3. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Hvad er nationer? Hvorfor har vi dem? Hvorfor er de der? Deres formål er i realiteten intet andet end at forbedre vilkårene for menneskeheden, som John F. Kennedy sagde, da han annoncerede missionen om at sende end mand til Månen og få ham sikkert tilbage til Jorden, ved slutningen af de for længst hedengangne 1960’ere. Midlet til denne fremgang for menneskelige vilkår – det er både målet og midlet på samme tid – er gennem ægte opdagelse eller noesis. Det, der er sandt for en nation, er endnu mere sandt for en alliance af nationer som BRIKS, den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union eller Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen. Selv om de stadig er nye og skrøbelige, så peger sammenslutningerne af eurasiske nationer allerede frem mod menneskehedens fremtid.

Netop nu, i dette øjeblik, har den russiske præsident Putins bemærkelsesværdige og uventede succes med hans intervention i Barack Obamas og Hillary Clintons morderiske sammenkog i Syrien, tvunget den erkendelse, at det transatlantiske samfund har været en fiasko – en historisk fiasko – op til overfladen. Vi må rette vort blik mod Eurasien, og USA må fremover snarere være orienteret mod Stillehavet end mod Atlanterhavet.

Obama skinner tydeligt igennem som en britisk agent, og intet andet end en britisk agent, der har dræbt mange mennesker. Og Hillary Clinton er af samme støbning.

Det transatlantiske samfund er en tabt sag netop nu; det kan ikke, og vil ikke, komme tilbage i denne form. Hvis det skal komme tilbage, må det fødes på ny. Resterne af det transatlantiske samfund, i denne form, er færdigt. Vi må skabe en ny form for samfund, som det er blevet gjort i fortiden – af Karl den Store, f.eks. Det er, hvad vi må kæmpe for: en fremtid, som virkelig vil være en fremtid.

Dette er betydningen af Kesha Rogers’ yderst intellektuelle og yderst inspirerende kampagne for at vende tilbage til vores fremtid gennem udforskningen og erobringen af rummet i vort Solsystem og vor Galakse. Nøglepersoner tiltrækkes allerede mod Kesha fra hele landet og fra hele verden.

Betydningen af dette er det, som Lyndon LaRouche sagde i en diskussion den 1. marts:

»Vi må sige én ting. Én ting: intet vil lykkes, med mindre nationerne erkender opdagelsen af princippet om Månens bagside. Med andre ord, så kan man ikke sige, at man kan tage det, der foregår netop nu, og fortolke det til en god effekt. Man må annullere dette og sige, ’Problemet er, at vi endnu ikke har forstået, hvad det er, der ligger bagved Månen’. Og når vi finder ud af, hvad der findes bag Månen, hvilket kineserne og andre arbejder på, og vi går tilbage til det oprindelige rumprograms ABC, uden at gå tilbage til disse ting, som Obama beskar – Obama slog disse programmer ned, og dette burde han blive straffet alvorligt for, for sine forbrydelser i denne henseende. I stedet for at forsøge at fortolke noget og give det et andet og bedre spin – det fungerer ikke. For, uden rumprogrammet, hvilket vil sige den anden side af Månen i særdeleshed – uden en sådan tilgang får man ingenting, man kommer ingen vegne. Man må gøre dette! Det er ikke en mulighed, man kan tilvælge eller fravælge. Man kan ikke afvise det: man må erkende, at det er, hvad man må gøre.«

Foto: Præsident John F. Kennedy får en forklaring på opsendelsessystemet Saturn V, det system, der sluttelig skulle bringe mennesket til Månen, af dr. Wernher von Braun (i midten), på Cape Canaveral i november 1963.  

