16. dec., 2016 – Selv om evakueringen af militante kæmpere og deres familier fra det østlige Aleppo er skredet planmæssigt frem i de seneste dage, blev de syriske myndigheder i dag tvunget til at suspendere processen pga. terroristangreb mod evakueringen af de militante kæmpere, og mod ambulancerne.

Ifølge det Syrisk-arabiske Nyhedsagentur (SANA) affyrede jihadistiske snigskytter kugler og granater mod busser med de evakuerede. SANA’s korrespondent, der citerede unavngivne kilder, rapporterede, at suspenderingen ville blive opretholdt, indtil man kunne få garantier for, at terroristerne blev tvunget til at overholde den våbenstilstand, som blev forhandlet igennem af Rusland og Tyrkiet.

Forud for suspenderingen rapporterede det Russiske Forsoningscenter, at evakueringen af de militante kæmper og deres familier fra det østlige Aleppo var næsten fuldført, med 9.500 mennesker, der har forladt byen siden i går. De fremkom med anklager om, at »radikale og uforsonlige« bevæbnede bander havde beskudt syriske tropper i nogle kvarterer.

Tydeligvis ude af stand til at takle situationens kendsgerninger, skældte udenrigsminister John Kerry, under en pressebriefing i Udenrigsministeriet i går, ud på det, han kaldte en »samvittighedsløs« situation i Aleppo og insisterede på, at »[Assad-]regimet eller dets allierede« havde beskudt konvojerne ud af Aleppo med de sårede. Dette er »foragteligt«, buldrede han løs, »intet mindre end en massakre« og »tilfældig og rå brutalitet« imod befolkningen i Aleppo. Han krævede omgående standsning af fjendtlighederne.

En langt nyttigere intervention kom fra Vitaly Churkin, Ruslands FN-ambassadør, der sagde, at den første opgave i Syrien efter Aleppos befrielse bliver en total suspendering af kamphandlinger og en genoptagelse af Syrien-Syrien-dialogen, rapporterede SANA. Churkin sagde i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, at Rusland altid har sagt, at der må komme en politisk løsning på krisen i Syrien, en løsning, der respekterer landets suverænitet og territoriale integritet. Churkin understregede, at, gennem at intervenere i Syrien, da det gjorde, var Rusland med til at forhindre terrorister i at overtage kontrollen over Damaskus og bidrage til at befri store områder i landet. Han bekræftede ligeledes, at Rusland har været med til at etablere en dialog mellem Assad-regeringen og »oppositionen« i og uden for Syrien.

Under sin pressekonference i går i Japan, sammen med sin japanske modpart, Shinzo Abe, rapporterede Putin, »[V]i opretholder en aktiv dialog med den bevæbnede opposition, med hjælp fra Tyrkiet«.   

16. dec., 2016 – I et interview, publiceret af TASS i dag, sammenlignede Ruslands viceudenrigsminister Sergei Ryabkov dem, der i Washington rabler løs imod Ruslands angivelige »hacking«, med karaktererne i en gyserfilm, »vampyrer, der er bange for sollyset og bliver til støv, når solstrålerne rammer dem. Det ville være morsomt, hvis det ikke var så sørgeligt«.

Ryabkov bemærkede ligefremt, at forbedringer i de amerikansk-russiske relationer bliver en lang og vanskelig opgave, men tilføjede, at Rusland er rede til at arbejde med USA og være en konstruktiv partner »uden tøven, pauser eller kunstige forhalinger«. Med hensyn til de aktuelle, hysteriske angreb mod Rusland, sagde han, at han håbede, at »den naturlige pragmatisme hos mange af de nominerede til Trumps team, der endnu skal godkendes af Senatet«, vil være med til at undgå »den absolut uforståelige usikkerhed, der grænser til forfølgelsesvanvid«.

Han tilføjede, at han kender den udpegede udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson, så vel som mange andre kandidater, der måske har været udpeget til posten.

»Dette er absolut normalt, men hvad der forbløffer mig i nutidens Amerika, er den fantastiske reaktion, hvor man krymper sig, blot nogen nævner, at en person nogensinde har haft kontakt med russere.«

Den russiske regeringsperson sagde, at han forventer, at »pilen« i den amerikanske politik vil ændre retning under Trump-administrationen, og at »der ikke kommer de samme, udtrykkelige bestræbelser på at spille det anti-russiske kort«. Det er uheldigt, sagde han, at Obama-administrationen, som man kunne forvente, ville tage afstand fra den aktuelle anti-russiske kampagne, i betragtning af dens ansvar som regering og »arten af dens aktivitet«, i stedet »er blevet involveret i dette snavsede og upassende spil«.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 16. december, 2016 – Fredag erklærede præsident Barack Obama i et truende tonefald i et interview på NPR Morning Edition, der blev landsdækkende transmitteret, angiveligt som respons på beskyldninger om, at russerne skulle have hacket Demokraternes Nationalkomite,

»Jeg mener, at der ikke kan være nogen tvivl om, at, når en fremmed regering forsøger at få indflydelse på integriteten af vore valg, så må vi gribe til handling, og det vil vi gøre på et tidspunkt og et sted, som vi vælger. Men, hr. Putin er udmærket bekendt med mine følelser om dette, for jeg talte direkte med ham om det.«

Lyndon LaRouche sagde:

»Disse ord er en trussel om at myrde betydningsfulde mennesker. Det er, hvad han lærte af sin [sted-]fader.«

LaRouche opfordrede borgerne til at »holde øje med denne fyr, så han ikke dræber«. Obama truer offentligt verden. »Planetens nationer trues nu af Obamas plan om massedrab af mennesker … «

Dernæst gentog Obama, under sin pressekonference i Det hvide Hus her til eftermiddag, sin trussel mod »russisk hacking«. Han sagde, at han havde sagt til Rusland, at

»de skal ophøre med det og indikerede, at der vil blive konsekvenser, når de gør det … Vores mål er fortsat at sende Rusland et klart budskab.«

Desuden erklærede Obama sig enig opsummeringen fra CNN-reporteren i Det Hvide Hus om, at »præsidenten mener, Vladimir Putin autoriserede hackingen«.

Anklagen om russiske indgreb i selve valget lugter langt væk, i betragtning af, at der nu i månedsvis ikke er blevet fremlagt noget bevis, der viser Ruslands skyld, men kun uophørligt gentagede påstande. I dag sagde talsmand for den russiske præsident, Dmitry Peskov, at USA bør ophøre med ubegrundede beskyldninger om russisk indgriben.

»De bør enten holde op med at tale om dette, eller også i det mindste fremlægge nogle beviser.«

Torsdag nægtede efterretningsfolk fra Obama-administrationen direkte at gå til Kongressen, da de blev bedt om at gøre det af Repræsentanternes Hus’ Efterretningskomite, for at levere beviser under et møde bag lukkede døre. Der har været mange indikationer på, at andre efterretningstjenester ikke er enige med CIA-direktør John Brennans konklusion om russisk hacking.

Faren kommer fra Obamas forkærlighed for mord – samt den kendsgerning, at han snart vil forlade embedet og derfor hverken vil have eksekutive magtbeføjelser, eller beskyttelse mod eventuel retsforfølgelse for sine forbrydelser.

Lad os kigge på Obamas kendte meriter. Der er hans tirsdagsmøder, hvor han udarbejder mållister over de ofre, der skal dræbes ved hjælp af droner. Der er de forsatte deployeringer af amerikanske mænd og kvinder, som udsættes for skade og død, i amerikansk militærtjeneste i de 16 år, hvor Obama/Bush/briterne har ført krige for regimeskifte (Irak, Afghanistan, Libyen, Syrien). I selve USA er der et massivt antal borgere, der lider og dør pga. Obamas katastrofale økonomiske politik, som han selv kalder en succesfuld, økonomisk genrejsning. Der er en voldsom stigning i tilfælde af overdosis af narkotika og dødsraten generelt.

Lad os se på Obamas historie. Hans trang til at dræbe stammer fra hans egen opvækst, har LaRouche mange gange understreget. Hans stedfar, Lolo Soetero i Indonesien, var en drabsagent i den undergravende virksomhed og nedslagtning (1965-66), der skulle vælte præsident Sukarnos regering. I sin selvbiografi skriver han, hvordan han i denne periode lærte, at drab på de svage er, hvad de stærke gør. (Dreams from My Father)

LaRouche bemærkede, at

»internationalt har vi netop nu folk, der leder et globalt program for udvikling og fred [den eurasiske Nye Silkevej, med præsidenterne Xi Jinping og Vladimir Putin, og andre], men Obama vil ikke bare lade tingene forløbe på en fredelig måde«.

De vil dræbe; så har vi problemet, og det hele er blodig uorden. LaRouche understregede, at »Alle signalerne er til stede. Obama har gjort det ganske klart«.

LaRouche krævede, at man tog skridt til at advare folk. »Obama har gentagne gange vist, at han er parat til drab i stor skala i USA og andre nationer.« Det, der må gøres, er, at »Obama må lukkes ned« for at forhindre det, han har til hensigt at gøre.

Foto: Præsident Obama kæmper for TTP under et møde i House Democratic Caucus på Capitol Hill, juni, 2015. (Foto: Whitehouse.gov)

Medierne svirrer med historier om, at den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin hackede de amerikanske valg. Vi får kommentarer fra Lyndon LaRouche om hele denne larm, og vi hører fra et medlem af Efterretnings-veteraner for Sund Fornuft (VIPS), tidligere senator fra Alaska, Mike Gravel, om disse beskyldninger, samt om, hvad vore relationer med Rusland og Kina bør være. Dernæst bevæger vi os ud i rummet, med overvejelser over behovet for fælles, internationalt samarbejde om forsvar af Jorden mod sådanne kosmiske trusler som vildfarne asteroider og kometer, samt diskuterer den moralske forpligtelse over for fremskridt og videnskabelig opdagelse, der i sig har potentialet til at forene nationer på basis af et nyt grundlag for internationale relationer mod fælles, menneskelige mål!     

Engelsk udskrift:

We Need To Develop a Platform of Economic Activity that Makes Mankind an Active Force in the Solar System!

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, December 16, 2016

        JASON ROSS:  Hi there!  It's December 16, 2016, and you're
joining us for our Friday LaRouche PAC webcast.  We're recording
today at 3:30 in the afternoon.  My name is Jason Ross; I'll be
the host today.  I'm joined in the studio by Ben Deniston and via
Google Hang-outs by Kesha Rogers, member of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee.
        So, the world has presently undergone a tumultuous
sea-change in its orientation; away from the trans-Atlantic world
of wars, of economic stagnation.  We've seen this recently in
such votes as the Brexit vote in England, which was a repudiation
of that orientation; we've seen it in the election of Donald
Trump in the United States, which certainly a repudiation of what
Obama had represented and what Hillary was seen as being sure to
continue.  Instead, we're seeing something much better come about
in potential, which is the war avoidance strategy from Russia and
the economic cooperation being put forward by China through the
Belt and Road initiative; which is the Chinese policy initiative
which has come as a result of decades of organizing by Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche and their associates for a policy which they had
called the Eurasian Land-Bridge and which has now become the New
Silk Road, and as China calls it, the Belt and Road initiative
for cooperation on economic projects internationally.
        This isn't something that the trans-Atlantic financial and
military power is taking lying down.  Instead, the use of war, of
murder, of destabilization to prevent such cooperation has been
put into place; as we've seen with the disastrous military policy
of Obama, for example, and of George Bush before him.  Over the
past few weeks, this has taken a turn with an increasing drumbeat
of stories about Russia hacking the US election; of stories
coming out, not backed by hard evidence, but by hearsay and by
appealing to the words of authorities that we can presumably
trust, that Vladimir Putin threw the election to Donald Trump by
hacking the DNC and the emails of John Podesta, and I suppose
controlling the thoughts of everybody who voted for Donald Trump.
This has been going on since the summer; this is when the DNC
first announced that its email system had been compromised.  At
that time, in discussions around this, the Secretary General of
NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said "A severe cyber-attack may be
classified as a case for the alliance — NATO.  Then NATO can and
must react.  How?  That will depend on the severity of the
attack."  So, putting it on the table that cyber-attacks can be
met with military responses by NATO.  In October, the famous
James Clapper, who said that the US was not wittingly collecting
material on millions of Americans when asked by Senator Wyden,
Clapper — along with the head of Homeland Security — said in
October that "we believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of
these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could
have authorized these activities."
        Over the past weeks, we've seen front-page articles in the
{New York Times}, the {Washington Post}; for example, last Friday
the {Washington Post} without naming any sources or pointing to
any specific facts, wrote that "The CIA has concluded, in a
secret assessment, that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to
help Donald Trump win the Presidency, according to officials
briefed on the matter."  So, no named sources.  On Monday, plans
were announced to have the Electors of the Electoral College
briefed by the intelligence agencies on foreign interference in
our elections; basically trying to call into question the
election itself and the laws governing Electors.  Just yesterday,
on NPR's "Morning Edition", President Obama said, "I think there
is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the
integrity of our elections, that we need to take some action.
And we will; at a time and place of our choosing.  Some of it may
be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.  But Mr. Putin
is well aware of my feelings on this, because I spoke to him
directly about it."  That's what Obama had to say yesterday; he
spoke about it more at his final press conference at the White
House today.
        So, we reached Lyndon LaRouche for comment about this, this
morning; and I'd like to play for you his response:

        LYNDON LAROUCHE [recording]:  Those words in his mouth are,
as far as they're there, that's a threat to murder people; to
murder people of importance.  Because this is the way Obama's
stepfather taught him, and the way that Obama operated in killing
people on Tuesdays during that episode period.  So, the point is,
the threat is murder; and the best thing to do is say, publicly,
that the nations of the planet are now threatened by Obama's plan
for mass killing of people.  And that has to be said; because
that's what that guy has always done, since his stepfather
trained him.  Obama is a killer; and therefore, he's not going to
let things get by peacefully.  Obama will kill, unless somebody
stops him.  That's the reality here.  All the details and so
forth, and things of your back and forth, really don't amount to
much right now.  Many of the people who are leading the effort
of developing the world program don't need to be stirred up.
It's only Obama's crowd that are dangerous; and they will kill.
Therefore, it's important for those who are waiting for their
opportunity but are not going to ask for it; that's where the
problem comes in.  Once Obama, with his crowd, starts killing
people, that's going to be a bloody mess; and that's going to be
the kind of thing that threatens the people of the United States
and others right now.  He's made it clear; the signals are all
there.  Obama is still going for a kill against the people of the
United States and others.

        ROSS:  So, there you have LaRouche's views on the expected
response for Obama to take his usual course of killing to get his
way on things.
        Now, on Monday, the VIPS group — the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity — released a memo called "Allegations
of Hacking the Election Are Baseless", in which they gave their
reasons for coming to that assessment.  We interviewed a leading
member of the VIPS group, former Senator Mike Gravel — former
Senator from Alaska — to get his take on this; and we can play
that for you now.
        Mike Gravel is one of the signers of a letter that was
released by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity a
couple of days ago in response to the {New York Times} and the
general media tumult around Russia hacking the elections, Russia
denying Hillary Clinton the Presidency; that she deserved as a
gift from God.  So, I'd like to ask Senator Gravel, who is a
former adjutant top-secret control officer for the Communications
Intelligence Service, and a special agent of the
Counterintelligence Corps; and in addition being a former Senator
from Alaska.  Senator Gravel, could you tell our viewers what you
think of this notion that Russia hacked the election and
determined the outcome of our Presidential election here in the
US?

