjernes fra Det Hvide Hus. Hurtigt. Han er til fare for verden«. Oversat betyder det, at man erkender, at et partnerskab mellem USA, Rusland og Kina er en dødbringende trussel mod Det britiske Imperium.

Sandheden er, at mennesker kan formås til at tænke og overvinde disse beskidte operationer, uanset, hvor uophørlige og farlige, de måtte være. Vi har meget specialarbejde at udføre. En stor udfordring er sammenbruddet og nødsituationen i New York Citys transportsystem. Knap seks uger fra i dag truer massivt kaos, når nogle af toglinjerne mellem Manhattan og Long Island og New Jersey indskrænkes pga. hastereparationer. Dette sker i sammenhæng med, at hele metropolregionens infrastrukturbase er affældig. LaRouche Manhattan Projekt går frem på basis af en overordnet plan, sammenhæng og frem for alt et krav om national handling for en tilslutning til den globale omgruppering for en Ny Silkevej.

Diane Sare fra LaRouche PAC Politiske Komite har en artikel i det næste nummer af EIR (2. juni), der slutter således:

»New York City og de dermed sammenhængende områder har en høj tæthed af kapable mennesker, hvis der fandtes et forceret program for at uddanne dem. Det er de spørgsmål, som USA’s befolkning omgående må overveje, og ikke, om Jared Kushner havde et møde med den russiske ambassadør (hvilket under alle omstændigheder sikkert ville have været en god idé).

LaRouches Fire Love angiver det nødvendige, forcerede programs medvirkende faktorer. Vi må nu samle en komite af eksperter, der kan udfylde detaljerne, og hermed transformere den måde, New Yorkere tænker på, mht. den aktuelle katastrofe. Husk, at, på kinesisk, er symbolet for krise og muligheder det samme.«

Foto: Kenyas præsident Uhuru Kenyatta indviede i dag, den 31. maj, officielt den 472 km lange jernbanestrækning med standardspor mellem havnebyen Mombasa ved det Indiske Ocean og Nairobi, hvor han kørte med Madaraka Expressens første, regulære afgang. (foto: www.railwaygazette.com)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Video 2. del:

»Velkommen til disse ufatteligt spændende tider, hvor verden i den grad flytter sig, og hvor centrum for den historiske proces i den grad er flyttet over til Kina. I betragtning af, at der er 1,4 mia. kinesere og den tusindårige, gamle kultur, man har dér, er det egentlig ikke så mærkeligt, fordi der er et fundament, specielt også med hele den konfucianske kultur, som midlertidigt, igennem et stykke tid, blev holdt nede pga., at udefra kommende, kolonialistiske kræfter kunne manipulere kineserne til at ødelægge sig selv, grundlæggende set – det var briterne meget gode til. Men, nu har Kina fundet sig selv, og dermed er Kina i gang med at indtage sin naturlige plads på verdensscenen. Det var, hvad vi så med dette verdenshistoriske topmøde, som fandt sted den 14.-15. maj, det såkaldte Bælt & Vej Forum, i Beijing, hvor 29 stats- og regeringschefer og 130 lande, 50 internationale organisationer med FN’s generalsekretær i spidsen, og omkring 1500 delegerede, diskuterede, hvordan – hvor går vi nu hen i næste fase af dette gigantiske projekt, Kina har sat i gang, som allerede nu, i de projekter, man er blevet enige om, er 30 gange større end Marshallplanen i sin tid var det … «    

Lyd:

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 29. maj, 2017 – Verden ser meget anderledes ud, når den anskues fra Kina, end den gør fra USA eller Europa, lød Helga Zepp-LaRouches kommentar, da hun vendte hjem fra sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, der fandt sted 14.-15. maj. Kina befinder sig i en udvikling, der foregår i et forbløffende tempo, og deler nu denne succesfulde model med hele planeten, gennem Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Som en opstigende kraft i hele planetens økonomiske og kulturelle udvikling har Kina et optimistisk og forhåbningsfuldt syn – og ikke den pessimisme og fortvivlelse, der har hersket i det meste af Europa og USA, siden mordet på John F. Kennedy.

Der foregår nu en global omgruppering, bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med fornuftige regeringer, der bringer deres nationer om bord i Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Kun de dumdristige vil blive stående udenfor og ’kigge ind’ sådan, som Angela Merkel nu gør med Tyskland.

Præsident Donald Trump må nu handle hurtigt for at sikre, at USA bliver en del af denne omgrupperede orientering. Han valgte klogt at sende en personlig toprådgiver, Matt Pottinger, som sin repræsentant til Bælt & Vej Forum. Nu må han forhandle Amerikas fulde deltagelse i alle aspekter af dette Nye Paradigme, inklusive investering af billioner af dollars i genopbygningen af Amerikas totalt ødelagte infrastruktur. Trump må handle hurtigt for at skabe reel, fysisk-økonomisk forandring – det er, hvad de millioner, der stemte på ham, venter på. Han må handle hurtigt, for at genindsætte FDR’s Glass/Steagall-lov fra 1933 for at skabe den nødvendige bank- og kreditramme for en sådan massiv indsats for genopbygning – dét er mandatet, han fik ved præsidentvalget i 2016. Den idémæssige køreplan for, hvordan disse politikker skal implementeres i USA, har Lyndon LaRouche gentagent leveret – senest i sine Fire Love (til USA’s – og verdens – omgående redning).