Disse handlinger, denne operation for regimeskift i Libyen, førte, som nu er velkendt, direkte til, at Libyen blev til en mislykket stat og skabte et vakuum, i hvilket Libyen kunne blive stedet for iscenesættelse af det, der i dag kaldes ISIS – disse radikale, jihadistiske terrorister, der i mange områder bruger de våben, der blev kanaliseret ind i Libyen på tidspunktet for Hillary Clinton/Obama-operationen, med henblik på at vælte Gaddafi. De bruger nu disse våben til at overtage store bidder af territorium i Nordafrika og Mellemøsten. Dette skal naturligvis ses i forbindelse med de tragiske begivenheder, der udspillede sig den 11. september [2011] i Benghazi, hvor ambassadør Stevens og tre andre amerikanere blev dræbt. Men dette påpeger den mere betydningsfulde diskussion, der burde finde sted: Hvad var Hillary Clintons rolle? Hvad var Barack Obamas rolle i beslutningen om at gennemføre regimeskift i Libyen, og hvad vil resultatet blive, hvis vi tillader denne samme operation for regimeskift at finde sted i Syrien og mange andre lande?

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelfoto: En bevæbnet libysk oprørskæmper sparker til en fodbold i nærheden af Moammar Gaddafis kompleks Bab al-Aziziya, mens dette omsluttes af flammer. Libyske oprørere indtog paladset efter flere dages kampe for at vinde kontrollen over Tripoli, 2011. (Maxppp/ZUMAPRESS)

Megan Beets fra LPAC Videnskabsteam rapporterer fra en begivenhed med Kesha Rogers i Texas om rumprogrammets betydning for USA og hele menneskeheden; Jeffrey Steinberg fremlægger en analyse af begivenhederne omkring Libyen, som Hillary Clinton var en del af, med afsættelsen og mordet på Gaddafi, og hele operationens konsekvenser for den aktuelle situation i Nordafrika og Mellemøsten, der kan føre til generel atomkrig; og Jeff Steinberg fremlægger hr. LaRouches tanker om en genrejsning af USA’s økonomi, med en genoplivning af rumprogrammet som spydspids. Engelsk udskrift.        

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s March 4th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden and you are joining us for our weekly broadcast
here on Friday evenings for the LaRouche PAC webcast, at
larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio this evening by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and Megan Beets
from the LaRouche Pac Science Team. And Megan Beets just returned
from a trip to Houston, Texas where she was involved in a very
significant event and other meetings with Kesha Rogers. Many of
you might have seen the recording of this event, which was also
live-streamed on this website last Saturday. It featured Tom
Wysmueller, and Kesha Rogers, as well as Megan Beets.
We’re going to begin our broadcast this evening with some
remarks from Megan Beets, coming off the discussion that we had
with Mr. LaRouche this morning. As many of you know, Mr. LaRouche
has placed a premium on Kesha Rogers’ role as a champion, a
unique champion, of the resurgence of the United States space
program. Kesha Rogers very aggressively campaigned for this cause
in her three campaigns for Federal office that she has run so far
— 2010, 2012, and 2014, in which she was the Democratic nominee
two elections in a row, in the 22nd District of Texas, for the
United States House of Representatives, and also ran an
internationally profiled Senate campaign in 2014.
So, without further adieu, I would like to ask Megan Beets
to come to the podium to deliver a few opening remarks, and then
after that, we’ll feature some more discussion coming off of the
meeting we had with Mr. LaRouche this morning, with Jeffrey
Steinberg filling in some of those details.