        SEN. MIKE GRAVEL: First off, it's ridiculous! It's
far-fetched ridiculous! We know — and here we can be grateful to
Edward Snowden — that the United States' capability, along with
their partners in Britain, have the capability of vacuuming up
{every single communication in the world}. That means that the
NSA has {all} of Hillary's emails; has {all} of the
communications between the US and Russia. And so for the
government to come out and say via the intelligence community,
that this is all instigated by Russia, is just part of the
demonization that we've seen taking place about Putin and Russia,
as part of a plan in the United States to have regime change in
Russia.  Believe it. We're seeing what's happened in Syria with
regime change, which is hundreds of thousands of people displaced
and killed. And now we know that it was the US that financed the
coup in Kiev, that unseated Ukraine's duly-elected President, who
was favorable to Russia; which, of course, is normal, since they
are neighbors and were essentially one country at one point. And
so we destabilized that, and that was admitted to by the Under
Secretary, Victoria Nuland, who's still there; was there under
Clinton. She admitted that the United States had spent $5 billion
over a 10-year period, to destabilize the government of Ukraine.
We succeeded.
        Then, of course, as a reaction to that, when Russia had to
continue its fresh-water port, which is Sevastopol, which became
under threat, they protected it by annexing — {re}-annexing,
let's put it that way — because it was part of Russia before. It
was given away by Nikita Khruschev several years ago.
        So, in point of fact, we have all the knowledge in the NSA.
Maybe the NSA doesn't talk to the FBI, or doesn't talk to the
CIA. I don't know. We've had this problem in 9/11, with nobody
connecting the dots; and may have that same problem right now.
But there's no question that the United States government does
more activity in the cyber world than {anybody else}. Russia is
probably a distant second. China is a distant second. But there's
nobody that holds a candle to what we're capable of doing.
        So, for our government to turn around — or {elements}
within our government let's put it that way — to turn around and
say that the Democratic Party was hacked and these hacks were
given to WikiLeaks who then released them; well, it seems odd
that the American government would have to be partners of
WikiLeaks to let this stuff out. What seems more likely, is that
somebody within the government, whether rogue or intent, saw this
as an ability to try and embarrass Russia; embarrass Putin, and
to save face for Hillary, who was promptly losing the election
with her skullduggery.
        As a result of this, we now see the {New York Times} — and
this should not surprise us — the {New York Times} and the
{Washington Post}, the two major national newspapers of note,
have done a lot of disinformation over the years, and I think
this is just one more instance of that disinformation coming out
of the {New York Times}. Keep in mind it's the {New York Times}
that ginned up the war to invade Iraq. You can take your credits
from there, as to what they're capable of doing when they put
their mind to it.
        So, that's essentially what I think is the case. Here too,
we have enough people with skills and knowledge, particularly
with our group, the former intelligence officers in the
government, very senior intelligence officers — because none of
us are spring chickens — to be able to question what has been
put out, and say that this doesn't seem accurate, and doesn't
make sense.

        ROSS:  So, that interview took place on Wednesday; the same
day the {New York Times} ran a front-page story — "Hacking the
Democrats: How Russia Honed Its Cyber-power and Trained It on an
American Election".  So, it's half the front page; four full
pages inside.  That same day, Sam Biddle at the {Intercept} put
out what had been amassed as all the public evidence that the
Russian government was behind the hack; pointing out that it's
not enough evidence.  Comparing it to earlier invasions, such as
when people working with the Chinese PLA hacked American
industrial firms, the Department of Justice put out a 56-page
report detailing all the specifics of how it happened; or when
North Korea hacked Sony, the evidence was put forward.  This
time, though, it's just the say-so of intelligence officials.
        All of this might look like it's a bunch of flailing around
to explain the electoral defeat by blaming anybody except for the
terrible candidate that the Democrats had, but it's much more
than this.  You have to remember, this isn't just domestic
theatrics; the case is being made for — as Obama put it — a
revenge attack or some kind of answer being made to Russia in
some way or another.  That is, threatening a nuclear-armed nation
over allegations that have not been backed up with any specific
evidence and frankly, of accusing Russia of things that the US
admits to doing all the time.  So, we asked Senator Gravel, what
was the intent; why the anti-Russian hysteria?  Is this just
about the election?  What's the push for this?  This is what he
had to say:

        SEN. GRAVEL: The intent is to sabotage the potential new
relationship [with Russia]. That's what the intent is. But here
too, I think Trump has his own areas of expertise in this regard.
And the new Secretary of State designate, Rex Tillison, he also
has a great deal of experience with the Russian leadership. And
so, as a result of that, they're going to dictate their own
policy.
        What we see right now, is the last regurgitation of a failed
policy, one that was very dangerous. In demonizing Putin the way
we've done in American media, Western media, and then turning
around and levelling the charge at them that they are trying to
destabilize Western and Eastern Europe, is ridiculous. I know of
no instance — and I would question anybody to quote an instance
— where Russia has threatened anybody in the last decade in
Eastern Europe and Europe proper. He sells them oil and gas; why
would he want to destabilize his customers? It makes no sense at
all. But to the neo-cons, who are intent on trying to protect the
hegemonic position of the United States in the world, {this makes
a lot of good sense for them}. They need to demonize Russia and
Putin, they need to demonize Xi and China, and assert our
military prowess in the world. We have a significant economic
position in the world, and these militarists feel they've got to
shore that position up, with militaristic policies that make no
sense at all.
        What they should be doing, is joining with China in the Silk
Road (One Belt, One Road) to raise the economic level of the
world to a higher level, and that would be the biggest
contribution we could make to the well-being of people around the
world, and to the issue of having world peace. That's what we
should be doing. But that's not what's happening. What's
happening is what we learned from the study of the Thucydides
Trap, where the power which is the global power — which is the
United States — is now facing the problem of an ascending power
like China moving in and surpassing us. Well, our egos may not be
able to take that, but certainly the people of the world could
take it; because it would mean greater economic activity, on the
part of China.
        So, it's all mixed up with this insanity that exists within
the American government, by a group of people called neo-cons.
They start with Cheney. They go from Cheney/Rumsfeld, that crowd,
into the present group of neo-cons. Here you have a person like
John Bolton, who's being considered for the Number Two man at the
State Department. I can't think of a person who's more idiotic,
as a neo-con, than John Bolton. I think Bush is just wantonly
picking people, hither and yon, to satisfy the conservatives.
        I think what they're going to find is when these
conservatives attempt to assert policy positions that are at
variance from Donald Trump, they're going to find they're
short-lived. He'll fire them. He's done that on TV and he's used
to that. "Give me the wrong advice, you're fired." That's what
you're going to see from a President who's going to be tweeting.
He's going to be tweeting his policies to the American people and
the world, all by himself, in his room, with his little computer.

        ROSS:  You know, if you have time for one more question, I'd
like to ask you about China, which you brought up.  One of
Trump's recent appointments was the former governor of Iowa,
which is a state that President Xi Jinping of China has close
ties to, having lived there for years, studying agriculture when
he was a lower-level figure in the government.  You brought up
the One Belt, One Road as a potential for the US to be involved
in.  It's currently something that, under the Obama
administration, the US has been opposing.  The US did not join
the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; the US urged other
nations not to join it as well.  What would you see as the proper
or the best — what should the US role in the world be?  What
should US relations with China in particular be with regard to
this program?

        SEN. GRAVEL: Well, the U.S. role should, first and
foremost, rests upon economic activity — raising the quality of
life for the people in the United States and for the people in
the world. That's the goal that China has set with respect to its
One Belt, One Road.
        We oppose that because we are refusing to accept the fact
that China is the ascendant power, and that within a couple
decades, will be the Number One economic power in the world; but
not the military power. If you just look at the amount of money
they're spending, they spend about 10% of what we do on our
defense posture. As a result of that, it demonstrates they have
no interest in becoming the military predominant power in the
world. They're ceding that to the United States.
        But that, of course, is not all that attractive, as you saw
in the Pivot to Asia. Thank God that we have a new President,
Duterte, in the Philippines, who is now creating a rapprochement
to China, which is the most enlightened thing they could do.
Their future is not with the United States; their future is as a
player in the economy of South Asia. That's what a rapprochement
with China portends — that both the Philippines will be the
recipient of extensive One Belt, One Road financing to raise the
standard of living in the Philippines, which used to be superior
to many of the other countries in Asia, and is now in the lower
brackets.
        My recommendation is the United States and the new
administration would be
Trump negotiating his "deal." And the deal he can negotiate is
that, yes, the United States will join with China, and will raise
the economic threshold of the world.

        ROSS:  That sounds like an excellent direction for the US.
I was wondering, do you have any other final thoughts you'd like
to leave for our viewers?

        SEN. GRAVEL: No, not at all, except to thank the LaRouche
organization for doing good work in advancing the cause of peace,
and in advancing the cause of economic growth. The only way we
going to bring about world peace is when we raise the standard of
living of the people throughout the world. Again, thank you for
the good work in that regard.

        ROSS:  Senator Mike Gravel, thank you very much.

        SEN. GRAVEL:  You're welcome.

        ROSS:  While keeping up front that assessment from LaRouche
that Obama the murderer is not going to take this transition,
take this shift lying down, and the use of the Russian hacking
business as an opportunity from their perspective to create
conflict, let's switch gears and discuss more about what that
better future ought to be; what our positive policy is.  I'd like
to turn it over now to Ben Deniston.