Præsident Trump bør ikke tillade, at han presses eller distraheres bort fra denne hastedagsorden, af disse tendentiøse og grundløse anklager, der slynges ud mod hans regering, den ene efter den anden. Det er netop formålet med disse, af briterne påbudte operationer, at de skal forhindre præsident Trump i at vedtage de nationale, og internationale, politikker, som Det britiske Imperium i den grad frygter. At fordømme og afsløre disse løgne er selvfølgelig nyttigt, og endda nødvendigt. Men, denne eneste måde, hvorpå disse beskidte operationer på afgørende vis kan begraves, er at gøre præcis dét, som briterne er mest bange for; og begynde at bygge infrastrukturen og andre store projekter, nu.

En mere passende hyldest til John F. Kennedy i hundredeåret for hans fødsel, end netop atter at hellige vor nation disse politikker, eksisterer ikke.

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche på Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj, 2017.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 29. maj, 2017 – Det historiske Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde, den 14.-15. maj i Beijing, og hvori Helga Zepp-LaRouche deltog, efterfulgtes af præsident Trumps rundrejse til fire nationer, med anti-terrorisme og fred i Mellemøsten som dagsorden, og dernæst af NATO- og G7-topmøderne, hvor præsident Trump afviste både Rusland som fjendebillede og svindelen med menneskeskabt, global opvarmning.

I morgen, mandag, finder der et topmøde sted mellem præsidenterne Vladimir Putin fra Rusland og Emmanuel Macron fra Frankrig, et topmøde, der pludselig blev fremrykket mere end en måned. Den nyvalgte præsident Macron har ageret, som Lyndon LaRouches ven og tidligere franske præsidentkandidat Jacques Cheminade havde adviseret om, at han ville, ved at flytte koordinering med Vladimir Putin til toppen af sin dagsorden. Det kan der komme flere overraskelser ud af.

Dernæst vil et ekstraordinært årligt møde i Skt. Petersborg Økonomiske Forum (SPIEF) begynde kommende torsdag, den 1. juni, som vi rapporterer mere om nedenfor. Blot dagsordenen (der i sig selv er på 63 sider) for dette forum udtrykker den nye ånd fra den Nye Silkevej og fra amerikanernes afvisning af britiske imperiediktater, med deres valg af Donald Trump. Det er tilstrækkeligt lige nu at nævne blot et enkelt panel af de sandsynligvis flere end 100 paneler. Det bærer titlen: »Fremtiden, der fødes i dag: Integrations-og Infrastrukturprojekt i Eurasien«. Det vil faktisk blot være ét af flere Skt. Petersborg-paneler om netop dette emne. Blandt paneldeltagerne finder vi Lyndon LaRouches gamle ven, Vladimir Yakunin, formand for den overordnede bestyrelse for Instituttet for Forskning af Dialog mellem Kulturer, og som vil være en fremtrædende deltager under hele Skt. Petersborg Forum.

Dernæst vil Gruppen af 20 afholde topmøde den 7.-8. juli i Hamborg, under hvilket – med mindre det rykkes frem – præsidenterne Trump og Putin vil holde deres første, personlige møde. Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping skal besøge Rusland i begyndelsen af juli måned, til sit andet topmøde i år med præsident Putin. Herefter følger BRIKS-topmødet den 3.-5. september i Xiamen, i Kinas Fujian-provins.

De stats- og regeringsoverhoveder, der deltager i SPIEF med præsident Putin i denne uge, bliver den indiske premierminister Narendra Modi, den japanske premierminister Shinzo Abe, den østrigske kansler Christian Kern og den moldoviske præsident Igor Dodon. Der bliver paneler om samarbejde inden for BRIKS, den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU) og inden for Samfundet af Uafhængige Stater. Og om EAEU-samarbejde med Europa, med Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen og med Central- og Sydamerika. Om russisk samarbejde med Frankrig, Italien, Sverige, Schweiz, Serbien, Indien, Japan, USA og Afrika, og flere paneler om russisk samarbejde med Tyskland, især om gennembrud i metoder til varefremstilling. Der bliver paneler om rumteknologi og atomkraft, og adskillige paneler om forbedret sundhedspleje, inklusive om, hvordan lægevidenskaben kommer ud over antibiotika i betragtning af spredningen af antibiotikaresistente bakterier – på høje tid, at dette diskuteres seriøst. Der bliver adskillige paneler om byggeri af byer og urban infrastruktur – præcis det, vi er begyndt at diskutere omkring New York City.