MEGAN BEETS: Thanks, Matt. I can tell you from my visit to
Texas that at this moment, when the breakdown of the
trans-Atlantic system is undeniable — we’re witnessing the
complete malfunctioning and shutdown of this old system — we’re
also see the reopening of the space program down in Texas.
Now the event that I was privileged to participate in with
Kesha and Tom Wysmueller down in Texas, represents a real
beginning of a change of direction of the United States, a
rebirth, so to speak, of the United States as a nation. Now, the
requirement today is that the United States dump our commitment,
our addiction, to this dead, dying trans-Atlantic system, and
decide once again to take up a mission in the sense of purpose
and contribution to mankind.
Now, you look around today. You look around at our citizens.
You look at the heroin epidemic. You look at the death, the
self-induced deaths from drugs, from suicide, from alcoholism,
and so forth. You look at the breakdown in cities like Flint,
Michigan, the breakdown in places like certain counties of West
Virginia that were once booming coal towns. There’s no reflection
in the United States of reality.
Now, what’s reality? Look at the leadership coming from
Asia, particularly from China. Look at the kinds of optimistic
developments, the progress for humanity, that’s coming from the
leadership of China and their space program; and in their
commitment to development projects which are beginning to take
hold and take place all across Eurasia. That’s reality. There’s
no reflection of this yet inside the United States. And so when
we look around, it’s not just that the U. S. economy has
disappeared. The United States has disappeared. There’s no sense
of a unified purpose. There’s no sense of a unified mission for
the existence of the United States as a nation, and there’s no
sense within our people of what {we}, as a nation, will organize
ourselves to contribute to the purposes of mankind.
Now you contrast that with the U.S. sense of purpose and
mission as under John F. Kennedy and his Presidency, and his
leadership within the United States, and his dedication to the
space program. Now, as anyone who truthfully remembers — and
most especially, those people who were directly involved — can
tell you, this wasn’t just a mission for the United States. This
was a real mission for all of mankind. And this was reflected in
some anecdotes in the event last Saturday from some of the
attendees, who themselves were engineers or otherwise employed in
NASA during the Apollo missions.
One anecdote that was told by someone saying that he
disagreed with Werner von Braun that we should be sharing some of
our technology with the Russians, and his mind was changed by von
Braun. There was another former NASA employee who said that at
first in the 1990s, he disagreed with President Clinton’s sharing
of U.S. space technology with the former Soviet Union — with
Russia. And he said once he started working with Russian
engineers, he realized that our mission is mankind; it’s unified;
it’s the same. And this was reflected throughout the entire
event: the sense that our work during the space program was
contributing fundamental developments and contributions, not to
the progress of the United States, but to the progress of man as
a whole.
Now, why? What is the space program? What happened during
the space program in the United States?
Well, not only was the common, the general citizen,
transformed. Not only were there innumerable and immeasurable
benefits from the economic spin-offs. But most importantly, the
people were transformed. The astronauts were fundamentally
transformed. The engineers working in a space program were
fundamentally transformed, as we confronted problems in space,
problems that forced us to overturn our assumptions about the
principles which govern and control the Universe that we lived
in. And each of these problems that we confronted, we were to
conquer. And you see that in the accounts of the people who were
involved during that time in the space program: that we were able
to pull together around a common mission, thousands and thousands
of people across the country to confront these challenges in our
knowledge about the Universe, and to conquer them.
And in that way, in a very short period of time, man began
to rapidly transform and change into a more powerful species. We
began to progress into a species with more power and control over
the processes in the Universe, so much to the point that we were
able to land people on the surface of the Moon, which
fundamentally transformed our ideas and our knowledge of what the
Moon itself is, of what potential the Moon holds for a new
platform of development for man, which was completely unknown
until the accomplishments of Apollo.
Now this is what the Chinese are doing today with their
space program. In 2018, just two years from now, the Chinese plan
to land on the far side of the Moon. This has never been done
before. The far side of the Moon has been imaged with satellites,
it’s been seen by human eyes in the American astronauts who
travelled there. But nobody has ever landed on the far side of
the Moon.
Now, people may say, “Well, we know what the Moon is; we’ve
looked at it. We’ve taken pictures.” But the fact is, the far
side of the Moon is a completely unknown quantity to us. When we
land there, for example, what do we think the far side can teach
us? When we land there, we’ll have a chance to confront our
fundamental notions about the formation of the Moon, the
formation of the Earth, and possibly other planets in the Solar
System with the unique geological investigations that we’ll be
able to perform there.
When we land there, and when we’re able to set up
astronomical observatories in the very low radio frequency range,