        BEN DENISTON:  Thanks, Jason.  This should serve as a useful
counterpoint, I think, to everything we were just discussing
here.  In the recent weeks, we've had some discussions with
Lyndon LaRouche about the prospect of bringing the principle of
the SDI — Strategic Defense Initiative, or in its modern form,
the Strategic Defense of Earth; bringing that principle back onto
the table in this potential new strategic environment where,
assuming Obama doesn't get his way and doesn't start
thermonuclear war before the next President even has a chance to
take power, we could see a new alliance emerging between the
United States, Russia, and China.  And setting aside this insane
geopolitical framework of viewing these nations as our
adversaries and doing everything we can to undermine their growth
and development and rise to world prominence.  Mr. LaRouche was
very supportive of this being a time in which the Strategic
Defense of Earth policy can come back as a real pillar of a new
security architecture for the planet; which was also a focus that
Helga Zepp-LaRouche had when we were discussing it with her
earlier in the week as well.  This can be a critical pillar for
how the security, the defense, the military institutions of
nations in this new era, coming together and cooperating on the
new challenges, the common threats and issues that face all
nations.  The reason why I say this is a principle, is because
we're in a new — I would really say for the past couple of
generations — a new historical phase for mankind in this
thermonuclear age.  We've reached the point where if we continue
a geopolitical, imperial policy where a leading power tries to
maintain control at all costs, you're at the point where if that
goes to full-scale war as it has in past periods, past centuries,
you're talking about the annihilation of mankind.  You're talking
about a new phase of mankind, where full-blown warfare now has
the ability to wipe out civilization as we know it.  That's been
an historically new environment that mankind has been dealing
with in the past generations.  Now, we're seeing the potential
for a build-up around that kind of war to be put off the table;
put on the back burner around a new administration.  But what
we're talking about with this Strategic Defense of Earth and in
the context of the broader exploration of space, the joint
development of space which Kesha will have some comments on in a
little bit.  This needs to become a central positive issue that
we rally nations around; it can't just become "Let's not have war
or conflict because it's bad"; but "Let's have a positive,
truthful conception — a real principle — of what are the issues
that face all nations together, that we should be rallying around
in cooperation."
        That was LaRouche's SDI originally; {LaRouche's SDI}, not
necessarily the program that got implemented to some degree.  But
LaRouche's idea of the SDI, which was a joint open cooperative
program with the Soviet Union; sharing technologies and
capabilities, and jointly developing new capabilities to — as
Reagan said — "render the threat of thermonuclear weapons
impotent and obsolete."  We'd actually be working with the
Soviets to do this; and Mr. LaRouche recruited Dr. Edward Teller,
President Reagan around this idea.  These were not hippie,
flower-wielding peaceniks; these are not people that just ran
around saying "No war.  War is bad."  These are pretty serious,
staunch conservative Cold Warriors to a certain degree; but they
recognized the truthful validity of what LaRouche was developing
around his idea of the SDI.  Mankind had reached a point where we
needed positive, collaborative, joint development of these kinds
of capabilities for the common aims of nations.  Mr. LaRouche
came incredibly close, in collaboration with Reagan, Teller, and
others, to really overturning the strategic framework back in the
'80s with that program.
        But that hasn't really gone away.  We've discussed this on
shows in the past, but it's worth just reminding people that in
the '90s, right in the aftermath of the attempt to get the full
SDI program, there was kind of a re-emergence of the same idea
around the defense of Earth.  The recognition at that time — in
the early '90s — that the Earth is actually incredibly
vulnerable to asteroid strikes, comet strikes; and we should
actually be looking at what the heck we can do on this planet to
defend the planet from these kinds of potential disasters.  That
was something that Dr. Edward Teller, in direct collaboration
with other veterans of the SDI and their direct counterparts in
Russia, took up as a major focus in the '90s.  You had a whole
series of conferences and investigations, and proposals really,
for the same type of joint open cooperation between the defense
institutions and related institutions in the United States and
Russia for cooperation around this common threat of the defense
of Earth from not only missiles, but missiles coming from the
Solar System; these asteroids.  Unfortunately, it didn't fully go
through at the time.  We had the continuation of this
geopolitical framework, which has obviously continued through
Bush and now Obama.  But this issue has come back up again.  It
was in 2012 that the Russians refloated the offer, and it was
named the Strategic Defense of Earth in some of the news
coverage.  Direct, explicit opposition to the US and NATO
advancing their missile defense systems towards Russia's borders
into Eastern Europe.  They said, why don't we have a joint
cooperative program for a Strategic Defense of Earth against the
threats of asteroids and related issues?  Now, today, again with
the prospect of a real shift in the United States, assuming we
can contain Obama and he doesn't return to his murderous streak
and orientation as Mr. LaRouche has warned, we could actually see
this principle emerge and become a central pillar of a new
historical era today.
        So, we thought it would be appropriate today, kind of as a
counterpoint, to start to put some of this issue back on the
table.  I wanted to start just by illustrating some of what these
threats are; what we're facing in terms of the threats to the
Earth from these objects in our Solar System.  If we go to the
slideshow, we have a first graphic [Fig. 1] illustrating just the
reality that these impacts happen; and they happen quite frankly
a lot more frequently than people probably tend to realize.  In
the animation, you can see the famous, very well-documented,
surprise Chelyabinsk impact over Russia.  Which we had no warning
about; we did not know was coming.  This frankly very small
asteroid came in and impacted with such a high speed — which is
characteristic of all of these collisions in the Solar System.  A
lot of the energy release is due to the fact that these speeds
are incredibly fast.  When you get an impact of two orbiting
bodies in the Solar System, you tend to get massive energy
releases, explosions.  Here you had a very small object
intersecting the Earth; slamming into the atmosphere and
releasing the energy of a small nuclear explosion as it hit.
This, I think, awakened a lot of the world to the reality that
these kinds of things do happen, and we have no defense.  One, we
didn't even see this one coming; and two, if we had seen it
coming, we have no demonstrated, developed capability to defend
the Earth from these kinds of challenges.  I'd like to point
people to on this graphic additionally, from some data that's
been released in the relatively recent period, we can see in this
map of the world, an illustration of many smaller meteor impacts
into the atmosphere that have occurred just between 1994 and
2013.  The Chelyabinsk impact was the largest in this time range;
these all were smaller than the Chelyabinsk impact, but these
were still large explosions in the upper atmosphere.  You can see
that they've painted the entire Earth over the course of this
time period; just to illustrate the fact that these impacts are
constantly occurring.
        Just to give another sense of defending the Earth from these
asteroids, here is a schematic of the inner Solar System [Fig.
2].  You can see Jupiter's orbit as the farthest orbit out there;
obviously then comes Mars, and Earth's orbit is a little bit
darker than the other orbits.  All of these blue lines —
assuming you have high resolution to see the details of this
visual — this blue haze you might see is actually composed of
over 1400 orbits of asteroids that are specifically classified as
particularly hazardous asteroids.  That is, asteroids whose
orbits cross the Earth's orbit at some point and create the
potential for there to be an intersection where the asteroid is
at the intersection at the same time as the Earth, and you have
an impact, a collision.  You can see here how crowded the inner
Solar System is.
        Fortunately, among these that we know of, none of these are
expected to hit in the next century or any foreseeable timeframe
as far as we know.  This alone looks pretty dense, pretty packed
in the inner Solar System here.  What people should really get
their mind around is, this is a tiny fraction of what we expect
to be out there.
        We can see here, if we take a little bit more complicated
graphic [Fig. 3] and break it down, there are literally hundreds
of thousands to millions of asteroids of the size of the
Chelyabinsk meteor or bigger that we have not discovered.  Based
on our understanding of the distribution of asteroids of
different sizes, we know that they're out there; we just don't
where they are.  We don't know which ones might impact, which
ones might not.  We don't know when the impacts would be.
        Here is a depiction [Fig. 4], you can see the relationship
between, on the horizontal axis in a logarithmic scale, different
sizes of near-Earth asteroids.  On the far right, you can see the
very large ones in the range of kilometers across in diameter,
all the way down to sizes of meters.  On the vertical axis, you
can see the expected estimates of the distribution, the number,
of near-Earth asteroids of those sizes.  You can see for the very
large ones, we believe there are not very many; but as you start
to get to smaller sizes, you get a geometric growth in the number
of near-Earth asteroids of these different sizes.  You can also
see depicted the scale of the damage that would be inflicted on
the Earth if it were to hit over an unlucky location.  The
Chelyabinsk impact being pretty much the smallest size that would
not — kind of representing a lower limit on what doesn't do huge
amounts of damage.  But if it were just a little bigger, that
could have caused really catastrophic effects for Chelyabinsk,
Russia — that region.  In this range, what people sometimes call
a "city-killer" range; the size of object that would release the
energy of a large thermonuclear explosion, we've discovered maybe
1% of the near-Earth asteroids in this size range.
        While NASA has done a good job of finding and discovering a
number of the larger objects which can do damage over a large
fraction of the Earth if not effect the entirety of the Earth;
we've found a good number of those for the asteroids in
particular.  But as you start to go to these smaller sizes, we've
barely scratched the surface.  As dense as you think this
previous graphic is in terms of the number of bodies out there,
there are orders of magnitude more that could do serious damage
that we just don't know about.  Again, the first step is knowing
where they are and when they might hit; the second step is
actually having a defense capability.  We've not really done
anything besides general studies and theoretical investigations
on that front.  So, this is still an open, unanswered challenge.
But this is kind of just the first step in a real defense of the
planet Earth from these types of cosmic challenges.  As people
are probably aware, you also have the issue of comets.  This
really grabbed people's attention in the mid '90s when mankind
sat on the planet Earth, looked to Jupiter, and watched a massive
comet that had broken apart into a series of fragments as you can
see in the upper graphic [Fig. 5] there, collide with Jupiter.
In the moving animation, you see the explosion of one of these
fragments as it impacted Jupiter's surface.  The other bright
object is one of Jupiter's moons; but this is an image in the
infrared where you can see the effects of these energetic types
of activities more clearly.  In the purple image, you can clearly
see the effects of the impact on the surface of Jupiter after the
impact had occurred.  These impacts let marks the size of the
planet Earth on Jupiter's surface.
        So, this was a big wake-up call in the mid '90s.  This was
comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was one of the designations for it.
Before this period, it wasn't widely accepting that we had to
think about these types of impacts.  When this occurred and they
found this stream of comet fragments about a year before it
actually hit; they looked at its orbit and said, "Wow!  This is
going hit Jupiter."  So, everyone was sitting there watching, as
this thing went up.  We had the Hubble telescope, all these
telescopes pointing; we saw this thing as well as we could from
all over the world.  This really was a major wake-up call to the
fact that these impacts really do occur.  They can come from
asteroids, which you saw in the illustration of the inner Solar
System, but they can also come from comets; which represents a
qualitatively different challenge, as we'll see in the next
animation. [Fig. 6]
        This should give you a sense of this greater, more difficult
challenge posed by comets.  This is a particular case of a comet
name C1996B2; and this was discovered in January 31, 1996.
That's when we first knew this comet even existed.  As you can
see in the animation which is based directly off of the orbital
data from NASA, we discovered this comet at the beginning of this
animation when it was just out past the orbit of Mars.  Within
two months, it made a close pass by the Earth.  We had no idea it
was out there until two months before it makes of close pass by
the Earth.  Whereas the object that hit over Russia — the
Chelyabinsk impact — was measured at about 20 meters in
diameter; this object is estimated to be about 5 kilometers in
diameter.  That's about half the diameter of the comet that's
believed to have taken out the dinosaurs.  As we let the
animation play out, we see something very interesting that's
characteristic of this distinct nature of the challenge of
comets.  Look at its orbit.  The circular orbits you see here are
the outer planets; that's Neptune's orbit.  So, this has an
extremely elliptical orbit that takes it far out into the depths
of the Solar System.  When these comets are out there in the far
reaches of the Solar System, they're incredibly difficult to see.
So, we only see them when they're starting to come into the inner
Solar System.  Again, as this case demonstrated, we saw this one
two months before it made a close pass.  If that had been on an
impact trajectory, there would have been nothing we could have
done.  When we're talking about that size of an object with these
comets, we're talking about something that can wipe out
civilization.  That is a global catastrophic impact, an object of
that size.  We're not talking about the local scale damage of the
asteroids we were talking about a second ago; we're talking about
catastrophic effects across the whole planet.
        So, this is another depiction [Fig. 7] of where we think
these bodies are.  Based on the orbits of these comets —
sometimes technically referred to as long period comets; it's
believed that many of these comets reside in the farthest
outreaches of the Solar System.  Far, far beyond the outer
planets.  This is a logarithmic scale, so you can see that this
distribution of comets — sometimes referred to as the Oort Cloud
— begins over tens of times past where Voyager has currently
reached, and extends tens times farther than that.  We're talking
about the very outskirts of the gravitational hold of the Sun.
It's believed, again, we haven't seen this region — but based on
the orbits of comets we see coming in just in the short time
period mankind has been able to make these observations — it's
believed that this is a very large population of bodies out in
this outer region of the Solar System.  Because the gravitational
effect of the Sun is so weak out there, it doesn't take much to
perturb their orbits and potentially send some into the inner
Solar System.  Again, with our current capabilities, we're
creating scenarios when we only see them months, maybe if we're
lucky a few years, before an impact.  Certainly not enough time
to do anything about it with our current capabilities.
        Now, I just want to end on kind of an interesting note, that
there are some studies — although the data is limited —
indicating there might be certain cyclical natures to these large
comet impacts.  Some people even believe it could relate to how
the Solar System moves through the galaxy; which raises some very
interesting questions about how this outer region of comets could
get perturbed on a periodic basis and send in what they call
"showers" — cometary showers of many comets coming into the
inner Solar System, creating a scenario where it's much more
likely that Earth or the other planets might get hit with an
impact as Jupiter got hit in the '90s.
        I think it's just worth noting that one of the leading
astronomers in this whole field, Eugene Shoemaker, who
unfortunately passed away in the late '90s, had pioneered much of
the work in this field.  And for whom this comet that impact
Jupiter is named; him and his wife, who discovered it together.
He himself believed that it is likely that we are currently in
the period of a comet shower; that was something that he
published in the late '90s.  Based upon the types of crater
records and other evidence, he said it's not certain, but it
could be the case that we're currently in the middle of what on a
human time scale is a long period in which there's an increased
frequency of cometary entries into the inner Solar System and an
increased likelihood of impacts occurring.  Whether this directly
accounts for his hypothesis or not, it was only last year that we
found out that a relatively dim star had actually passed through
the Oort Cloud about 70,000 years ago; which is one of the kinds
of scenarios that can perturb many of these bodies.  Again, since
these things are so far away, it can take 70,000 years for these
things to reach the inner Solar System.  The point is, this is
still incredibly preliminary knowledge of this region — of the
Oort Cloud; of the region between the Oort Cloud and the inner
Solar System.  There could be a long period comet that's only ten
years out, that's been travelling for 50,000 years from the Oort
Cloud, or even longer; and it's now only ten years away and it's
on a direct impact course with the Earth, and we wouldn't even
know.  It could be just in the outskirts of the outer planets
region of the Solar System; not even in this far, far depths
region.  Again, we're talking about things that can devastate
civilization completely, globally as we know it.
        This discovery of this dim star passing through the Oort
Cloud, we just found that out a year ago.  How many other bodies
are out there that might have had close passes in the
geologically recent past that could be doing similar effects?
The point is, our knowledge is incredibly miniscule for something
that threatens the entire planet; and our defense capability
doesn't exist.  This typifies just one of the issues; and I think
there's a lot more we're going to get into in coming shows.  But
this typifies one of the issues that is front and center for this
principle of the SDI, the SDE to re-emerge and center around.
These are threats that don't recognize national borders; they
don't recognize cultural boundaries.  They challenge the entire
planet and they're outside of our current capabilities.  If we're
going to have a sane and principled relationship for leading
nations in the planet, then it has to return to these kinds of
challenges.  Addressing these common aims and threats as Dr.
Edward Teller had spoken of, as Mr. LaRouche put on the table
with this whole SDI proposal.
        The point that I think we should really end on, and maybe
discuss a little bit in conclusion, is that — and this is
something that we've been discussing with Mr. LaRouche over the
recent weeks — this isn't a separate, isolated issue.  This is
part of mankind becoming a Solar System species.  This is part of
mankind expanding to a new level, developing a platform of
economic activity that makes mankind a presence, an active force
in the Solar System.  We can come up with specific scenarios
where you can deflect one asteroid or maybe a particular
telescope that can help us see some of these things; and we
should be discussing and looking at those things.  But the
fundamental issue is, how do we expand mankind into the Solar
System as a much more active and capable presence where we can
handle these kinds of challenges?  How do we engage other nations
in cooperation and collaboration, instead of hiding our
technology and hiding our capabilities because we want to have a
leg up over China or Russia?  How do we jointly develop the
fundamental science and technologies mankind needs to defend the
planet Earth in an open, cooperative way?
        If we're going to seriously, actually get into that, Mr.
LaRouche has been emphatic; that takes us right to the work of
Krafft Ehricke, his collaboration with Krafft Ehricke, and these
early space pioneers who really worked out the fundamental
principles of mankind's development of the Solar System.  I think
that is fully integrated with this Strategic Defense of Earth
perspective.  I think Kesha might have more to say, but that's
going to be a critical part of this new space paradigm that we've
been discussing in recent weeks.

        KESHA ROGERS:  Very good.  I wanted to go back and really
take up this conception of what it really means to advance the
cause for peace.  Because first of all, we have to end the
perpetuation and acceptance of a big lie, a murderous lie that
human beings cannot have access to that which is truthful.  This
is what the fight really is.  When you're talking about the
murderous policy of Obama, it's not a matter of opinion or
whether or not you have a belief or non-belief, or like or
dislike this President.  This President is acting on behalf of
the same factions which are indicative of what Bertrand Russell
actually represented.  He set back the cause of human progress in
society.  To say that if you make enough people believe that snow
is black, or you perpetuate a lie enough; then enough people will
believe it.  But now, we're seeing that that's not working
anymore.  That the cause that Bertrand Russell and those who were
against the genius of Albert Einstein that mankind can have
access to that which is truthful, that system is being destroyed;
it's losing out, and there is a new era, a new system of mankind
emerging that is being represented by what the United States has
the potential to become if we break with the lies that have been
perpetuated and say, "No more!  Obama must be thrown in jail
now."  Anybody who's pushing this policy that we have to be at
odds with nations such as Russia and China, are continuing to set
back the progress of mankind.  This is not just about waiting for
the next election and saying OK, well we dealt with Obama and
hopefully we can survive this next few weeks or so.  The question
is, that people who continue to allow for this murderous policy
to dominate the thinking and the direction of our nation, cannot
be tolerated.
        I think it's important to really look at what it is that
this President has done in setting back the course of human
progress by his dismantling and attacks on the manned space
program.  What you're really dealing with right now is that we
have to look at the advancement of the space program as a new
evolutionary leap in the progress of mankind.  To look at the
advancement of the space program not just as a discretionary
budgetary matter for internal US relations, but as Mr. LaRouche
said at the onset of this election when Mr. Trump was elected,
you now have a new system of international relations emerging.
The United States has to join with that.
        But when you're talking about advancing the cause of peace,
it's expressive of the fight that Mr. LaRouche, his wife Helga,
and this organization have been advancing and leading for a very
long time.  Then you talk about Mr. LaRouche's policy of the
Strategic Defense Initiative; a lot of people tried to lower that
to a scale of just missile defense and defense of nations acting
against the appearance of nuclear weapons from other nations, or
just on a small scale.  But what you're talking about, is the
advancement of an evolutionary leap in the progress of mankind
throughout the Solar System, throughout the Universe.  And
mankind understanding how to come together for a common aim of
mankind; to submit to the development of the whole of the Solar
System, which is going to increase our understanding of how to
advance mankind both here on Earth and off the planet.  This is
what has been missing.  The way people think about human economy,
the way people think about relationships to the advancement of
mankind in the Universe, is based on these small scale relations;
but it has to be completely changed at this point in time.  What
Krafft Ehricke discussed in terms of an extraterrestrial
imperative in his third law, was really taking the lid off on
human progress; that mankind was an expression of unlimited
potential.  He says in that third law that by expanding through
the Universe, man fulfills his destiny as an element of life
endowed with the power of Reason and the wisdom of moral law
within himself.
        The problem is that we have lost that sense of moral law
within mankind to act for the betterment of human beings and
human progress.  And have lost that power of Reason because we
refuse to fight for that which is truthful.  That has to end;
that has to be stopped now.  I think the fight going forward, has
to be centered around this basis; that we are going to uplift
human society out of the depths of despair, and actually organize
around a new commitment to human progress that has been missing
for far too long.
        I just wanted to say that because I think that we are on the
verge of a new era for mankind right now, but people have to get
a sense of it.  It's not going to happen unless you fight for it;
unless you fight to bring it into existence.  The starting point
of that is that we have to develop a new system of international
relations, working with Russia, with China; not as enemies, but
working together to end this threat to human progress that has
been going on for far too long.

        ROSS:   Absolutely!  I think that ties it also with that
other major leap that's needed in humanity of Lyndon LaRouche's
fourth law of his "Four Laws to Save the USA Now"; which is the
breakthrough to get fusion power.  Like this need for adopting a
platform that allows us to have a control over space, that let's
us really have this region of the Solar System; something that's
within our power, within our reach, within our ability to
interact with and intervene on if something is about to kill us
all.  The essential to make that happen is fusion power.  No
matter how efficient a windmill you design, or no matter what
breakthroughs they make in building solar panels, those aren't
ever going to be at all useful for moving into space.  You're not
going to go to Mars with a windmill.  What we are going to do
that's going to transform our relationship to nature — I think
this idea that we must grow; it's the characteristic of the human
species, this moral law that you spoke of, Kesha.  This law that
we have to answer to is that it's been the nature of the Universe
to develop; we've seen it with the creation of the Solar System.
We've seen it with the development of life on this planet into
increasingly higher forms; not in a purely qualitative way, but
also through some specific quantitative measures adopted by
Vladimir Vernadsky, for example.  Where he looked at the increase
of concentration of energy in forms of life; where he looked at
the increasing range of chemical elements that were used by life;
an increasing power and density of energy flow through the
biosphere.  That's really up to us at this point.  The Universe,
in a real way, depends upon us for those next levels of
development that are the fruits of our minds.  To create things
in nature that have never happened before.  Just like
multi-cellular life, that was a new thing that hadn't happened
before; chlorophyll — life going extraterrestrial to get the
power of the Sun to feed on.  That was something that hadn't been
seen before.  Now, it's the kinds of things that we do:
electromagnetism; the breakthroughs that we have available to us
with nuclear science, with fusion power.  This is the calling
that we have to respond to; this is something that we can come to
in resonance with other nations around the planet and really
cooperate on as a real basis for international relations.  Not
maintaining supremacy, or maintaining the power of a bloc; but
having a serious mission that is common to all people to
collaborate on and to move forward.

        DENISTON:  It's maybe a minor point relative to everything,
but I couldn't help noticing when Mr. Gravel mentioned that we
spent $5 billion over 10 years to destabilize Ukraine; that's
more per year than our fusion budget by a fair amount.  That's
$500 million a year; our fusion budget for magnetic confinement
has been significantly less than that.  Just in terms of a
particular reflection of the totality; we're spending more to
overthrow Ukraine, to mess with Russia, than we're spending on
what could be infinite power for mankind for centuries to come.

        ROSS:  Priorities, huh?

        DENISTON:  Yeah.

        ROSS:  All right.  I think that was a good discussion; we
hit on a lot of topics today.  I think if we keep ourselves
focussed on getting these Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche
implemented and preventing the hullaballoo now around this
Russian hacking, etc.  In these last periods of the current
administration, they're attempting to create some sort of
possibly irreversible conflict with Russia; that has to be
stopped, and the foundation for a new system of cooperation among
nations and people has to be put into place.  That's something
that we're very uniquely situated to do.  So, I look forward to
your help in making that a possibility and seeing you next time
on larouchepac.com.  Good bye.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. december, 2016 – Mangeårig medarbejder Harley Schlanger sendte her til morgen følgende rapport:

»Jeg briefede Lyn [Lyndon LaRouche] her til morgen og gennemgik optrapningen af hele anti-Putin-hysteriet. Efter fem minutter eller så, hvor jeg rapporterede om de utroligt absurde historier på NBC (’høj grad af overbevisning om Putins direkte involvering’ i hacking); New York Times’ (’Hvordan Moskva sigtede et perfekt våben mod de amerikanske valg’, og lederartikel, ’Aleppos ødelæggere: Assad, Putin, Iran’), og andre, samt kravet om enten, at Valgforsamlingen (Electoral College) afviser Trump, eller et nyt valg, sagde Lyndon LaRouche,

’Dette er tåbeligt sludder, det er et bedrag’.