Vi har nu muligheden for at virkeliggøre John F. Kennedys vision, Kennedy, der blev født for 100 år siden, den 29. maj, 1917. Hvis vi kæmper for det, kan vi sandsynligvis få det til at ske. I sin anden tale for FN’s Generalforsamling den 30. september, 1963, foreslog John Kennedy, at USA og Sovjetunionen gik sammen om at sende en mand til Månen inden årtiets udgang.

»I et felt, hvor USA og Sovjetunionen har en særlig kapacitet – feltet for rumforskning – er der plads til nyt samarbejde om yderligere fælles indsats i fastlæggelse af lovene for rummet, og for udforskning af rummet. Blandt disse muligheder inkluderer jeg en fælles ekspedition til Månen. I rummet er der ingen suverænitetsspørgsmål; gennem en resolution i denne Forsamling, har De forenede Nationers medlemmer afsværget ethvert krav på territoriale rettigheder i det ydre rum eller på himmellegemer og erklæret, at international lov og FN’s charter vil gælde. Hvorfor skulle derfor, menneskets første flyvning til Månen være et spørgsmål om konkurrence mellem nationer? Hvorfor skulle USA og Sovjetunionen, som forberedelse til sådanne ekspeditioner, blive involveret i en enorm fordobling af forskning, konstruktion og omkostninger? Mon ikke vi bør udforske, om det ikke skulle være muligt for vore to landes – ja, hele verdens – videnskabsfolk og astronauter at arbejde sammen om erobringen af rummet og, i dette årti, da en dag at sende til Månen, ikke repræsentanterne for en enkelt nation, men repræsentanterne for alle vore lande.«

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump og førstedame Melania Trump rejste til Bruxelles, Belgien, onsdag aften for deres fjerde stop under deres udenlandsrejse. Præsident Trump mødtes med ledere fra hele verden, før NATO-topmødet i Bruxelles.

27. maj, 2017 – Den 24. maj, dagen før Trumps deltagelse i NATO-mødet i Bruxelles, sagde den russiske forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu, at amerikanske og russiske militærledere mødtes »dag og nat« ved »mange forskellige lejligheder« for at koordinere og de-konfliktere deres separate, militære operationer imod den fælles fjende, ISIS, i Syrien.

Samme dag stod chefen for USA’s Centralkommando, generalløjtnant Jeffrey Harrigian, og fortalte pressen ved Pentagon stort set det samme. »Mit hold her på det Kombinerede Center for Luftoperationer øver fortsat sin indflydelse med vore de-konfliktions-mekanismer med russerne for at forhindre … en misforståelse … Vi har måttet øge mængden af de-konfliktionsarbejde, som vi udfører med russerne, i betragtning af det snævrere luftrum, som vi nu arbejder os igennem … I de fleste situationer har vi grundlæggende set en fælles fjende, ISIS.«

Han antydede, at der er voksende samarbejde: »Der har været tidspunkter, hvor vi har måttet arbejde gennem reducerede strategier for at sikre, at vi kunne fortsætte vores mission, og vice versa. Og jeg mener, dette er vigtigt at fremhæve, idet russerne er – er forstående over for det, vi forsøger at gøre«, fortsatte Harrigian. »Jeg vil ikke sige, at det altid er let, og det tager ofte flere telefonsamtaler at arbejde os igennem det. Men jeg vil sige, at vi har fundet måder til at sikre, at vi har vores manøvrefrihed til at komme efter ISIS og dræbe dem, når de indfinder sig.«

Foto: Chef for den Amerikanske Centralkommando, generalløjtnant Jeffrey Harrigian.

27. maj, 2017 – G7’s rolle som Det britiske Imperiums stemme under de to foregående amerikanske præsidenter, blev drastisk transformeret af Donald Trump:

Om Rusland: Selv om Trump tillod, at den falske karakterisering af Ukraine-krisen (hvor Rusland får skylden), bestod, og sanktionerne fortsatte, så erklærer slutkommunikeet mht. Syrien: »Vi håber, at Astana-aftalen faktisk kan bidrage til deeskalering af volden. Hvis Rusland er rede til at bruge sin indflydelse positivt, så er vi rede til at arbejde med dem for at løse konflikten i Syrien og forfølge en politisk afgørelse.«

Om Syrien og terrorisme: »Man bør ikke spare nogen indsats for at bringe en ende på konflikten gennem en inkluderende, syriskledet, politisk proces under FN-regi for at implementere en reel, troværdig transition i overensstemmelse med FN’s Sikkerhedsråds Resolution 2254 og Genève-kommunikeet. Vi er fast besluttet på at øge vore bestræbelser for at besejre international terrorisme i Syrien, især ISIS/ISIL/Daesh og al-Qaeda. Dette krav om primært at gå efter ISIS/ISIL/Daesh og al-Qaeda gentages med hensyn til Libyen og Irak.