which is a band of the electromagnetic spectrum which is
impossible to look at the Solar System in from anywhere
attainable to us besides the far side of the Moon; when we are
able to look at the Solar System in this new range, we’re very
likely going to discover that the planets, the interstellar
medium, distant galaxies, different stars, could exhibit
processes to us which were completely invisible before.
It’s this kind of potential for mankind to transform our
powers, to transform our relationship to the Solar System itself,
that’s being offered by the Chinese actions today. And it’s this
sense of meaning, this sense of mobilization and commitment to
progress for all of mankind, which is what we, down in Texas, are
reminding people of. What Kesha is reminding people of — even
people who participated in these great accomplishments 40 or 50
years ago, and who might have encountered now a sense of
demoralization with the actions since that time. We’re drawing
people back out to a commitment of this mission. And Kesha is
showing once again that the United States can, and must, commit
itself to this kind of purpose for all of mankind.
So I can just conclude by reporting that the beginnings of
these developments that we’re seeing coming out of Texas, is that
people down there still associate themselves with reality, and
are now playing a leading role, with Kesha, in being moved toward
recognizing that this is the viable option for the United States.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Megan. And like I said, if you
haven’t gotten a chance to see the recording of the event that
occurred down in Texas last Saturday, it is archived on the
larouchepac youtube channel, and I would encourage you to watch
it. It was a very uplifting event, and we can expect to hear
much, much more from Kesha Rogers, obviously.
Now, the second item on our agenda tonight is something
which you may have heard Mr. LaRouche emphasize during the
discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee this past
Monday. Towards the end of that show, you might have caught Mr.
LaRouche’s reference to a series of very significant articles
that were published in the {New York Times} over the weekend.
They were titled: “Hillary Clinton, Smart Power, and a Dictator’s
Fall: The Role of Hillary Clinton in the ouster and killing of
Colonel Muammar Qaddafi That Left Libya a Failed State and a
Terrorist Haven.” This article, or series of articles, which were
based on a number of interviews from people who were right on the
inside of the entire decision-making process that led into the
decision to overthrow Qaddafi, and to ultimately have him
killing, very vividly paints the picture of the months leading up
into that decision, and Hillary Clinton’s central role in making
that decision on the inside of the Obama White House.
And this, despite dire warnings from intelligence experts,
and military experts, as to what the aftermath of that decision
would be, and also even overtures of peace that were coming from
Libya itself, and the Libyan government — overtures for a
peaceful transition, which were directly and decisively ignored
by the Clinton State Department and the Obama White House.
These actions, this regime-change operation in Libya, as we
know now very well, directly led to Libya becoming a failed
state, and creating the vacuum in which Libya could be the
staging ground for what has now come to be called ISIS today —
these radical jihadist terrorist who in many parts are using the
weapons that were channeled into Libya at that time by the
Hillary Clinton-Obama operation, in order to overthrow Qaddafi.
They are now using those weapons to take over large swaths of
territory in Northern Africa, and in the Middle East. Obviously,
this is the context for the tragic events that unfolded on Sept.
11 in Benghazi in which Ambassador Stevens and three other
Americans were killed. However, I think this point to the more
important discussion that should be being had: What was Hillary
Clinton’s role? What was Barack Obama’s role in the decision for
regime change in Libya, and what will be the outcome if we allow
this same regime-change operation to continue to take place in
Syria and in many other countries?
One note I would say just before inviting Jeff up to the
podium to discuss this more in detail, is the importance of the
coincidence of the publication of these series of articles in the
{New York Times} with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s surprise
announcement that she was resigning as vice-chair of the DNC in
order to more aggressively campaign against Hillary Clinton,
explicitly because of Hillary Clinton’s identity as a strong and
vocal advocate of the policy of regime change  what Tulsi Gabbard
has said she personally witnessed the tragic and disastrous
consequences of on the ground in Iraq, after the decision to have
regime change against Saddam Hussein. Tulsi Gabbard was active
service military. And we saw the decision again in the case of
Libya, and now we are confronting directly head-on whether or not
that decision will be made in Syria.
This also obviously has a lot to do with the context of
Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to create the framework
for a ceasefire, along with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in
Syria.
Now, what I would like to ask Jeff to discuss at the podium
is what Mr. LaRouche’s take has been on the significance of these
articles, and also the very precise timing of these articles
being published right now, during this Presidential campaign
season, and what the implications of this should be seen in terms
of the ongoing fight behind the scenes continuing to this day in
the Obama Administration.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Well, the two-part series,