»Jeg sagde, jeg ved, det er bedrag, men, mener du ikke, at dette tilsigter enten at fjerne Trump, eller begrænse ham? (LaRouche):

’Nej, det vil aldrig virke. Dette er alt sammen fantasi, det er vrøvl. Det kommer fra den politisk døde Obama. Han er færdig, han burde anklages for sine forbrydelser. Dette er et forsøg på at holde ham fri af fængsel.’

Jeg (Schlanger) sagde til ham, at Roger Stone har kaldt dette for et ’blødt kup’ og mindede om Watergate. LaRouche sagde,

’Nej, det her er helt anderledes, der foregår noget andet’,

hvor han igen henviste til det nye paradigme. Han understregede, efter en briefing om [Janet] Yellens (direktør for Federal Reserve) kommentarer efter gårsdagens møde i Federal Reserve,

’Det er uden betydning; det er alt sammen fantasi. De kan intet gøre.’

Det, der karakteriserer det her, er, at Putin er en

’selvstændig person, der ved, hvad han gør. Det kan ikke stoppes.’

Systemet er færdigt, og det, vi hører, er

’folk, der er skyldige og har et reb om halsen og håber på, at rebet ikke trækker dem ned’.

Han sagde, at vi blot behøver at gennemgå Obamas forbrydelser: han slår amerikanere ihjel med Obamacare (Obamas ’sundhedsreform’: Loven om Beskyttelse af Patienter og en Økonomisk Overkommelig Sygesikring) og sin økonomiske politik, og med sine tirsdags-dræbermøder, burde han sættes i fængsel; han har gentagent begået forbrydelser. Fortæl blot dette til folk – der er ingen substans i det, som efterretningssamfundet, medier osv., siger,

’det er alt sammen sludder’. ’Vi må holde fast ved det, vi laver. Dette er alt sammen hysteri, men intet vil komme ud af det; det vil ikke få nogen effekt’«.

Her sluttede Schlangers rapport.

Hvad dette betyder, er ganske enkelt: Hvem vil yde det amerikanske folk et lederskab for gennemførelse af LaRouches Fire Love, og for at bringe USA med ind i Verdenslandbroen? Bortset fra os, er der ingen. Ingen!

Jeg mener, at vi bør være meget glade, for hvis dette alt sammen går den rigtige vej; og det er for en stor del vores personlige forpligtelse at hjælpe, og jeg beder jer alle sammen om ikke at være passive tilskuere, men gå med i Schiller Instituttet for at være med til at implementere disse visioner og disse ideer, for så vil vi blive meget heldige med, at vi i vores levetid kan leve det nye paradigme. Og det nye paradigme vil blive første gang, menneskets værdighed vil blive virkeliggjort, og jeg mener, at det er en meget, meget vigtig mission, som vi alle bør vedtage.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

(Efterfølgende spørgsmål og svar, engelsk udskrift: Klik her. )

København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende. 

København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale, der varer omkring 1 time og 20 minutter, kan høres ovenover eller her:

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen-donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

En dansk oversættelse af talen kommer på torsdag. 

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende. 

Diskussionen findes kun som engelsk udskrift (se nedenfor).

—–

English: Introductory article

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynotes Copenhagen Seminar on `Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm'

COPENHAGEN, Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS) — Today, Helga Zepp-LaRouche was the special guest speaker at a Schiller Institute/{EIR} seminar in Copenhagen entitled, "Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm." Eight diplomats from six countries attended, including two ambassadors. There were nations from Western Europe, Southwest Asia, Western and Eastern Asia, and Africa. In addition, there were around 30 Schiller Institute members and contacts, as well as a few representatives of various Danish and international institutions.

The event was opened by the presentation of a Chinese love song performed by Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Michelle Rasmussen. Afterwards, Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark, introduced Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, describing her historical role in bringing about the New Silk Road policy.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche's very inspiring, in-depth speech began with the revolution against globalization represented by the Brexit, the Trump election, and the Italian No vote. She gave an evaluation of the potential represented by some of the statements and appointments Trump has made so far, and then proceeded with a detailed discussion of the two conflicting paradigms in the world today. Zepp-LaRouche then uplifted the audience with the beautiful ideas of space scientist Krafft Ehricke and Renaissance philosopher Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. She concluded with an appeal to those present not to act as spectators on the stage of history, but engage in the battle for the new paradigm with us.

Her speech, about 80 minutes long, may be heard above, or at: https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen -donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

Afterwards, there was an intensive hour-long discussion, with questions from all of the different groups represented. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche ended by challenging the audience to decide what they want to do with their lives, what mark they will make to benefit all humanity, far into the future.  

Zepp-LaRouche's speech and discussion had a profound effect on all present. 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Discussion:

(There is no video or audio of the discussion period, only this transcript.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Copenhagen December 12, 2016
Discussion
(To facilitate free discussion, the questioners are not identified, and the questions are summarized. The answers are complete.)
Question: Can we be optimistic about Trump’s presidency, because he is skeptical about climate change, is for trade war with China and Mexico, opposes the free trade deals, and has called for tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I said earlier that the potentialities for change are there, but it depends, to a very large extent, upon us – what we do. When Trump got elected, my first response was, this is what I call the ‘dog pull-tail, let-go feeling.’ What I mean by that is that when you pull the tail of a dog, which you should never do, naturally, and you let go, the pain stops. When you pull, there is pain, and when you stop pulling, the pain goes away.
So, in a certain sense, the election of Trump was the tail let-go feeling, because we were on an immediate course toward WWIII, and that was really the primary point, because if Hillary Clinton would have been elected — unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, when she was in the Obama administration, transformed from being a relatively OK person, she was never great, but in 2008, she was relatively decent, compared to what she became, because she capitulated to Obama, and when she made this terrible statement, for example, in Libya, about the murder of Gadaffi, “We came, we saw, and he died.” This is barbarism.
Her behavior in the Ben Ghazi case. There were so many things where she became worse than Obama, almost. So the immediate thing was that that big danger, that she would have continued the policies of Bush and Obama, in the confrontation with Russia and China, that that was stopped is, already, for the survival of civilization, the most important step.
Now, on these other points. Naturally, there is climate change. There is no question about it. But the question is, what is the cause of it? And the Schiller Institute had several conferences where we invited extremely important scientists who presented, beyond a doubt, that if you look at the last 500 million years in the history of the Earth, you have a continuous cycle of ice ages, of warming periods, of small ice ages, and the man-made component of climate change is absolutely negligible. It’s a big fraud, for example, it’s a big business. To sell CO2 omission quotas, is like selling indulgences in the Middle Ages.
Obviously, there are climate changes, and some countries which have low coasts are very much affected, but then you have to adapt to these climate changes with modern technology, and you cannot solve the problem by going to electric cars, or going to decarbonization of the world economy. This is a big fraud, and I am not saying that Trump is saying this for all the right reasons, but the idea to impose measures implied with the “great transformation” Schellnhuber is talking about – I mean these people do not want development.
We have been on this case for the last — as a matter of fact, we, the LaRouche movement, had a conception about the development of the world really starting at the end of the sixties.
I joined Mr. LaRouche because I went to China, Africa, other Asian countries, and I saw the horrible, horrible underdevelopment. So I came back from this trip, and I said, ‘I have to become political, because I want to change this.’ I could give you a long, long story of the many observations, because I went with a cargo ship, and when you go to these countries with a cargo ship, you get a quite different idea than if you go on a 5-star cruise, and hotels. You see how the poverty affects people in their real lives. And I came back, and I looked at all the political movements, and I saw that LaRouche was the only one who said, ‘We have to have Third World development. We have to have technology transfer. We have to alleviate this poverty.’
And we had a positive conception already in the seventies, and therefore, when the Club of Rome appeared, we immediately said, ‘This is a fraud.’ Because the Club of Rome said, ‘There are limits to growth. We have reached equilibrium. Until the year 1972, you could develop, but now, we have reached equilibrium, and we have to have sustainable development. We have to have appropriate technology.’ These notions did not exist before, because before, you had the idea of a UN Development Decade, where each decade, you would overcome the underdevelopment by qualitative jumps. And when we recognized this propaganda by the Club of Rome, we immediately said, ‘This is a complete fraud,’ and the people who wrote the book “Limits to Growth,” Meadows and Forrester …
Q: A followup about the Paris climate summit.
A: I would like to give you written documentation afterwards of the studies that were made by these geologists, which are, without question, the explanation of climate change is not man-made. The anthropogenic aspect of it is so miniscule. Climate change has to do with the position of the solar system in the galaxy, which goes in cycles around a certain axis, and you can see that over 500 million years, the data confirms that you have these wide changes. Greenland is called Greenland, because it was green. There used to be vineyards. You had ice ages which completely covered the Earth, and the reason why I went into this longer history, is to show how the environmentalist movement was created with the attempt to keep development down, and climate change is just another expression of the same effort.
If you look at which firms which are investing in solar parks, in wind parks, who is controlling the CO2 emission trade, you have all the top hedge funds in London and Wall St. I can give you a lot of documentation about it, which does not mean that climate change is not real, because you have the rise of the oceans, and you have climate change, you have extreme weather, but that has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.
And, on the other points you raised, obviously, from our standpoint, the cancellation of NAFTA, is a good thing, because NAFTA did not allow development for Mexico. As a matter of fact, NAFTA is the incarnation of the cheap labor production model of free trade. What you need is – especially countries which are not developed, you need protective tariffs for their own good. They have to develop a domestic market first. The booklet which I emphasized, which you should please read, “Against the Stream,” is one of many, but it is very condensed, and a very good book.
The question is, ‘What is the source of wealth?’ Is the source of wealth cheap labor, to buy cheap raw materials, produce cheaply, and sell expensive? Is that the cause of wealth? No.
The only cause of wealth is the increase in the creativity of labor power. And a good government is, therefore, investing the maximum amount into education, into sponsoring the creativity of youth, of labor, and the more people in the labor force, by percentage, are engineers, scientists, the more productive the economy becomes.
And the free trade system, of which NAFTA is just one example, did exactly the opposite. China, which was part of this in the beginning — the reason why China today has so many environmental problems, like smog, like a large amount of groundwater being contaminated, is the result of the fact that China, in the beginning of its industrialization, accepted being a cheap labor production place for the U.S. and for Europe. When I was in China, even in 1971, I visited some factories which were horrible. They were absolutely horrible. The working conditions were terrible, the labor force, which produced electrical devices for radios, it was horrible. They worked for 18 hours. No health system. It was just terrible. And that is how China developed in the first phase.
But then China, with Deng Xiaoping, started to recognize that that is the wrong way. So China is now on a completely different track. They are putting the maximum emphasis on science and technology, the increase of excellence. Last year, they produced 1 million scientists. That’s double of what the U.S. produced. Obviously China is a larger country, but still. What will finally be decisive is the number of people who are creative. And that is why China, right now, has the best education system, because they have understood that the source of wealth is not raw materials. Is not trade conditions. It is the creativity of their own people. And that it a good thing. If we go to a system where we have a certain amount of protectionism, to protect the development of the domestic market, it is a good thing.
There is no danger of cutting [countries off from one another], because all of these infrastructure projects are connectivity. The world will be more connected than ever before. But this whole myth of free trade is really a very bad thing. It has been coined by the people who profit from it. That’s why the world is in the condition it is right now, where the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. The middle class is being destroyed all over the world. And I would really like to communicate with you so that we can deepen this dialogue.
On the Iran thing, I don’t think he will break it, but that is my hope. I don’t know.
So, I’m not saying he’s a – as I said, Baron von Knigge would get a heart attack when he hears Trump’s speeches, but the world was in such a grip of evil, satanic evil, that it is a good thing that there is a break, and the unfortunate thing, is that Europe is still in this grip.
You can see it. Von der Leyen, the German Defense Secretary, had the funniest reaction. The day after the election of Trump, she said ‘I am deeply shocked,’ about this election result, because nobody thought this would happen. Now, this same lady is now parading in Saudi Arabia with Crown Prince Bin Salman Al Saud, and she isn’t shocked. So, I don’t know what’s wrong with her. I think that that would be a good place to be shocked, or not even go there.
So, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the Europeans who react this way to the defeat of Hillary, are obeying another power in their head, and that power I call The British Empire, which is still in place, and it dominates Europe, and that is why they feel – I was asking myself, how come all of these politicians are so arrogant towards the new president of the U.S.? Because they were the boot-lickers of Washington until yesterday, and they would immediately do everything Washington would say and do, so I asked myself, ‘Where is this sudden self-assertedness coming from?’ And the only explanation I came up with, was to say, they must have an idea that there is another power which is more powerful than Trump, otherwise, they wouldn’t have this sudden arrogance.
And it is the British, because you will see tomorrow, because tomorrow, there will be a federal press conference in Berlin, where a number of people will present their contribution to the German chairmanship of the G-20, which will take place in July in Hamburg. This will be Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change), this is the scientific advisory organization advising the German government. He put out this paper about ‘the great transformation,’ which we wrote about. You can look in the archive. He is the head of the idea of a decarbonization of the world economy.
Now, if you decarbonize the world economy, without having fusion, that would be one thing, to have fusion power in place. Then you can talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, but without having fusion, and being against nuclear energy, fission, it means that you will reduce the world’s population to 1 billion or less, because there is a direct correlation between the energy-flux-density, and the number of people you can maintain. Schellnhuber said that the carrying capacity of the Earth is maximum 1 billion people. He didn’t say that he wants to do with the 6 billion who are already there. If he would be consequent, he should hop away from this planet.
And they will announce a sinister plan, to try to use the fact that many countries have environmental problems, to sneak in their anti-development programs. People should not be naïve, because not everybody thinks that population growth is a good thing. There are many people who think that each human being is a parasite, destroying nature. That is the image of man which many people have. The greenies, for example.
We look at it in a different way. We think that the more people you have, the greater longevity you can have, division of labor, and a modern scientific society needs many people with a long life span. Because if you are in the Third World, and you die, and you have an average life expectancy of 40 years, or less, you cannot have scientists, because the production of a scientist takes 30-35 years, and if people then die right away, then you can’t have a modern society.
So the more creative people you have, the better. Each human being is an incredible addition, because we are creative.
Tom Gillesberg: Schellnhuber, for his services, was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), and for him, he personally has said, that the highpoint of his existence was that the British Queen, personally, gave him the Order of the British Empire, for his efforts to reduce the possibility for mankind’s survival, you could say, so it is connected with what you said.
Q: This is the best speech I have ever heard in my life.
Is this a second American Revolution, and will the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned, be closed down, and will money be created for the benefit of all people, and not just the private Fed?
A: I don’t know, because, as I said, there are so many unknowns about Trump, and what he will do, and how it will play out. All I can say is, if Trump does not fulfill his promises, the same people who caused his election, will topple him. Because I don’t think that this process, which is now underway, where ordinary people have just had it — If you think about the declaration of Independence, it has this formulation that you will not bring down a government system for light reasons, but, if for a long time, the common good is being violated, I don’t know the exact text, then, people have the right and duty to replace this government with a rightful one, and that idea I call natural law.
It’s the same idea that Friedrich Schiller had in Wilhelm Tell. This is a play he wrote, which takes place in Switzerland. There, the Hapsburg oligarch is also trampling on the rights of the Swiss people, then they unite with the Rütli Oath. There is this beautiful formulation which says, ‘When the rights of people are trampled upon, they have the right to reach out to the stars, and take from the stars those rights which are eternally embedded in these stars. (I am not saying it as beautifully as Schiller does.)
If you compare these two texts, the Declaration of Independence, and the Rütli Oath from Schiller’s play, they are almost identical, and it’s very clear that Schiller was inspired by the American Revolution when he wrote that play, because in his plays, there are many ideas which resonate with the American Revolution, and he actually wanted to immigrate, at one point, to America.
So I think that if Trump turns out to be another fraudster, which we don’t know yet, I think that this process of revolt will continue, because I only mentioned some elements.
I could mention that there are many countries now in realignment. for example, the Philippines, Duterte. This was supposed to be the playground for the conflict with China in the South China Sea. Now Duterte sent his Defense Secretary, Lorenzana, to Russia and China, to buy weapon systems from Russia and China, and to establish a friendship with China, and he said, ‘The Philippines is no longer the colony of the U.S.’
Then you have Japan, which was the junior partner of the U.S. in the Pacific. Abe went to Sochi, meeting with Putin. In three days from now, Putin will go to Japan to have a state visit. They are talking about a peace treaty between Russia and Japan.
All of these are new alignments. There is a shift in the strategic situation, and I don’t think that that shift can be reversed.
Q: About Russia hacking the U.S. election. Why doesn’t the U.S. have anti-hacking measures? Can you explain that?
A: I cannot explain that, for the same reason that I cannot explain why the NSA is surveilling everyone, all their phones, their communications, worldwide. They can observe all of these things, but they don’t know about terrorism. They don’t know about drug trafficking. They don’t know about money laundering. Either their system is not so good, or they are looking in the wrong direction. I can’t answer your question.
Q: Will the result of the Brexit be positive for Europe, to enable continental Europe to become stronger, and to improve cooperation with the eastern parts of Europe?
A: I think that the EU is not functioning, and I think it is not just the Brexit. The “No” in Italy is a reflection of the same dynamic. Now you have Gentiloni, the new prime minister, and they will probably go for new elections. Right now, in the polls, you have the 5 Star Party leading. If they win, and form the new government, they have already said that they would leave the EU, and leave the Euro, and, in a certain sense, it is not functioning.
The reason I was against the introduction of the Euro from the beginning, was because we said that it cannot function. You cannot have a European currency union in something which is not an optimal economic space. You cannot put advanced industry together with an agrarian country, with completely different tax laws, pension laws, and you don’t want a political union, because Europe is not a people. You don’t have a European people. I don’t know what the Danes are saying. I don’t know what is in the Danish newspapers. The people of Slovenia have no inkling of what is happening in Alsace-Lorraine, and so forth, and so on. You don’t have a European people. Esperanto doesn’t function. You have 28 nations, 28 histories, 28 cultures.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t work together. I think that the idea of Charles de Gaulle to work together as an alliance between perfectly sovereign fatherlands, that is a correct idea. And all these fatherlands can adopt a joint mission, like to develop Africa, or other things.
I just think that this European Union is not going to stay forever.
Q: (followup) Will it be easier for Germany and France to promote this development, as the leading countries?
A: Everybody says that Germany is the biggest beneficiary of globalization, the EU, and the Euro, but that’s not really true, because, if you look at it more closely, then you can say that since the introduction of the Euro, the domestic market of Germany has completely stagnated. And the number of people who became poorer has increased.
Q: (followup) What about regarding the dialogue with Russia.
A: Oh yes, that would be much easier.
I do not think that this EU bureaucracy is capable of reform, because by their self-understanding, they are the local pro-consuls of this empire, and I think that it would be much better if Germany, France, and other countries have individual relations. And I don’t think that – this whole idea that you need a European Empire to compete with Russia and China and other emerging countries – The EU, by definition, is an empire. They have said it themselves. Robert Cooper, who has some kind of advisory function [currently serving as EU Special Advisor with regard to Myanmar], he said that the EU is the fastest expanding empire in history. It’s a bad idea.
And the Russians for – I noticed this since the beginning of the year 2000, that the Russians did not make a difference anymore between the EU and NATO. They said that it’s the same thing. And it is the same thing.
Q: You said that the One Belt, One Road was stripped of commercial interests from the Chinese side, as opposed to the IMF, World Bank. On what basis do you say that it is less interest-driven than the Bretton Woods institutions?
A: Well, because, the question is not that I’m saying that China is perfect. I’m not saying that. But when you look at anything, you have to look at the vector of development, is it going upward, or is it going downward? And from that standpoint, I had the advantage that I was in China in 1971, which was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution. This was so different than China today.
The Cultural Revolution was horrible for the people. The Red Guards would take people out of their homes, put them in jail, send them to the countryside, and people were distraught.
And now, people in China are happy. If you talk to students, or to young people, they are optimistic. They say, ‘Oh. I will do this in the future. I have these plans.’ I talked to a group of students in Lanzhou two years ago, and they said, ‘We will go to Africa. We will develop Africa.’ I have never heard a German student say this. Yeah, when I was a student, but that’s a long time ago.
I think that it is very worthwhile to read the speeches of Xi Jinping. There is a book, “The Governance of China,” but that only has about 60 speeches, and there are many, many more. For example, you should read the speeches he gave when he went to France, to Germany, and to India.
For example, when he went to India, he made a speech which was really incredible, because he said that he loved Indian culture from his early youth, and then he gave so many examples of the high points of Indian culture, the Gupta period, the Upanishads, the Vedic writings, Rabindranath Tagore, many predicates which prove that he really knows what he is talking about. He is not just one of these politicians who have a PR advisor about how to make nice bubbles in your speeches, but you could really see that he means it. And the same for Germany. He came to Germany and he emphasized Schubert and Heine, things which I also appreciate about Germany, and he did the same thing in France.
And I don’t think that the Chinese leadership would agree with me when I say this, but I think that they are less communist than Confucians. They probably would not admit that, because they are officially the Communist Party, and that’s OK, but, I come from Trier, and Trier is the birthplace of Karl Marx, so I have studied Karl Marx, and I think that they are still socialist, or communist, or whatever, but they always said that they are communist with Chinese characteristics, and these Chinese characteristics are Confucianism.
And the Confucian idea of man is lifelong learning, lifelong perfection, that everyone should be a Jinzi, a wise man, a noble man, and Confucius said, if the government is bad, then the Jinzi, these wise people, should replace the government. Also the idea that you have to have an harmonious development, starting with the family, continuing in the nation, and then, larger, among the nations.
China is the only country that has not made wars of aggression, colonial wars, in its 5,000 years of history. It was invaded many times, the Opium War, and things like that, but China is not an aggressive nation, at all.
And if you look at what they are doing in practice, the IMF and the World Bank have prevented Third World development, and China is going from one country to the next, building science cities, helping with space cooperation, bringing in developing countries in the most advanced areas of science, in order to not prevent their development. I think this is a completely different approach.
I think that the Chinese have come up with a new model of government, which I have not seen in any place in Europe, the U.S. ever, and it’s a model which is overcoming geopolitics, which is, if you say, ‘I have a win-win for cooperation. Everybody can join.’ Then, if everyone joins, then you have overcome geopolitics.
And geopolitics is the one thing that caused two world wars, and in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we cannot have geopolitics anymore. So I think that these are very important differences.
Sure, China has its own interests. Win-win means that China also has an interest. China has advantages, but, for example, if you ask people from Africa, ‘Would you rather have deals where China gets raw materials for long periods of time, but they build infrastructure for Africans.’ They like that much better than Europeans who come and say, ‘Oh, you should obey democracy,’ and do nothing.
Q: Statement about Chinese infrastructure projects in Morocco. Both are winners, as opposed to projects 20 years ago run by other countries. The Chinese there have learned Arabic. The projects have greatly reduced the travel time. They have a different perspective than the French, and Europeans had.    
Tom Gillesberg: Do you have final remarks?
A: I would just say that people should not just believe, or not believe, what I am saying, but take an active attitude to try to find out what the truth is, for themselves. Because the world is not helped by replacing one ideology by another. The only way you can be certain, is that you become a truth-seeking person yourself. Because the whole question about what went wrong, is that people forgot what it is to be an honest truth-seeking person, taking the truth not as something you reach finally, but something you always improve.
Schiller had this beautiful writing about universal history, where he said that the philosophical mind is the first one to take his own system apart, to put it together more perfectly again.
I think that that quality – and, also, we had two days ago in Berlin, a very important event, which was also about the dialogue of cultures, and every – we had a very important presentation, which you can soon see on our webpage, where we had a double bass player who spoke about the importance of Wilhelm Furtwängler as a conductor, and he gave some musical examples, and he compared the performances of Furtwängler with some modern conductors, and the difference is so unbelievable. The music of Furtwängler is transparent. It is beautiful. It is absolutely overwhelmingly uplifting, and many of the other conductors are just playing along, with no respect for what the composition is.
And he really described, with many quotes from Furtwängler, that what is needed is this inner quality of truthfulness. That you don’t fake it, because if you’re not truthful – for example, you cannot recite poetry, if you’re not truthful. You cannot sing beautifully, if you’re not truthful. Sure, you can sing brilliantly, you can do all kinds of tricks, and it impresses people, but to really produce art, you have to be truthful. You have to try to understand the poetical idea, the musical idea. You have to step back with your ego behind what the composer or the poet wrote. And that’s what is wrong with modern theater. In Regietheater, they just say, ‘I don’t care what Schiller wrote, or what Shakespeare wrote. I just make my modern interpretation. I put Harley Davidson’s into Shakespeare, and it doesn’t matter.’ And that is not art.
And I think the question is, ‘What do you do with your life?’ That is really the question. Are you becoming a creative person, devoted to that with your life, you contribute to enable mankind to move on a little step further, and become better.
Or, are you just eating three tons of caviar, and have 3,000 Porsches. And then, when you die, they write on your gravestone, ‘He/she ate three mons of caviar, and had 3,000 Porsches,’ and that was it.
No, you should try to be an honest person, trying to make human society better with what you do. And, once you do that, you become happy. Then you are free. This inner freedom, is what you should try to find. And that is the only way that we will win that battle. It’s not Trump. It is, can we get enough people to be innerly free.
And then we win.
End of discussion