Med hensyn til Paris-aftalen om klimaforandringer, lyder kommunikeet: »Amerikas Forenede Stater er i færd med at gennemgå sin politik om klimaforandring og Paris-aftalen og kan således ikke gå med i en konsensus om disse spørgsmål.« Trump sagde, at han snart vil træffe sin beslutning. Stakkels tankeløse Angela Merkel sagde: »Hele diskussionen om klima var meget vanskelig, for ikke at sige meget utilfredsstillende. Der er ingen indikationer på, om USA bliver i Paris-aftalen eller ej.«

Om handel: Trump tillod kommunikeet at indeholde tekst, der gik imod alle former for protektionisme, men tweetede bagefter, at han var tilfreds med, at det inkluderede et krav om »fjernelse af alle handelsforvrængende praksisser«.

Foto: Tre ledere af G7: Canadas Justin Trudeau, Tysklands Angela Merkel, USA’s Donald Trump.

27. maj, 2017 – »Seks mod én«: Sådan opsummerede Italiens premierminister Paolo Gentiloni, under den afsluttende pressekonference i Taormina, karakteriseringen af G7-diskussionen om klimapolitik. Traditionelt ville hver af G7-lederne holde en pressekonference, men denne gang aflyste både Trump og Merkel deres. Trump besluttede at holde en tale for amerikanske tropper på Sigonella-flybasen, alt imens Merkel briefede en gruppe tyske journalister.

»Vi har, og ikke kun i Taormina, ikke opdaget internationale politiske udviklinger i de seneste måneder, med udgangspunkt i valget af Trump«, sagde Gentiloni frimodigt. »Amerika er vores hovedallieret; det var det, det er det stadig, og vi må acceptere det amerikanske folks valg. Vi skjuler ikke denne uoverensstemmelse med USA; tværtimod, så kom det tydeligt frem under vore diskussioner. Men at diskutere er imidlertid altid gavnligt.«

Men, sagde Gentiloni, EU ville ikke desto mindre, ikke flytte sig »1 millimeter« fra klimapolitikken, der blev vedtaget i Paris. Det drejer sig især om Klimafonden. Uden klimafonden kan beslutningerne fra Paris ikke implementeres, forklarede Gentiloni.

Gentiloni blev spurgt om sin aktivisme før G7, med møder med verdensledere som Putin og Xi Jinping.

Gentiloni sagde, han ønskede at videreformidle deres synspunkter til G7.

Nogle lokale journalister spurgte polemisk, om han vil lægge de samme kræfter i at sikre, at Syditalien får moderne infrastrukturer (højhastigheds-jernbaner), som han gjorde med Taormina-topmødet (Taormina ligger på Sicilien). Han svarede med at støtte forlængelsen af højhastigheds-jernbanen til Syditalien, men forpligtede sig ikke.

Gentiloni understregede også spørgsmålet om udvikling i Afrika og nævnte den udtørrende Tchad-sø og tilstedeværelsen af afrikanske ledere ved lørdagens samling, men nævnte ikke nogen løsning.

Foto: Præsident Trump holdt en tale for mandskabet og deres familier på den amerikanske flåde-flybase i Sigonella, Sicilien, den 27. maj, efter G7.   

Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing den 14.-15. maj, hvor 130 lande havde takket ja til præsident Xi Jinpings invitation, Ruslands Putin var æresgæst, men hvor også USA sendte en vigtig delegation, kan meget vel være starten på en sådan ny, retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden, hvor alle nationer får adgang til udvikling. Trump taler stadig godt med Xi Jinping og forbereder at løse krisen med Nordkorea. USA og Rusland samarbejder i Syrien. Krigsfraktionen i Vesten fortsætter heksejagten på Trump, og medierne skriger »Watergate« uden, at der er substans. Kan medierne sammen med efterretningstjenesterne få afsat Trump? Eller vil Trump rense op i overvågningssamfundet? Trump skal have gang i infrastrukturprojekter, men pengene vil ikke komme fra Wall Street. Vil vi se Glass/Steagall og LaRouches tre andre love blive gennemført, så USA kan overleve det bankerotte finanssystem og blive stort igen? Vil USA og Europa gå med i dette nye, globale paradigme? Præsident Trumps afvisning, ved NATO-topmødet i Bruxelles den 25. maj, og ved det efterfølgende G7-topmøde i Italien, af at lade USA under hans ledelse fortsætte den gamle, vestlige politik, kan være startskuddet til en helt ny verdensorden, hvor USA samarbejder tæt med de tidligere fjendebilleder Kina og Rusland.