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 12. december, 2016 – I dag erklærede den syriske hær officielt sejren over terroristerne i Aleppo. Dette sker efter terroristernes fire år lange besættelse af byen; men det sker henved 24 dage efter, at den syriske regering, med russisk støtte, lovede at generobre byen fuldstændigt. De handlede imod hele oppositionen forøvet af London, Paris, Washington og Saudi-Arabien, der støttede »moderate« oprørere på jorden og førte løgne- og chikanekampagner i De forenede Nationer i New York.

SANA, den syriske regerings nyhedstjeneste, sender i aften en video, hvor præsident Bashar al-Assad ønsker syriske tropper tillykke ved deres stillinger i Aleppo. Prisen for denne sejr for principper har været forfærdelige lidelser og tab af liv, men sejren er godt og grundigt vundet. Folk fejrer den nu.

Vi må nu tænke på nødvendigheden af en Marshallplan for området – de ’5 søers plan’, eller »Fønix«-plan, for en genopbygning af Syrien og hele området, som Hussein Askary og Ulf Sandmark har udviklet, og som Schiller Instituttet har promoveret.

I sidste uge, den 8. dec., midt i de sidste dages kampe om Aleppo, var Kinas særlige udsending til Syrien, Xie Xiaoyan, i Damaskus for at drøfte humanitære hjælpeoperationer, såvel som også andre planer om hjælp til den krigshærgede nation. I mellemtiden, i New York i sidste uge, stod Kina sammen med Rusland og andre nationer om at modsætte sig de svigagtige resolutioner om våbenstilstand og hjælp til Aleppo, der, i et forsøg på at opretholde kampen om Aleppo, var blevet foreslået af aksen bestående af Det Hvide Hus, London, Saudi-Arabien og Frankrig.

I USA foregår der en hysterisk kampagne imod Rusland og præsident Putin, hvor man bruger løgnen om, at russiske, statslige hackere skulle have grebet ind i de amerikanske valg, og også, at det var til fordel for Donald Trump. Dette kommer efter rapporter i medierne i sidste uge om, at CIA er i besiddelse af »hemmelige« beviser for, at Rusland begår disse kriminelle handlinger og er blevet en farlig modstander. Putin er den stærke mand, der udøver trusler, han er en krigsforbryder i Syrien, osv.

Efter at Lyndon LaRouche i dag blev briefet om situationen, bestilte han en kronologi (se nedenfor), der går tilbage til juli 2016, over denne løgnekampagne, og hvor WikiLeaks publicerede e-mails, der afslørede det aftalte spil mellem Hillary Clintons kampagne og det Demokratiske Partis Nationalkomite, om at favorisere Clinton og lægge forhindringer i vejen for Bernie Sanders. Daværende formand for Demokraternes Nationalkomite, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, måtte træde tilbage før Demokraternes partikonvent. Siden da – og især efter at have tabt præsidentvalget – har Obama- og Clinton-flokken bestræbt sig endnu mere på at aflede opmærksomheden fra den folkelige afvisning af deres mange forbrydelser, ved at fokusere på en svigagtig dæmonisering af Rusland og Putin.

Måden, dette skal forstås på, sagde LaRouche, er den, at dette er et britisk svindelnummer, en bestræbelse fra Dronningens side for at beskytte Obama og forhindre muligheden for, at Londons og Wall Streets politik skrottes. De aktuelle ’aggressiv hund’-angreb mod Rusland bør ses i denne globale sammenhæng – med sammenbruddet af det mislykkede system i USA under Bush og Obama, og af selve Det britiske Imperium, og ligeledes i sammenhæng med de brud, der nu kommer fra Europa, og nu, gennembruddet i Aleppo. Vores kamp er en kamp for principper.

Supplerende materiale (engelsk):

Chronology: The 'Blame Russia' Operation for Election
Interference Is a British Fraud

Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS)–The current hysteria to blame Russia for
hacking and interfering in U.S. elections is no civic vigilance,
but a classic British fraud operation, for the Queen to protect
her Obama and avert the dumping of his failed London/Wall Street
policies. It should be seen in the widest international context,
of the collapse of the U.S. economic and political system, as
well as the potential break-away from this collapse by
populations around the world, from the Philippines, to Italy, to
Bulgaria, to Moldova, to the U.S., to the Brexit voters, and
more.
        The chronology below shows the beginnings of the fraud, with
the July 2016 Clinton campaign charges against Russia, made after
leaks showed that the Democratic National Committee was secretly
acting in Hillary's favor against Bernie Sanders, her principal
Democratic opponent. Next, the Obama Administration itself jumped
in to make accusations against Russia, as voters started lining
up against Clinton. Then, after the electorate went for Trump,
Obama formally called for an investigation of Russian
involvement. Now there are calls for delaying the Electoral
College vote altogether, and even for a re-election, plus
denunciations of Russian President Vladimir Putin for hijacking
the election.
                       – Spring, 2016 –

JUNE. The Democratic National Committee said that two hacker
groups had invaded its IT systems. The assertion was then later
made by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Obama Administration
that the hacking, and subsequent release of emails, was
"consistent with" Russian tactics, while not denying the illegal
activity that had been exposed by the release.

                       – Summer, 2016 –

JULY. Before the Democratic Party Convention began, WikiLeaks
posted some 20,000 emails from the DNC showing it was favoring
Hillary Clinton, and prejudiced against her primary opponent
Bernie Sanders, a breach of their own rules of impartiality. The
DNC Chairman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was forced to resign
just before the convention due to the exposure. Julian Assange,
head of WikiLeaks, denied that Wiki had hacked the emails, but
said that they came from a leaker.

                       – Autumn, 2016 –

OCT. 7. The Obama Administration formally accused Russia of
conducting cyber attacks aimed at the elections. A statement was
issued by James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and
Jeh Johnson, Department of Homeland Security, saying that, "We
believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts,
that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized
these activities." Such "belief," and never evidence or proof,
has remained the basis of all charges. The activities referred to
were hacking attempts against state election systems. Clapper and
Johnson, while not blaming the Russian government specifically,
asserted that the patterns of "scanning and probing" could be
traced in many cases to servers operated by a Russian company.
        A careful review of the Clapper-Johnson statement, however,
made clear that there was no unanimous consensus among the U.S.
intelligence agencies that there was adequate proof to accuse the
Russians of being behind the alleged hacking.  In fact, by
October, according to a Dec. 12, 2016, Washington Post account,
quoting FBI officials, the Bureau had greatly scaled back its
five-month long probe of Russian interference and ties to the
Trump campaign, due to lack of sufficient evidence.

OCT. 8. The Russian Foreign Ministry responded that the hacking
accusations lacked any proof, and were intended for the purpose
of inciting, "unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria." Dep. Foreign
Minister Sergei Ryabkov, on the Ministry website, denounced the
U.S. statements as "dirty tricks."

NOVEMBER. During October through Nov. 6, WikiLeaks released
several batches from a trove of over 50,000 emails, from the
private email account of Clinton's campaign manager, John
Podesta. Again, WikiLeaks spokesmen stated that they did not
receive the documents from hackers, but obtained them from
whistleblowers inside the United States.

                       – Winter, 2016 –

DEC. 9. The Washington Post and New York Times reported that
the CIA knew that Russia was behind hacking during the elections.
Naming no sources, nor facts, the Post wrote, "The CIA has
concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the
2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency … according
to officials briefed on the matter."
        The London Guardian reports the same line full-blast.
However, the Guardian itself quoted an expert debunking this.
ZeroHedge reproduced a Guardian article, featuring a British
diplomat (friend of Assange) who has met and knows the leaker of
the DNC emails. Those who know the leaker know, says the
diplomat, that the emails were leaked, not hacked, and the leaker
is not Russian but American.
        From the Guardian piece: "Assange has previously said the
DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official
cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence
agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was
directing the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from
the Russian government.
        "Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who
is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims
'bullshit,' adding: `They are absolutely making it up.
        "`I know who leaked them,' Murray said. 'I've met the person,

who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian, and it's an
insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
        "`If what the CIA is saying is true, and the CIA's
statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the
Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone
inside the United States.
        "`America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers
and it's not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly
have no knowledge whatsoever,' said Murray."

DEC. 9. Obama ordered a review of Russia's involvement in hacking
to rig elections, going back to 2008.

DEC. 9. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, issued a statement,
saying, "Any Administration should be deeply troubled by Russia's
attempt to tamper with our elections."

DEC. 9. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), to CNN, "I'm going after
Russia in every way we can go after Russia….they're one of the
most destabilizing influences on the world stage. I think they
did interfere with our election, and I want Putin to personally
pay a price."

DEC. 10. Sen. Lindsey Graham issued a stream of tweets that
Russia "is trying to break the backs of democracies–and
democratic movements–all over the world." He wrote, "Don't have
to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what Russia is up to–they're
trying to undermine democracies all over the world."

DEC. 10. Reporter Glenn Greenwald, on Intercept: "There is still
no evidence for any of these [CIA] claims. What we have instead
are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely
unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof…. Anonymous
claims leaked to the newspapers about what the CIA believes do
not constitute proof, and certainly do not constitute reliable
evidence that substitutes for actual evidence that can be
received. Have we not learned this lesson yet?"

DEC. 11. Four Senators issued a joint statement calling for an
investigation of Russia's involvement in election interference.
Democrats Charles Schumer (NY) and Jack Reed (RI); and
Republicans John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

DEC. 12. Ten electors in the Electoral College (from six states
and the District of Columbia) released an open letter to Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper, asking for confirmation
of whether Russia interfered in the 2016 elections, as a
condition for the electors to formally cast ballots in the
Electoral College when it meets Dec. 19 in respective states.
This initiative is endorsed by the Hillary Clinton campaign. The
electors' letter says they, "require to know from the
intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations
into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and
Russian government interference in the election, the scope of
those investigations, how far those investigations may have
reached, and who was involved in those investigations." A leader
of this ploy is Christine Pelosi, daughter of Nancy Pelosi.

DEC. 12. John Podesta, on behalf of defeated and conceded
candidate Hillary Clinton's "campaign," of which he was manager,
requested that the CIA or "intelligence community" give a
briefing to the Electors at the Electoral College meeting, before
they cast their votes. Clearly aimed to have an official
executive agency intervene to tamper with the Electors' votes.
        Politico: "In his statement released on Monday [Dec. 12],
Podesta said `The bipartisan electors' letter raises very grave
issues involving our national security,' and added that electors
have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we
support their efforts to have their questions addressed….'
        The statement describes how `we' continually protested that
the Russians were doing it, indicating Podesta is speaking here
for Clinton's campaign. `We now know that the CIA has determined
Russia's interference in our elections was for the purpose of
electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.'"
        The "bipartisan electors" refers to the 10 led by Nancy
Pelosi's daughter.
        If done, this would be the most serious such executive
interference in elections since Andrew Johnson requested that the
Army help him convene a Congressional session including southern
slave owner "Congressmen" whose entry Congress had rejected.
 

9. dec., 2016 – Dr. Patrick Ho, en fremtrædende politisk og sundhedsvidenskabelig personlighed fra Hong Kong, der var hovedarrangør af »Bælt-og-Vej Forummet«, som afholdtes i Washington onsdag (7. dec.), afsluttede konferencen med et magtfuldt overblik over Kinas historiske forbindelser med verden i de sidste 1000 år, og konkluderede med fem forslag til nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump til, hvordan USA kan blive integreret i Bælt-og-Vej-projektet:

1. Betragt Bæltet-og-Vejen som en platform, som kan være spydspids for initiativer og programmer, der vil frembringe et tættere samarbejde mellem USA og Kina;

2. Juster handelsaftaler med de asiatiske stillehavsnationer, så de imødekommer Bæltet-og-Vejen;

3. Juster USA’s holdning til at imødekomme de internationale udviklingsbanker og promover deres evne til at være med til at støtte infrastrukturudvikling;

4. Vær med til at sikre sikkerheden langs med Bæltet-og-Vejen;

5. Få de internationale institutioner til at arbejde sammen med Bæltet-og-Vejen.

Dr. Ho sagde, at Bæltet-og-Vejen ikke blot er forbindelser fra ét sted til et andet, men forbindelser mellem hjerter og hjerner, der forbinder sjæle, som et middel til at virkeligøre fredeligt samarbejde, der forbinder den kinesiske drøm med den amerikanske drøm, og andre nationers drømme: frihed for afsavn, frihed for frygt,[1] harmoni med naturen og fred.

Hans gennemgang af Kinas historie beskrev tre »Bank på Kinas dør« fra Vestens side og tre »Bank på Vestens dør« fra Kinas side:

1. Matteo Ricci og jesuitermissionærerne, der fandt en åben dør i slutningen af det 16. århundrede og med sig bragte vestlig religion, filosofi og videnskab. Dette blev undergravet og kollapsede i det 18. århundrede;
2. Det britiske Imperium, der slog døren ind med Opiumskrigene og lancerede et århundrede med underkastelse og fattigdom;
3. Nixons besøg i Kina i 1972, der indledte det økonomiske samarbejde og Kinas fremvækst.

Med hensyn til Kinas bank på Vestens dør:

1. Den første Silkevej, med Zhang Qians rejse til Centralasien i 139 f. Kr.
2. Zheng Hes skatteskibe i det 15. århundrede, der sejlede gennem det Indiske Ocean og den Persiske Golf og til den afrikanske kyst. Dr. Ho viste et billede af Cæsar, der siger, »Jeg kom, jeg så, jeg sejrede« og et af Zheng He, der siger, »Jeg kom, jeg så, jeg fik venner, jeg tog hjem«.
3. Den Nye Silkevej, som Xi Jinping annoncerede i 2013, og som Obama nægtede at åbne døren for. Nu banker vi på Trumps dør, sagde han. »Et stort opråb« om, at Bæltet-og-Vejen er den institution, der kan fremme en ny alliance mellem vore nationer; en impuls til at gentænke politikkerne.

Foto: Dr. Patrick Ho, fra okt., 2014.

7. dec., 2016 – Udenrigsministrene i NATO-landene mødtes i dag i Bruxelles for anden dag for at drøfte Ukraine og Afghanistan, og fortsætter med at agere, som om verden ikke har ændret sig. NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg sagde, at der fortsat må lægges økonomisk pres på Moskva pga. Ruslands angivelige involvering i Ukraine.

Mødet i går producerede en 42-punkts plan for sikkerhedssamarbejde med den Europæiske Union, en opfølgning af Fælleserklæringen, som blev udstedt af de to organisationer ved NATO-topmødet i Warszawa i juli måned. Aftalen, rapporterer Reuters, gør det muligt for de seks EU-stater uden for NATO at drage fordel af noget af den militærstøtte, som Trump har foreslået, kunne blive betinget af større forsvarsudgifter fra europæernes side. Forslagene har også til hensigt at berolige Europa mht., at USA er forpligtet over for regionen, på trods af nyvalgte præsident Trumps bemærkninger under sin kampagne, som har foruroliget allierede, sagde NATO-folk.

»Der er blevet stillet spørgsmålstegn mht. styrken af det transatlantiske forbund«, sagde Stoltenberg med henvisning til Trumps karakterisering af NATO som værende »forældet« under sin kampagne. »Jeg mener, at den bedste måde at respondere til disse spørgsmål, er at levere et stærkere NATO-EU-samarbejde«, sagde han.

Den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry på sin side forsøgte at forsikre NATO om, at USA’s forpligtelse over for alliancen ikke vil ændre sig under den tiltrædende Trump-administration. Kerry indrømmede, at billedet her ikke er helt klart, i betragtning af, at Trump stadig mangler mange udnævnelser, såsom til udenrigsministerposten, men, »Jeg har tillid til de personer, jeg hidtil har set«, sagde Kerry og nævnte i denne forbindelse general James Mattis, Trumps valg af forsvarsminister.

Foto: NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg (højre) og EU’s højeste repræsentant for EU-udenrigspolitik, Federica Mogherini, under hvis overværelse NATO’s udenrigsministre støttede flere end 40 forslag til at styrke samarbejdet omkring cyber-sikkerhed, søfartsoperationer og hjælp til nabolande for bedre at kunne forsvare sig.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 6. december, 2016 – Den formelle overgang til USA’s næste præsidentskab – der er 45 dage til Indvielsesdagen for Donald Trump – får uophørlig opmærksomhed i USA og i andre medier, men, den historisk vigtige overgang i verden som helhed er det følgende: hvor hurtigt og vist vil USA og Europa opgive det geopolitiske, kasino-økonomiske system og gå med i det nye, globale win-win-paradigme? Udfordringen består i at mobilisere folk til at være med til at få dette til at ske. Dette omfatter, at de foretager en personlig ændring og bliver aktive, og ikke længere blot ser passivt og afventende til. Der gives øjeblikke i historien, hvor den subjektive faktor er altafgørende. Vi befinder os ved et sådant øjeblik.

Omstændighederne er dramatiske. Yderligere initiativer for fred og udvikling kommer i denne uge fra Rusland og Kina.

I dag var premierminister Dmitri Medvedev vært for mange møder i Moskva med den tyrkiske premierminister Binali Yildirim, inkl. møder med præsident Vladimir Putin. Sammen med afgørende, økonomiske engagementer, såsom byggeri af kernekraftværker og gasledningen Turkish Stream, bekræftede lederne det, som Yildirim kaldte behovet for en ny, international sikkerhedsarkitektur for at besejre terrorisme, og en ny dialog med vestlige magter på dette grundlag.

I Tokyo fremlagde en kinesisk embedsmand fra den magtfulde Nationale Udviklings- og Reformkommission (NDRC) i går et tilbud om at opkoble Bælt-og-Vej-programmet til Japans og Sydkoreas økonomiske »arbejdsplaner«. Hr. Cao Wenlian, generaldirektør for NDRC’s Internationale Samarbejdscenter, talte om at styrke komplementariteten i de tre nationers økonomiske aktiviteter, der tilsammen allerede udgør 36 procent af verdens BNP. Cao talte i anledning af det Første Forum for Samarbejde om Industrikapacitet mellem de tre lande. Dette fremstød med det kinesiske tilbud tilsidesætter Japans mangeårige underdanighed under transatlantisk, økonomisk og militær, tvivlsom og aggressiv manipulation.  

Selv Henry Kissinger – hvis personlige historie kan siges at indbefatte særdeles uønskede paradigmer – taler offentligt til fordel for samarbejde mellem USA og Kina. Kissinger mødtes den 2. dec. med præsident Xi Jinping i Beijing. I dag mødtes han med Donald Trump i New York City. I går aftes under et Manhattan-arrangement svarede Kissinger på et spørgsmål, der var stillet af LaRouchePAC’s Daniel Burke, som spurgte: »Hr. LaRouche deler stærkt Deres mening om, at USA og Kina må samarbejde. Og han understreger, at USA og Kina kan samarbejde omkring politikken med Ét bælte, én vej; at dette ville være en indlysende vej til at genopbygge USA’s kollapsende økonomi … « Kissinger svarede: »Jeg mener, at konceptet med Én vej, ét bælte [sic] er et vigtigt spørgsmål. Jeg mener, at Kina kan og bør finde en måde at tale om det. Det er et af de spørgsmål, hvor samarbejde sandsynligvis er muligt … «

I denne uge vil LaRouchePAC-aktivister fra flere østkyststater anføre angrebet på Capitol Hill i Washington, D.C., for at lægge pres på virkeligheden og politikken med det formål at få USA til at gå med i det nye paradigmes æra, med start i en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, der følges op af gennemførelse af de handlinger, der fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Love.

Ved et arrangement i går i Washington, D.C., talte både vicepræsident Joe Biden og Thomas Hoenig, vicepræsident for den amerikanske Statslige Indskudsgarantifond, FDIC, offentligt til fordel for Glass/Steagall-loven. Biden fordømte sin egen stemme til fordel for en ophævelse af Glass-Steagall i 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley-loven) som »den værste stemme, jeg nogensinde har afgivet i hele min tid i USA’s Senat«. Men så vendte han rundt og sagde, det er derfor, vi nu »ikke kan tillade en ophævelse af Dodd-Frank«, fordi vi har brug for »en opmand i marken«.  

Hoenig udtalte imidlertid støtte til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall og forklarede, at ophævelsen af denne lov førte til de risikable omstændigheder, der skabte krisen i 2008.

»Man gav de kommercielle banker, der har et statsgaranteret sikkerhedsnet, lov til« at engagere sig i alle former for aktiviteter, og man »forsynede dem endda med udvidet statsstøtte til at handle … « Hoenig er en potentiel Trump-udnævnelse til viceformand for banktilsynet i Federal Reserve (USA’s centralbank).

Hvis man træder et skridt tilbage og betragter historien, ser man, at visse øjeblikke træder frem som tidspunkter, hvor en afgørende, personlig ændring finder sted. I denne uge tænker vi med alvor tilbage på den 7. december, 1941, Pearl Harbor Day, hvor amerikanske borgere, som nation, gennemgik en ændring over en nat.

Vi skal i dag forstå, at vi alle er kaldede til aktivt at intervenere for at være med til at afgøre det historiske udfald.

4. dec., 2016 – Kinas Global Times publicerede som kronik den forberedte tale, som Fu Ying, forkvinde for Kinas Nationale Folkekongres’ Komite for Udenrigsanliggender, holdt på New York Universitet den 1. dec. Global Times udgav talen under ovenstående titel.

China Daily USA og China News Services officielle engelsksprogede webside, Ecn.cn, udgav nyhedsrapporteringer om hendes tale og fokuserede på ideen om, at »Infrastruktur kan blive en bro mellem Kina og USA«. Begge nyhedsmedier tager udgangspunkt i udtalelsen om, at »Fu Ying ser infrastruktur som en stor mulighed for samarbejde mellem USA og Kina under Amerikas nyvalgte præsident«.

Som Global Times rapporterer, begyndte Fu sin tale således:

»Efter præsidentvalget i USA talte den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping den 14. nov. i telefon med nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump, hvor han sagde, at det eneste rigtige valg for deres to lande var samarbejde, og at ’de to lande har brug for at styrke koordinationen, fremme deres respektive økonomiske udvikling og globale, økonomiske vækst samt udvide udveksling og samarbejde inden for diverse felter med henblik på at bringe flere fordele til de to befolkninger og promovere en jævn udvikling af relationerne mellem Kina og USA’. Hr. Trump var helt enig med den kinesiske præsident og gav udtrykt for, at han var overbevist om, at ’der vil blive en endnu større udvikling af de amerikansk-kinesiske relationer’. Dette var meget opmuntrende.

»Kina og USA har opbygget en stærk relation i årenes løb, men atmosfæren er ikke altid god. I årenes løb har jeg truffet amerikanere fra forskellige samfundslag, og jeg er undertiden overrasket over manglen på forståelse mellem os. Én årsag er, fik jeg at vide, at nogle mennesker i USA anser, at Kina har et forkert politisk system, og at de har haft forventninger om, at Kina burde ændre sig i den retning, de ønsker, og at de føler sig skuffet, når dette ikke sker.

Nu, hvor nye generationer vokser op i begge lande, vil grundlaget for forståelse da forbedres i takt med, at de unge måske er mere interesseret i at udveksle ideer og forstå hinanden?«

Madame Fu fortsatte med at fortælle om sine oplevelser som diplomat, hvor hun satte udviklinger i Afghanistan i kontrast til dem i Cambodja i de seneste 20 år, som hun så det, og konkluderede dernæst:

»I mit land Kina løftede de seneste tre årtiers succesrige reform og åbenhed over en mia. mennesker op over eksistensniveauet. Dette er først og fremmest muligt, fordi vi har haft generel social stabilitet, og fordi folk er trygge og kan forfølge deres drømme.