Dette er en redigeret udgave af en tale, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets formand i Danmark, holdt den 17. maj 2017. Se og hør talen inklusive den efterfølgende diskussion på www.schillerinstitut.dk.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

26. maj, 2017 – Efter sit møde med præsident Donald Trump i går aftes, sagde formand for Det europæiske Råd, Donald Tusk, under en kort pressebriefing, at »det er ikke hundrede procent sikkert, at vi – dvs., præsidenten og jeg – i dag kan sige, at vi har en fælles holdning, en fælles mening, om Rusland«. Ifølge alle iagttagere var dette en måde at sige, at der hersker dyb uoverensstemmelse mellem EU og Trump om det russiske spørgsmål. Bemærkninger fra Trumps økonomiske chefrådgiver, Gary Cohn, på flyet til Bruxelles, om, at USA undersøger spørgsmålet om sanktioner, alt imens, sagde han, der endnu ikke er nogen afgørende beslutning, læses som endnu en antydning af, at Trump har andre synspunkter om Putin end europæerne. Klimaforandringer og handel er endnu to punkter, hvor der ikke eksisterer nogen fælles holdning mellem EU og USA.

Med dette, og med Trumps uventede kritik af mange NATO-lande, der skylder USA en masse penge for forsvar, eftersom amerikanerne forsvarer Europa uden, at europæerne nogensinde yder en passende betaling, vidste de EU-ledere, der tog til G7-topmøde i Taormina, Italien, i dag, at de måtte forvente det vanskeligste topmøde nogensinde. Det faktum, at Trump mødtes separat med Japans Abe, umiddelbart før G7-topmødet begyndte her til middag, er ikke engang blevet rapporteret af de europæiske mainstream-medier, til trods for, at det indikerer, at Trump også har en dagsorden for Japan, som Europa synes ikke at bemærke.

Foto: Donald-krigen? Det er næppe ærbødighed, de to Donald’er viser hinanden, men de synes at være meget optaget af borddækningen …    

26. maj, 2017 – De italienske værter for dette års G7-topmøde i Taormina, Italien, har annonceret, at de forventer, slutkommunikeet, der udgives i morgen ved afslutningen af det to dage lange topmøde, vil være mindre end 10 sider langt – i sammenligning med 32 sider efter sidste topmøde. Det skyldes, at »USA ikke ville røre sig af flækken«, sagde diplomater til Reuters, så der bliver ikke meget at sige.

Præsident Trump nægter at gå med på de øvrige G7-landes krav om, at han:

1. Fortsætter Obamas forpligtende politiske engagement over for COP21 Paris-aftalen om klimaforandring; og
2. Fortsætter Obamas britiske politik for frihandelsliberalisme.

»Trump forventes at være fuldt ud lige så klædt på til at gå op imod sine G7-modparter«, som han gjorde det med NATO og EU tidligere på ugen, rapporterede BBC. »Trumps konfronterende holdning over for mangeårige partnere i Europa kastede en skygge over mødet«, sluttede Reuters misfornøjet. »Dette bliver utvivlsomt det mest udfordrende G7-topmøde i mange år«, udtalte EU-rådets formand Donald Tusk.

Den britiske premierminister Theresa May rejste spørgsmålet om terrorisme under fredagens diskussioner, og man forventer et særskilt kommunike om terrorisme. May meddelte, at hun kun bliver en enkelt dag i Taormina og springer over lørdagens diskussion for at vende hjem til UK.

(G7-landene er: Canada, Frankrig, Tyskland, Italien, Japan, Det forenede Kongerige og USA. Den europæiske Union er også repræsenteret i G7. Topmødet i Taormina, Sicilien, er det 43. G7-topmøde.)

Foto: Tre af G7-deltagerne: USA’s Donald Trump, Italiens Paolo Gentiloni, Frankrigs Emmanuel Macron.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROSS:  There are rude levers and things like this.

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

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

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

25. maj, 2017 – I noget, man kun kan beskrive som et slagsmål, modstod præsident Trump ethvert angreb med hensyn til Rusland, både udtrykkeligt, over for EU-præsident Donald Tusk, og på NATO-topmødet.

Ifølge Bloomberg News »sagde præsident for EU Donald Tusk, at forhandlinger med USA’s præsident Donald Trump torsdag afslørede, at man ikke havde ’en fælles holdning’ mht. Rusland.«

I stedet insisterede præsident Trump på NATO-mødet, at NATO’s mission først og fremmest var at nedkæmpe terrorisme. I kølvandet på sine interventioner i Mellemøsten har præsident Trump insisteret på, at ISIS er spørgsmålet.

Som en bekræftelse på denne holdning indikerede NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg, at NATO vil øge sin deltagelse i anti-terrorkrigen imod ISIS i Syrien, men ikke vil anmode om en styrkelse af NATO’s militære tilstedeværelse på Ruslands grænser, en skarp kontrast til NATO’s nylige politikker.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump og NATO-generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg i Bruxelles. 