Kina må i lang tid fremover koncentrere sig om at modernisere landet, der stadig er langt bagefter de udviklede nationer … Kinas udenrigspolitik bør tjene samme formål, og målet er at sikre et favorabelt, ydre miljø for national udvikling og samarbejde udadtil …

Der er ligeledes i Kina en voksende bevidsthed om behovet for, at Kina spiller en mere aktiv rolle inden for internationale anliggender, samt sørger for offentlige tjenesteydelser. Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping har foreslået at opbygge et verdenssamfund for en fælles fremtid. Dette repræsenterer på den bedste måde tankegangen i Kina. Det, som Kina kan bidrage til verden med, bliver på linje med de kinesiske værdier og inden for felter, hvor vi ved bedst.

Som en forholdsvis nytilkommen i internationale affærer har Kina behov for at lære og samle erfaringer. Der er nu flere end 300.000 kinesiske studenter i USA, og flere end en million i hele verden. Mange universitetsuddannede vender hjem til Kina, og de kommer til at spille en afgørende rolle i at forbinde Kina med verden. Samtidig må Kina også rekruttere talenter fra hele verden og lære af andre lande, især USA.

I konklusion, så skabes og udøves udenrigspolitik af menneskelige væsener, og ikke af døde maskiner. Og, en succesrig udenrigspolitik må bringe fordele til mennesker. Det, som diplomati har med at gøre, er ikke ’stater’ bag masker, men spørgsmål, der berører mange mennesker som jer og mig. Det, der ligger til grund for nationens interesse, er befolkningens velbefindende. Jeg håber, I forstår, hvad det er, jeg forsøger at sige, og vil erklære jer enige med mig i, at folk i alle lande, især den unge generation, bør tage hinanden i hånden for at sikre, at, i det 21. århundrede, bør beskyttelsen af menneskers ret til at leve i fred og tryghed udgøre en fælles værdi inden for international adfærd.«     

Foto: Fu Ying i diskussion under US-China Forum på NYU, 1. dec., 2016.     

4. dec., 2016 – »Infrastruktur kan blive en bro mellem Kina og USA«, lyder overskriften i China Daily’s dækning af den intervention, som Fu Ying, forkvinde for Kinas Nationale Folkekongres’ Komite for Udenrigsanliggender, leverede på New Yorks Universitet den 1. dec.

Madame Fu talte for et publikum på 300 personer, for det meste studerende fra New Yorks Universitet, ved Kina-USA Forum, sponsoreret af NYU og Instituttet for Kinesisk-amerikansk Udveksling. Sammen med hende på podiet var den tidligere amerikanske ambassadør til Kina, Roy Stapleton. Aktivister fra LaRouchePAC deltog også og tog aktivt del i diskussionsperioden, hvor de rejste spørgsmålet om, hvordan de amerikansk-kinesiske relationer kunne udvikles omkring samarbejdet om Kinas Bælt-og-Vej-projekt, sådan, som LaRouchePAC har skitseret det i sin brochure, »USA må tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej«.

»Fu Ying ser infrastruktur som en stor mulighed for amerikansk-kinesisk samarbejde under Amerikas nyvalgte præsident«, rapporterede China Daily. Artiklen bemærker Fus diskussion om, hvordan direktøren for COSCO Group, Kinas største skibsreder, for to år siden sagde til den amerikanske Kongres, at Amerika måtte opgradere sine havne for at fremme vækst i eksporten. »Men Amerika ønsker ikke at tage imod investering fra andre lande som Kina, og I investerer ikke selv«, citerede hun direktøren for at have sagt.

Fu fremførte, at valget af Trump kunne føre til en ny fase, eftersom han har lovet at »transformere Amerikas smuldrende infrastruktur«, skrev China Daily med et citat af fr. Fu om, at »USA må være mere åben. Jeg mener, at der kan blive meget, meget godt samarbejde«.

»På et spørgsmål, om hun var bekymret for, at omstændighederne omkring relationer mellem USA og Kina var under forandring under Trump-administrationen, sagde Fu, at det var for tidligt at sige noget om det, men at hun ikke er pessimistisk«, skrev China Daily. »Hun sagde, at telefonsamtalen mellem præsident Xi Jinping og Trump var ’meget opmuntrende’, idet Trump var enig med Xi i, at samarbejde er den eneste valgmulighed for de to lande, og at de vil fremme forbindelserne for at bringe flere fordele til de to landes befolkning.«

China Daily bemærkede, at ambassadør Roy støttede Fu mht. ideen om samarbejde omkring infrastruktur, og sagde, at USA endnu kunne deltage i Kinas Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ, på trods af, at USA havde afvist at tilslutte sig projektet med Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), hvilket han anser for at være en fejltagelse.

Foto: Fr. Fu Ying.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 1. december, 2016 – Kinas Xi Jinping og Ruslands Vladimir Putin fortsætter med at komme med tilbud efter tilbud til USA – og andre nationer, der stadig sidder fast i det transatlantiske systems dødbringende kviksand – om at gå med i opbygningen af det nye, globale paradigme, der er i færd med at erstatte geopolitiske krige og fascistiske nulsumsspil-økonomier, med den Nye Silkevejspolitiks win-win-resultater.

Den kinesiske regering har netop udgivet en hvidbog, »Retten til udvikling: Kinas filosofi, praksis og bidrag«, som dokumenterer det forbløffende fremskridt, Kina har præsteret i løbet af de seneste årtier inden for områderne fattigdomsreduktion, levetid, uddannelse og så videre, og dernæst fortsætter med at forklare, at deres Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ har til formål at hjælpe andre nationer med at opnå lignende resultater. Retten til udvikling, proklamerer hvidbogen, er hele menneskehedens umistelige rettighed.       

Den russiske præsident Putin gentog i sin »Tale til nationen« for den russiske Duma, det føderale parlament, at han var indstillet på at samarbejde med den tiltrædende Trump-administration i USA for at »sikre international stabilitet og sikkerhed«. Putin gjorde det ligeledes til fulde klart, at Ruslands fremtid ligger i at nære kreativitet, videnskab og evnen til at løse problemer hos den unge generation: »Vore skoler må fremme kreativitet … Vore børn vil klart se, at Rusland har brug for deres ideer og viden.«

Dette er præcis den form for tankegang, som engang dominerede Franklin Roosevelts, og endda John Kennedys, USA, men det er blevet næsten uforståeligt for de fleste amerikanere i dag, i et USA, der er blevet transformeret af de seneste 16 års mareridt med Bush og Obama.

Og dog, så er genopvækkelsen af denne ånd selve nøglen til en strategisk sejr imod det døende, Britiske Imperium. For at opnå dette kræver det, at vi lever op til udfordringen med at få den amerikanske befolkning, og dens repræsentanter i Washington, til at tænke på det højere niveau, som er det sande potentiale, der er fremlagt for os, og ikke på niveauet for de kontrollerede ’trivielle selskabslege’, som karakteriserer politikken i Washington og i lokale anliggender.

I en diskussion tidligere på dagen med medlemmer af LPAC’s Politiske Komite og Videnskabsteam, samt Helga Zepp-LaRouche, understregede Lyndon LaRouche den afgørende rolle, som et fornyet rumprogram spiller for atter at tænde gnisten for optimisme og inspiration omkring spørgsmålet om, hvad menneskets formål i universet er. Den store, tyske rumforsker Krafft Ehricke er en vigtig prøvesten i denne bestræbelse, sagde LaRouche, for kampen for at bringe fremskridt inden for videnskab, kultur og økonomi tilbage, som en forenet, indbyrdes forbundet præstation.

»Hele formålet er at forstå, hvad fremtiden bringer, eller kan bringe, og fastholde udviklingen på denne basis«, sagde Larouche. »Det er ligesom hele tiden at holde trit; hele tiden forsøge at gøre noget, der er vigtigere, at opnå det, og dernæst nyde det … Der må være et element af overraskelse, et element af denne form for udtryk. Det er det, der får det til at virke. Det er ikke noget tomt; det er noget, man skal få til at virke.«

LaRouche fortsatte: »Vi lever i vort intellekt. Hvis vi kan tænke kvalificeret, så opererer vi i rummet. Vi bør håbe, at vi vil frigøre os og således bringe menneskeheden til et nyt niveau af præstationer.«

Foto: Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping mødes med Ruslands præsident Putin, Chiles præsident Bachelet, Indiens præsident Modi og Kasahkstans præsident Nazarbayev i sine bestræbelser på at rekruttere nationer til den Nye Silkevejs økonomiske politik. 

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

24. nov., 2016 – General Michael Flynn, som nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump for nylig udnævnte til national sikkerhedsrådgiver, blev den 20. nov. interviewet af CNN’s Fareed Zakaria. General Flynn fremlagde et magtfuldt krav om en Marshallplan for Mellemøsten og Nordafrika (MENA) og nævnte den succesfulde Marshallplan for Europa ved slutningen af Anden Verdenskrig. Han fremførte, at befolkningstilvæksten i MENA-området og spredningen af radikal jihadisme kun kan imødegås gennem et langsigtet perspektiv for økonomisk vækst, og at Marshallplanen tilbyder det bedste eksempel på, hvordan man skal gå frem mod denne trussel.     

Læs også: Schiller Instituttets Specialrapport: Et økonomisk mirakel for Sydeuropa, Middelhavsområdet og det afrikanske kontinent. 

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

23. nov., 2016 – Den tidlige amerikanske ambassadør Chas Freeman kommer i dag med en analyse, der »rammer plet«, af Amerikas fejlagtige politik over for Kina i Del II af sit interview med The Nation »The Militarization of Diplomacy and Other Corruptions of U.S. Empire« (Diplomatiets militarisering og anden amerikansk imperiekorruption).

Efter at diskutere Amerikas enorme militære industrikompleks’ historie tilbage til præsident Eisenhowers tid, siger Freeman, at USA måtte »opfinde en ny fjende, eller finde én, for at retfærdiggøre de udgifter, man havde, og gøre det, man gjorde, med militæret«.

Freeman fortsætter, »Andy Marshall [der var leder af det amerikanske forsvarsministeriums Office of Net Assessment, Pentagons interne ’tænketank’, 1973-2015], opfandt et vidunderligt koncept kaldet ’peer competitor’ (ligeværdig konkurrent). Den ligeværdige konkurrent var en fiktiv, hypotetisk skabelse, der, uanset, hvad man gjorde i den militære sfære, ville gøre noget, der ville udkonkurrere én. Dette er en perfekt drivkraft for et program, fordi uanset, hvad man gør, så må man gøre mere, fordi der potentielt set er nogen derude, der med held kan konkurrere med det, man har gjort. Dette koncept blev sluttelig anvendt på Kina. Det har været drivkraft bag en masse afskrækkelse i de amerikansk-kinesiske relationer«.

Intervieweren Patrick Lawrence vender sig derefter mod Kina med reference til Chas Freemans bog fra 2013, Interesting Times: China, America and the Whifting Balance of Prestige (Kina, Amerika og antydningen af prestigebalance). Lawrence siger, »Jeg syntes, ordet »prestige« var besynderligt – det drejer sig om magt – men alene titlen siger en masse om ens syn på dynamikken i det fjerne stillehavsområde. Efter min mening har vi et meget godt greb i den gale ende. Vi bør samarbejde med Kina for at lette en overgang til det, jeg anser for at være en uundgåelig udvikling af relationerne i Stillehavet. I stedet synes vi at udkæmpe en krig, der ikke kan vindes, for at kæmpe mod Kinas fremvækst … «

Chas Freeman responderer, at Amerika blev den dominerende militærmagt i Stillehavet efter sejren over Japan og påpeger den efterfølgende, økonomiske vækst i Japan, Sydkorea og andre lande. Men, siger Freeman:

»Nu står vi over for realiteten med Kina, som er vokset frem i bemærkelsesværdigt tempo og grundlæggende set hævder sin historiske position i området, og som nu grundlæggende set er alles største handelspartner; alles største kilde til ny investering; alles største marked – ingens politiske model, for resten – og vi behandler det som en militær udfordring, fordi det er, hvad vi gør. Jeg vil tro, det først og fremmest er en økonomisk udfordring. Det er ikke en politisk udfordring, med mindre og indtil kineserne opfinder et attraktivt, politisk system, hvilket de ikke har gjort. Det er i færd med at blive en militær udfordring, og er nu en militær udfordring, primært, fordi vi valgte at gøre det til en sådan, siger Freeman. (fremhævelse tilføjet)        

Foto: Tidl. amerikansk ambassadør til Saudi-Arabien (1989-92) Chas Freeman.

Etablissementet i både USA og Europa er rystet over Donald Trumps valgsejr, men rystel­serne ender ikke der. I lighed med Reagan efter valget i 1980 vil han indtage Det Hvide Hus med sit helt eget team og egne nye rådgivere. Derfor er en helt ny politik mulig, hvor USA finder sin naturlige plads i et samarbejde med Rusland og Kina – og forhåbentlig dropper Bush/Cheneys og Obamas krigs- og konfrontationspolitik. Danmark og Europa skal dermed også finde en helt ny udenrigspolitik frem. Samtidig kommer Trump så til at skulle slås med et finanskrak større end i 2008, men hvis han lytter til Lyndon LaRouche, som Reagan del­vist gjorde det i 1981, så er der med LaRouches Fire Love en vej ud af moradset. Dette er en redigeret udgave af en tale, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets formand, holdt den 21. november 2016, og som kan høres på www.schillerinstitut.dk.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 22. november, 2016 – Den følgende erklæring fra den republikanske senator Richard H. Black, Virginias Senat, kom som respons til en advarsel fra kongresmedlem Ted Lieu (D-CA) om, at USA’s støtte til og samarbejde med Saudi-Arabien i den kriminelle krig mod Yemen udsatte amerikansk militærpersonale for en risiko for at blive retsforfulgt for krigsforbrydelser. Senator Black er tidligere chef for Afdeling for Kriminallov ved Pentagons militære strafferet.

»Jeg er enig i kongresmedlem Lieus juridiske analyse. Jeg mener imidlertid, at denne sags mere praktiske aspekt er den juridiske afsløring af vore mest højtplacerede embedsfolk, der styrede vore militærfolks handlinger. Ifølge den præcedens, der blev sat af den Amerikanske Krigsforbryderdomstol i sagen mod den japanske general [Tomoyuki] Yamashita efter Anden Verdenskrig, kan den øverstkommanderende retsforfølges for generelle, kriminelle handlinger, begået af den øverstkommanderendes underordnede. Dette gælder for handlinger, som han kendte til, eller burde have kendt til.

Amerika har i vid udstrækning ladet hånt om internationale normer for opførsel i sine aggressionskrige imod Serbien, Irak, Libyen, Syrien og nu Yemen. Visse handlinger fremstår som forbrydeler iht. international sædvanelov – såsom vores afvisning af at acceptere oberst Gaddafis overgivelse, da han tilbød at forlade Libyen. USA, Storbritannien og Frankrig skal have ført rådslagning, før de besluttede at ignorere hans tilbud om at abdicere, og fremmede i stedet mordet på ham.

Ved at lade hånt om fastlagte normer for opførsel i krigstid har USA i alvorlig grad undermineret sin moralske autoritet og formindsket sin magt over hele planeten. Alt imens jeg er tilhænger af et robust forsvar, så opnår vi intet ved at udkæmpe krige for at fremme globalisering – især ikke, når sådanne krige krænker Lov om Krig på Land.«

Præsident Donald Trump indikerer i stigende grad, at han er enig. Hans udnævnelse af general Michael Flynn (pens.) er en sådan indikation – general Flynn advarede som bekendt, da han var chef for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, Obama om, at hans tvivlsomme eventyr i Syrien, og også i Libyen, støttede etableringen af et »kalifat«, bestående af de mest ekstreme, saudiskstøttede, islamiske terrorister. General Flynn latterliggjorde også Obamas massive program for dronemord, der er så frydefuldt for dræber-præsidenten, som rent militært værende værre end unyttigt, idet hvert eneste drab »blot gjorde dem til martyrer og blot skabte en ny årsag til at bekæmpe os endnu hårdere«. Ligesom Trump er general Flynn fortaler for at arbejde sammen med Rusland for at forsvare den syriske stat og verden imod terrorister.

Mandag mødtes Trump også med kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), med indikationer om, at hun kommer i betragtning som USA’s ambassadør til FN. Gabbard, der er veteran fra Irakkrigen, har været en offentlig kritiker af Obamas evindelige krige og hans fiasko i bekæmpelse af terrorisme, til fordel for »regimeskift« imod sekulære regeringer. Sæt dette i modsætning til Obamas FN-ambassadør Samantha Power, der har tilsluttet sig de brølende dinosaurer ved i dag i FN at levere en tirade om, at hun ville »stille for retten« de syriske øverstbefalende, der har anført kontraterror-operationerne i deres land.