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 25. maj, 2017 – Det, der altid må ligge til grund for vores forståelse af det, nogle mennesker blot kalder »infrastruktur«, må være Lyndon LaRouches begreb om, hvad det egentlig er, der gør sig gældende med et sådant begreb. For, det reflekterer den ene sandhed om menneskeheden og dens historie, nemlig den sandhed, at menneskeheden genopfinder sig selv og så at sige skaber en ny og bedre menneskelig art, gennem sin iboende, menneskelige kreativitet. Dette er den sandhed, der ligger i infrastruktur, sandheden om økonomi og sandheden om selve den menneskelige natur – de er i virkeligheden alle aspekter af én og samme ting, der stirrer os i møde, når vi først begynder at begribe det.

Ben Deniston fra LaRouche PAC Videnskabsteam fremførte dette argument på en forståelig måde den 13. april med sine korte bemærkninger til Schiller Instituttets Manhattan-konference, og som blev rapporteret i EIR, 5. maj. [www.larouchepub.com/other/2017/4418lar_platform_concept.html]

Bens titel lød, »Fra den Nye Silkevej til rummet: LaRouches koncept om den økonomiske platform«. Og her, efter afslutningen af Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing den 14.-15. maj en måned senere, har Lyndon LaRouche understreget, at det nye, internationale rumprogram nu er det næste, nødvendige skridt for menneskeheden.

Den tidligst kendte sådan »platform« var den præhistoriske trans-oceaniske, maritime kultur, som allerede besejlede verdenshavet under den sidste istid. Ben karakteriserede denne kulturs »platform« som stjernekortet, som søfarerne brugte til at finde vej over det uvejsomme hav. Menneskets viden om stjernehimlen var den første videnskab og er på en måde fortsat kernen i al ægte videnskab – som Lyndon LaRouche i dybden forklarer hele dette spørgsmål i 1984 i sin artikel, » On the Subject of B.G. Tilak’s Thesis: The Present Scientific Implications of Vedic Calendars from the Standpoint of Kepler and Circles of Gauss« (Om B.G. Tilaks tese: De nuværende videnskabelige implikationer af vediske kalendere ud fra Keplers standpunkt og kredsene omkring Gauss), som findes genoptrykt i EIR, 28. april.[1]

Lyndon LaRouche bruger termen »platform« i denne forstand til at indikere en ægte videnskabelig, kulturel og økonomisk revolution, som kvalitativt transformerer menneskeheden, dens omgivelser, aktiviteter, overbevisninger og moral – ja, som faktisk omskaber mennesket til en ny, anderledes og bedre art.

Det var det menneskelige intellekt, der for første gang begreb stjernernes plan. Det var det menneskelige intellekt, der indledte menneskets erobring af kontinenternes indre, fra Karl den Stores store kanaler, til Colberts værker og Amerikas kanaler og jernbaner, og videre til kulminationen af dette menneskelige intellekt i den Eurasiske Landbro, eller Bælt & Vej, og som blev udtænkt af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche.

Den mest strålende side af det Tyvende Århundrede, som er integreret med Lyndon LaRouche og hans arbejde i det århundrede, vil altid være lanceringen af rumprogrammet, også selv om det i vid udstrækning blev afbrudt på det tidspunkt. Enhver dybere undersøgelse af rumprogrammets historie og dets personer bekræfter én i overbevisningen om, at dette i sig selv var en kvalitativt højere fase af den menneskelige civilisation: selve personerne, videnskabsfolkene, astronauterne og de hundreder af tusinder, der gjort alt, hvad der var muligt og umuligt for at støtte indsatsen – de var bedre mennesker, af en højere kvalitet. Idealistiske mennesker. Det er ganske åbenlyst; og det gælder i lige grad for det sovjetiske som for det amerikanske rumprogram.

Lyndon og Helga LaRouches ven, Krafft Ehricke, er et fremragende eksempel.

Som de nævnte artikler af Lyndon LaRouche antyder, så er det en kendt hemmelighed, at dagens og morgendagens rumpionerer har rødder tilbage i tiden, til istidens videnskabsfolk og globetrottere. Selv de navne, vi giver dem: »astronauter«, »kosmonauter«, »taikonauter«, fastslår korrekt, at de er »søfarere«, af det græske ord »nautes«. Det er de sandelig.

Med vores lancering af en national kampagne for at revolutionere infrastrukturen i New York City, er dette nogle af den form for overvejelser, der ligger os på sinde.

Titelfoto: Helleristning fra Engelstrup, Odsherred, dateret til år 1000-500 f.Kr. Helleristninger med afbildning af skibe i hele Norden viser den store betydning, skibsfart havde for datidens mennesker, hvor indlandsområderne var ufremkommelige.

Indsat foto: Shanghai Transrapid maglevtog i 2012. (photo: Lars Plougmann/Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0)

[1] Vi henviser til knappen EIR på hjemmesiden, der giver adgang til arkivet over samtlige årgange af EIR. Nogle artikler er dog kun for betalende abonnenter. For tegning af abonnement, henvendelse til vores kontor.