Verden befinder sig i en revolutionerende overgangsperiode. De europæiske ledere, der fulgte Obama og briternes diktater om at gennemføre sanktioner mod Rusland og forberede til krig, falder som fluer. Valget af François Fillon, en pro-russisk kandidat, i det franske Republikanske Partis primærvalg i denne uge, følger i kølvandet på valget af pro-russiske præsidenter i Bulgarien og Moldova i sidste uge. Samtidig hænger de europæiske banker, med Deutsche Bank og Royal Bank of Scotland i spidsen, i en tynd tråd og kunne bringe hele det vestlige banksystem til fald, hvad dag, det skal være – med mindre USA’s Kongres kommer til fornuft og gennemfører Glass-Steagall nu, uden at vente til den nye, amerikanske regering tiltræder i januar.

Endnu mere afgørende er kampen for at genoprette kreativ tænkning i de vestlige nationer, efter årtiers intellektuel gift fra Hollywoods og rock-narko-sex-modkulturens vold og perversion. For tre år siden, på 50-års dagen for mordet på John F. Kennedy, præsenterede Schiller Instituttet, stiftet af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, en mindekoncert for JFK med en opførelse af Mozarts Rekviem-messe i D-mol i Washington-området, som efterfulgtes af en gentagelse af koncerten i Holy Cross katedralen i Boston, hvor, 50 år tidligere, Richard Cardinal Cushing holdt en mindehøjtidelighed for JFK med en højtidelig pavemesse, missa solemnis rekviem, hvor det samme, intense udtryk for klassisk skønhed var blevet præsenteret og fulgt på fjernsyn i hele verden. Det er netop skønhedens identifikation med sandhed, der er gået tabt i Vesten, og som må genoprettes for at bringe verden sammen for fred gennem fælles og samarbejdende udvikling.

Foto: Præsident Obama og førstedame Michelle Obama i Saudi-Arabien, 27. januar, 2015.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

19. november, 2016 – De store bølger af hysteri i die-hard pro-atlantiske kredse og i massemedierne, som allerede kom rullende før det amerikanske valg, har nu nået hidtil usete højder, siden Donald Trump blev valgt, og giver os en klinisk indsigt i disse menneskers mentale tilstand og opfattelse af demokrati. De foretrækker tydeligvis en præsident Hillary Clinton og en Tredje Verdenskrig som følge af hendes erklærede politik for Syrien, end de vil have en potentiel forbedring af de russisk-amerikanske relationer, som er uundværlig for etableringen af verdensfred og for opnåelse af positive løsninger for Syrien og Ukraine.

Det er i sandhed bemærkelsesværdigt: Efter at det lykkedes den forstødte præsident Obama at finde tre dage til at bo på Berlins Hotel Adlon og dinere og tale med sin veninde Angela Merkel, og dernæst afholde et minitopmøde mellem de selvudnævnte europæiske »Seks«, besluttede de to af dem – sammen med de andre statsoverhoveder – at forlænge sanktionerne mod Rusland i endnu et år. Disse ikke-så-sikre andre var den franske præsident François Hollande (popularitetsscore 7 %), den italienske premierminister Matteo Renzi (den sandsynlige taber i den italienske folkeafstemning den 4. dec.), den spanske premierminister Mariano Rajoy (midlertidigt statsoverhoved for en minoritetsregering), samt den ulykkelige britiske premierminister Theresa May. Det er tvivlsomt, om de, med dette træk for at gøre sig selv til et bogstaveligt direktorat for Den europæiske Union, og dernæst dekretere en politik, som halvdelen af EU-medlemslandene er imod, vil bidrage til sammenhæng i EU.

Disse selvudnævnte »Seks« har tydeligvis endnu ikke fattet, at deres variant af neoliberal politik, baseret på konfrontation med Rusland og Kina, blev stemt ud i Brexit-afstemningen i juni og i det nylige, amerikanske præsidentvalg. De har ikke forstået, at en situation har udviklet sig i den transatlantiske verden, der påkaldes i den Amerikanske Uafhængighedserklæring: nemlig, at, hvis regeringerne er blevet »ødelæggere« »af formålet« med deres mandat – mere specifikt det, at garantere de umistelige rettigheder til liv, frihed og stræben efter lykke – da er det folkets ret, ja, faktisk »dets pligt«, at ændre eller ophæve en sådan regering. Det »lange tog af overgreb og ulovlige tilegnelser (af magt)«, som uddybende forklares i Uafhængighedserklæringen, svarer præcis til det, som de mennesker, Hillary Clinton så foragteligt har kaldt »kurven af ynkværdige«, har måttet udstå under Obamas politik – overgreb og ulovlig tilegnelse af magt, som de ikke ønskede, skulle fortsætte under en Hillary Clinton.

De selvudnævnte Seks, og frem for alt, de totalt gale medlemmer af medierne, der selv ikke viger tilbage for at udstede trusler mod Trump, forklædt som humor, er så fængslede i deres egen ideologi, at de ikke kan fatte denne revolutions dimension af naturlig lov.

Alligevel skriver New York Times den 18. nov. i en artikel på avisens forside med overskriften, »Idé i Trump-skala for en ny præsident: Byg noget inspirerende«. Times erklærer korrekt, at Trump kun kan forene landet, hvis han sætter gang i store infrastrukturprojekter, hvis lige er blevet totalt ignoreret i de seneste årtier. Han må bygge moderne versioner af Franklin D. Roosevelts Golden Gate Bro, Hoover-dæmning og Lincoln-tunnel. Dernæst opremsede »rekordernes avis« Roosevelts mest betydningsfulde projekter. Men artiklen er selvfølgelig langt bag efter Lyndon LaRouches program, hvor han i 2015 offentliggjorde et forslag om at bygge den Nye Silkevej i USA – et program for storstilet infrastrukturbyggeri og genindustrialisering – som ville integrere USA i Verdenslandbroen.

APEC-topmødet

I mellemtiden går »win-win-samarbejdet« for udviklingen af den Nye Silkevej fremad med syvmileskridt. Det er det fremherskende emne for topmødet i Asiatisk Stillehavsområdes Økonomiske Samarbejde (APEC) i Lima, Perus hovedstad, den 19.-20. nov., hvor den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, så vel som også den japanske premierminister Shinzo Abe, vil deltage, og hvor de også vil holde bilaterale møder. Abe havde på forhånd holdt et møde med nyvalgte præsident Trump og havde givet udtryk for dennes fremragende lederskabsevner.

Præsident Xi havde aflagt statsbesøg i Ecuador og Chile forud for APEC-topmødet, og har et statsbesøg i Peru på dagsordenen efter topmødet. Præsident Xi og Ecuadors præsident Rafael Correa aftalte et »Omfattende Strategisk Partnerskab« mellem deres to nationer, og som omfatter fast, vidtrækkende udveksling og samarbejde inden for en bred vifte af områder. Blandt disse er en styrkelse af produktiv investering, udviklingen af relationer inden for økonomi og handel, økonomisk samarbejde og samarbejde inden for videnskab og teknologi. Kina har allerede leveret generøs hjælp til genopbygning af bygninger og steder, der blev ødelagt i det alvorlige jordskælv i april i år.

Præsident Correa gav veltalende udtryk for sin tak til Kina, hvor han understregede, at de to lande tænkte ens. Kina ønsker at bygge sin økonomi på et fundament af innovation; Ecuador søger at gå frem fra at være eksportør af varer og til at blive en vidensbaseret økonomi. Uden kinesisk finansiering og overførsel af teknologi ville dette ikke være muligt. I en fælles erklæring aflagde de løfte om at samarbejde om virkeliggørelsen af store projekter inden for områderne olie, gas, minedrift, infrastruktur, vandforsyning, omdirigering af vand, kommunikation, finanssektoren, landbrug, petrokemisk produktion, skibsbyggeri, metallurgi, papirfremstilling og opførelse af en ny videnskabs-by. I sin tale understregede præsident Correa, at præsident Xis statsbesøg var den vigtigste begivenhed i Ecuadors historie. Kan man forestille sig kansler Merkel rejse på statsbesøg til Grækenland med et sådant program? Sandsynligvis ikke. Den tyske finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble bliver rød i ansigtet, når en journalist spørger om delvis gældeftergivelse – som han gjorde det ved en konference for bankierer i Frankfurt – og dernæst dekreterer, at grækerne har levet over evne. Dette i lyset af den kendsgerning, at Trojkaens nedskæringspolitik har drevet 45 procent af grækerne ned under fattigdomsgrænsen. Den transatlantiske sektors politik er ikke »win-win«, men derimod »tab-tab« – med mindre, selvfølgelig, man er bankier eller selskabsdirektør. Nu, hvor Obamas frihandelsaftale for Asien, TPP, er lige så død som TTIP-aftalen for det atlantiske område, er det det kinesisk udarbejdede, inkluderende Frihandelsområde for det Asiatiske Stillehavsområde (FTAAP) og det Regionale Omfattende Partnerskab (RCEP), som er på dagsordenen.

Som svar på uansvarlige medieartikler om disse handelsaftaler har officielle russiske og kinesiske talsmænd understreget, at de på ingen måde tilsigter at udelukke eller isolere USA. Xinhua citerede det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums talsmand, Geng Shuang, for at sige, at Kina ikke vil tage en ledende rolle i hverken FTAAP eller RCEP, og at handelsaftalerne er foreslået for samarbejde, og ikke for at modarbejde hinanden. Kontrasten til Obamas »USA sætter reglerne« kunne ikke være tydeligere.

Et andet vigtigt spørgsmål, som vil blive diskuteret på APEC-konferencen, er byggeriet af den bi-oceaniske jernbane fra Brasilien til Peru, fra Atlanterhavet til Stillehavet, som også vil blive bygget med hjælp fra Kina, og hvis opførelse er et vigtigt skridt i det latinamerikanske kontinents infrastrukturudvikling.

Kontrasten mellem de to paradigmer, mellem den Nye Silkevejs »win-win«-perspektiv versus Obamas og Merkels »vestlige værdi-fællesskab«, kunne ikke stå skarpere over for hinanden. Med førstnævnte paradigme arbejder nationer for deres fælles udviklings gensidige gavn. Med sidstnævnte er der megen snak om demokrati, frihed og menneskerettigheder, men en øredøvende tavshed omkring droneangreb, regimeskift mod legitime regeringer med hjælp fra terrorgrupper, total overvågning og livsforkortende nedskæringspolitik.

Som Abraham Lincoln engang sagde: »Man kan narre en del af folket hele tiden, og hele folket noget af tiden; men man kan ikke narre hele folket hele tiden.«

Det er på høje tid, at Tyskland befrier sig fra imperiedominansens fantasigreb, det være sig under diktat fra Washington og London, eller under afledningen med »mere Europa«. Menneskehedens fremtid kan udelukkende kun ligge i et totalt nyt paradigme, der tjener én menneskeheds interesser og respekterer international lov – et paradigme, med hvilket hvert eneste menneske på denne planet kan udvikle sit potentiale. Og dét er præcis grunden til, at vi må samarbejde omkring den Nye Silkevej.

To af 'de lamme, transatlantiske ænder', Obama og Merkel, under førstnævntes besøg i Berlin.

19. nov., 2016 – Kina har hilst den antydning, baseret på udtalelsen fra James Woolsey, der har rådgivet Donald Trump i udenrigspolitik, om, at den nye amerikanske administration kunne tænkes at tilslutte sig Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), velkommen. Woolsey har henvist til Obamas afvisning af at tilslutte sig AIIB fra starten, som en »strategisk fejltagelse«.

China Daily skriver i dag i en lederartikel, at amerikansk politik selv var skyld i, at Kina tog initiativ til AIIB, ved at »trække IMF’s kvote-reform ud, hvorved udviklingslandene ville få mere indflydelse i denne organisation«. Lederartiklen fastslår, at USA »tilskrev sin opposition mod at tilslutte sig den nyligt dannede investeringsbank bekymring for, at banken ikke ville leve op til eksisterende, internationale standarder, til trods for, at bankens medlemmer har forpligtet sig til at samarbejde for at sikre, at den følger de bedste ledelsesstandarder og -praksisser, gennemskuelighed og spørgsmål vedr. miljø og arbejdsmarked. Den holdning, som den afgående administration vedtog, afslører ganske enkelt dens sande bekymring for, at AIIB ville udfordre eller reducere de amerikansk dominerede Bretton Woods-institutioners, såsom Verdensbankens, indflydelse.

Artiklen fortsætter, »Fakta er, at den tilgængelige finansiering fra Verdensbanken og Asiatisk Udviklingsbank slet ikke er tilstrækkelig for det massive behov for infrastruktur i Asien. Snarere end at konkurrere med disse institutioner, er AIIB udtænkt til at kompensere for den utilstrækkelige, internationale, finansielle støtte til infrastrukturudvikling og regional sammenhængskraft i Asien. Den foreslåede investering i de asiatiske sektorer for transport, energi og telekommunikation tilbyder ligeledes enorme erhvervsmuligheder for selskaber fra medlemslandene – hvilket er én af grundene til, at mange af Washingtons allierede i Vesten, såsom Storbritannien, Italien og Tyskland, har tilsluttet sig AIIB, på trods af opposition fra USA.«

Artiklen konkluderer: »Men, som det kinesiske mundheld siger, så er det aldrig for sent til at udbedre folden, efter man har mistet et får.« USA har intet at tabe ved at blive medlem af AIIB, der bygger på præmisserne om åbenhed, inklusion og gennemskuelighed. USA kan også spille en mere konstruktiv rolle ved at blive medlem end ved at stå udenfor. At gå med i AIB ville være et godt signal fra den nye Trump-administration om, at USA er mere villig til at agere som en ansvarlig, global magt.«

Foto: Jin Liqun, AIIB’s første præsident, forlader talerstolen under åbningsceremonien for AIIB i Beijing den 16. januar, 2016.

18. nov., 2016 – Den nyvalgte præsident Donald Trumps overgangshold meddelte i dag, at, blandt andre udnævnelser, har Trump valgt den pensionerede generalløjtnant fra hæren, Mike Flynn, som sin nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver.

»Det glæder mig, at generalløjtnant Michael Flynn vil være ved min side i arbejdet på at nedkæmpe radikal, islamisk terrorisme, styre geopolitiske udfordringer og sikre amerikaneres tryghed hjemme og ude«, sagde nyvalgte præsident Trump, iflg. en udtalelse, der er udlagt på overgangsholdets webside. »General Flynn er en af landets fremmeste eksperter inden for militære spørgsmål og efterretningsspørgsmål, og han vil blive et uvurderligt aktiv for mig og min administration.« Flynn er »den bedste efterretningsofficer i sin generation«, sagde pensionerede general Barry McCaffrey til NBC News i går, da muligheden for Flynns udnævnelse første gang blev rapporteret. »Han er en god fyr. Han er objektiv. Han er barsk.«

Flynn kom tidligt ud som verbal tilhænger af Trump, og nyhedsmedierne er tydeligvis ikke glade for dette, hvilket ganske tydeligt fremgår af flere rapporter siden i går. Washington Posts rapport om Flynn, f.eks., er typisk derved, at den ikke er meget andet end en lang liste af fordømmelser.

Men det, de måske i virkeligheden er vrede over, er, at Flynn var med til at afsløre præsident Obamas rolle i at sprede jihadisme i hele Mellemøsten, med den hensigt at bruge det som et instrument til regimeskift. Flynn udtalte sig offentligt, efter at en rapport fra Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste (DIA) i 2012, der forudsagde spredningen af jihadisme i stil med ISIS som en konsekvens af USA’s politik, blev udgivet i 2015 via Loven om Informationsfrihed. »Der er en mulighed for, at der etableres et erklæret eller ikke-erklæret, salafistisk fyrstendømme i det østlige Syrien, og det er nøjagtigt, hvad de magter, der støtter oppositionen, ønsker, men det formål at isolere det syriske regime«, lød det i DIA-rapporten. I et interview på Al Jazeera Tv 29. juli 2015 sagde Flynn, at han var overbevist om, at Obama-administrationen med vilje ignorerede DIA-rapporten.

»Det var en overlagt beslutning om det, de gør«, sagde han. Han fortsatte i samme interview med at fordømme den irakiske invasion i 2003 som en »strategisk fejltagelse«, og at den følgende besættelse skabte betingelserne for jihadi-gruppernes opkomst, inkl. ISIS, og som USA nu bombarderer. »Der er ingen tvivl om, at det irakiske fængselssystem (kørt af det amerikanske militær) blev udklækningsanstalter for det, vi står overfor«, sagde han.