Leder Fra LaRouche PAC, 24. maj, 2017 – Præsident Trumps historiske besøg til de hellige steder for de tre religioner af Bogen (Den jødiske Bibel, den kristne Bibel og Koranen, -red.), sluttede i dag i Vatikanet. Udskrifter fra både Vatikanet og Det Hvide Hus rapporterer, at samarbejde omkring fred i Mellemøsten var det centrale diskussionsemne – »fremme af fred i verden gennem politisk forhandling og dialog mellem religioner«, som Vatikanet udtrykte det.

Forskellen mellem den aktuelle situation og så alle de mislykkede bestræbelser under tidligere præsidenter er den kendsgerning, at den britiske opsplitning af verden i Øst og Vest, den »frie verden vs. gudløs kommunisme«, skabt af briterne efter præsident Franklin Roosevelts død, er i færd med at blive smadret af samarbejdet mellem Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin og Xi Jinping. Den israelsk-palæstinensiske konflikt har tjent som den primære styrekabine for denne opdeling af verden, og det samme har Nordkorea i Asien. I begge tilfælde ville briterne og deres naive fjolser i USA og Europa træffe alle tænkelige forholdsregler for at forhindre, at der kommer en løsning på disse betændte kriser, på trods af den kendsgerning, at deres eksistens var grobund for et terroristkaos og konstant truede med at blive gnisten til udbruddet af atomkrig.

Nu er en ny, økonomisk verdensorden på plads, hvilket demonstreredes af det succesrige Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj. Alt imens Kina og Rusland var hoveddrivkraft bag denne proces, så sendte præsident Trump en højtplaceret repræsentant, skabte en »Bælt & Vej Komite for USA« for at følge op på forummet samt inviterede Kina til at deltage i planlægning og byggeri af den desperat nødvendige genopbygning af den smuldrende, amerikanske infrastruktur.

Med præsident Trump, der har kurs mod Bruxelles på torsdag til et NATO-møde (de anti-russiske fanatikere holder vejret i forventning om, hvad Trump vil sige), så fremlagde den russiske forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu i dag et ekstremt positivt syn på det amerikansk-russiske samarbejde i krigen mod terror i Syrien.

»Vi taler med dem ’på alle tider af døgnet’«, sagde Shoigu om det amerikanske militær, »både nat og dag, og vi mødes ved forskellige lejligheder«. Chefen for den amerikanske generalstab, general Dunford, beskrev i sidste uge det tætte samarbejde med russerne og syrerne, selv om amerikansk lov forbyder egentlige fælles militære deployeringer.

Dette er det nye, globale miljø, baseret på samarbejde, i hvilket præsident Trump opfordrer Islam, Jødedom og Kristendom til at komme sammen for fred. Med hensyn til terrorisme sagde Trump søndag i Riyadh, ved et møde med ledere fra næsten 50 islamiske nationer, at det ikke er en konflikt mellem religioner, men mellem godt og ondt.

I samme ånd bryder muligheden for fred ud på Koreahalvøen. Den nyligt valgte præsident for Sydkorea, Moon Jae-in, promoverer åbenlyst en genindførelse af ’Solskinspolitikken’ for økonomisk samarbejde med Nordkorea, både for fælles udvikling og for at etablere den nødvendige tillid for en aftale for at afslutte Nordkoreas atomprogram, til gengæld for en fredsaftale og løfte om ikke-aggression fra USA.

Præsident Moons udsending til Rusland, Song Young-gil, holdt dybtgående diskussioner med Ruslands minister for udvikling i Fjernøsten, Alexander Galushka, i sidste uge. Song sagde til det sydkoreanske nyhedsbureau, Yonhap: »Minister Galushka foreslog, at det trilaterale samarbejde mellem Syd- og Nordkorea og Rusland, og som har befundet sig i et dødvande pga. atomspørgsmålene, nu fremsættes af hver nation, og det gik jeg ind på.« Dette har været kernen i Lyndon LaRouches forslag mht. Korea i de seneste tyve år. Ligesom tilfældet er i Mellemøsten, så er den Nye Silkevej også her den platform, på hvilken fred endelig kan etableres.

Kinas ambassadør til FN, Liu Jieyi, sagde ved Sikkerhedsrådets møde om Nordkorea tirsdag, at »der er intet til hinder for en dialog i den aktuelle situation – det kræver politisk vilje.«

»Alle skridt fremad i Koreakrisen er sket gennem dialog«, sagde han – og han kunne have tilføjet, at alle skridt fremad blev saboteret af krigspartierne i Vesten, først Bush og Cheney og dernæst Barack Obama.

Disse geopolitiske spil kan og må lægges i graven for evigt, og Imperiets ild må slukkes. Tiden er inde.

Foto: USA’s præsident Donald Trump havde udstrakte drøftelser med Pave Frans under en privat audiens i Vatikanet, 24. maj, 2017. Her beundrer han med fr. Trump Michelangelos store vægmaleri, Dommedag, i det Sixtinske Kapel i Vatikanet.

23. maj, 2017 – »Fælleserklæringen mellem Kongeriget Saudi-Arabien og Amerikas Forenede Stater«, underskrevet af præsident Donald Trump og saudiske Kong Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud ved besøgets slutning, blev i dag udgivet af Det Hvide Hus. Erklæringen er en ompakning af Det britiske Imperiums mangeårige krig-lige-meget-hvordan-vi-får-det-politik, hvidvasket gennem Imperiets saudiarabiske forpost. Den amerikansk/saudiske alliance imod Iran og dets allierede, som det skitserer, ville, i fald den blev ført ud i livet, ødelægge samarbejdet med Rusland og Kina imod terrorisme, som præsident Trump ellers har indledt, og bringe regionens presserende nødvendige deltagelse i den Nye Silkevej til forlis.

Erklæringen på 28 punkter annoncerer »et nyt Strategisk Partnerskab for det 21. Århundrede« mellem de to nationer, der skal organiseres gennem en »Strategisk Fælles Konsultationsgruppe«, der skal mødes mindst én gang om året, på skift i de to lande. Bush-Obama-politikken med mørklægning af Saudi-Arabiens åbenlyse rolle i at sponsorere wahhabi-terrorisme i hele verden (inklusive 11. september) opretholdes, med lovprisninger af Saudi-Arabiens »resultater« med at afbryde terrorisme.

Diskussionen om at skabe »en robust, integreret regional sikkerhedsarkitektur«, som andre lande i regionen skal trækkes ind i, fælles saudisk-amerikansk »beskyttelse« af Bab al-Mandab og Hormuzstrædet, osv., er åbenlyst rettet imod Iran. De to ledere »enedes om behovet for at inddæmme Irans maligne indblanding i andre staters interne anliggender, anstiftelse af sekterisk strid, støtte til terrorisme og bevæbnede stedfortrædere, og bestræbelser på at destabilisere lande i regionen« og »understregede, at … atomaftalen med Iran må reeksamineres mht. nogle af dens klausuler«.

Mens Saudi-Arabien fortsætter sin samvittighedsløse krig mod Yemen, med folkemord til følge, så erklærer punkt 25, »Præsident Trump roser Kongeriget Saudi-Arabien for at yde humanitær- og nødhjælp til det yemenitiske folk«.

Præsident Trumps fejlagtige angreb på Syrien over det britiskorkestrerede angreb med »kemiske våben« roses, og de to aftalte at lægge pres på (»give støtte til«) den libanesiske regering for at afvæbne Hezbollah.

23. maj, 2017 – Her til aften er præsident og fr. Trump i Italien efter deres aktiviteter i Tel Aviv, Jerusalem og Betlehem. Trumps hovedtema var fred og promoveringen af en genoptagelse af de standsede israelsk-palæstinensiske forhandlinger for fred og løsningen af national status.

Her til morgen blev Trump modtaget med ceremoni i Betlehem, hvor han mødtes med præsidenten for det palæstinensiske selvstyre, Mahmoud Abbas. Bagefter sagde Trump, at han »har store forhåbninger til, at Amerika kan hjælpe Israel og palæstinenserne med at udarbejde fred og bringe nyt håb til regionen og dens folk«. Han udtalte, at det var hans faste overbevisning, at, »hvis israelerne og palæstinenserne kan skabe fred, vil det være indledningen til en fredsproces i hele Mellemøsten«. »Det ville være en fantastisk præstation«, sagde han.

Abbas, der stod ved Trumps side, sagde, at palæstinenserne »forpligter sig til samarbejdet med Dem, for at opnå en historisk fredsaftale mellem os og Israel«. Abbas sagde også, »Vi genbekræfter over for Dem vores holdning, hvor vi accepterer en to-statsløsning langs grænserne fra 1967, med staten Palæstina med Østjerusalem som hovedstad, og som lever side om side med Israel i fred og sikkerhed.«

Søndag tilstod de israelske myndigheder palæstinenserne et par økonomiske indrømmelser, efter anmodning fra Trump. De omfatter at holde Allenby-broen åben mellem Vestbredden og Jordan, 24 timer hele ugen; at bygge to industrizoner ved Jalameh i Vestbreddens nordlige del og ved Tarqumiyeh i syd; samt en lempelse af visse restriktioner for byggeri af palæstinensiske beboelser.

Mens han var i Israel, mødtes Trump med premierminister Benjamin Netanyahu og præsident Reuven Rivlin. Han bad ved den Vestlige Mur, besøgte Holocaust-mindesmærket, Gravkirken (bygget på Golgata, hvor Jesus iflg. overleveringen skal være gravlagt), samt Israels Museum.