lengthy articles that were published late last week, early this
week, in the New York Times bring back into stark relief and
memory, the fact that the decision to overthrow and execute
Qaddafi was not only a turning point in recent history. It
unleashed a flood of instability. Massive amounts of weapons
flooded out of Libya. All across Africa a structure was set up
for laundering those weapons into Syria, where they ultimately
wound up in the hands of both the al-Qaeda, and later the Islamic
State forces. This has been a source of mass death, grave
instability, throughout the entire Africa and Middle East region,
and beyond.
Now, what the {New York Times} articles make clear is
something that was well-known to us and which Mr. LaRouche
commented on exhaustively as these events were playing out. But
from the standpoint of the current elections and things related
to the ongoing war danger, now at the threshold of the danger of
a general war, a nuclear war, it’s very important to reflect back
on this.
Effectively, as the result of Hillary Clinton joining the
White House, joining President Obama, joining Samantha Power,
joining Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett, in pressing for the
violent overthrow of the Qaddafi government, the assassination of
Qaddafi, and effectively the installation of the Muslim
Brotherhood and al-Qaeda into power in Libya, this meant that
Hillary Clinton had completely capitulated to Obama. Prior to
that point, during the Obama administration, despite the fact
that it was a grave political mistake on the part of Hillary
Clinton to have become a part of the Obama Administration in the
first place, the fact is that she had generally aligned herself
with Defense Secretary Gates, with General Dempsey, chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and had been a barrier to the worst
kinds of British policies coming out of Obama, Jarrett, Rice,
Power, and the others grouped around this President.
Obama is a British agent, plain and simple, and that was one
of the first points that Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our
discussion earlier today. And he said, Look, Hillary Clinton was
terrified into playing the role that she played in Libya. She was
not the only person pushing for regime change; she was, in the
words of Roberts Gates, “the tilt factor”. The decisive vote in a
very close 51-49 vote, where Gates himself, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, were opposed to launching the no-fly zone.  Launching what
was being mislabelled a humanitarian intervention, when from the
very outset it was always about regime change.  You’ve got to
remember that the characteristic of the Obama Presidency is to be
found in those Tuesday kill sessions; where the President sits
down with a group of national security advisors, Cabinet members,
representatives of the military and intelligence community, and
makes life-or-death arbitrary decisions to add people’s names to
the kill lists.  In some cases — we know in at least four
instances — people were put on that kill list who were American
citizens; who were deprived of any day in court, any due process,
and were summarily assassinated.  Whether by special forces,
whether by drone attacks, or combinations of both.
So, that’s the character of the Obama administration.  And
with the 2011 decision to overthrow Qaddafi, Hillary Clinton —
out of absolute fear — remember, you’re dealing with a President
who relishes the idea of coming up with weekly lists of targets
for assassination.  With that Libya decision, with Clinton’s
decision to side with her own worst enemies, going all the way
back to the 2008 campaign when she campaigned against Barack
Obama; when Samantha Power publicly went out on the stump calling
her a witch.  When she capitulated and sided with those British
forces in the Libya operation, she not only participated in the
unleashing of absolute Hell across much of Africa and the Middle
East region; but she caved in to people who, at an earlier point,
she knew were absolutely despicable and were her avowed enemies.
That capitulation is something that she will live with forever.
Now, recently, in the course of reviewing the Africa events,
the Libya events, some additional information has come out that
even puts a further punctuation point on the fact that there was
a top-down decision in which Secretary Clinton participated,
along with President Obama, to overthrow Qaddafi; no questions
asked, no second thoughts.  There’s a very precise timeline that
has been provided by a retired US Navy Rear Admiral named Charles
Kubic, who was retired from the Navy and was a business man
working in Libya — also a trained engineer.  And when the United
Nations Security Council passed the resolution to establish a
no-fly zone and a “humanitarian corridor” around Benghazi — this
was on March 19, 2011 — on that very day, Rear Admiral Kubic was
contacted by people in the inner circle of Qaddafi; and they
said, “Let’s talk.”  Let’s not go with diplomatic formulations.
Let’s immediately convene a battlefield 72-hour truce.  And
during that time, let’s discuss an orderly procedure for standing
down the Libyan forces that were moving on Benghazi, and on an
orderly transition of power.  Qaddafi was prepared to leave
Libya, to go into exile; to arrange a negotiated government to
follow from him, and to basically stand down the Libyan forces
that were, in fact, battling al-Qaeda and other jihadist networks
in the area around Benghazi and Misurata inside Libya.  Admiral
Kubic conveyed immediately the approach that he had gotten from
the head of Qaddafi’s personal security.  He conveyed it to
Stuttgart, Germany; it was reported to General Carter Ham, the
head of the Africa Command, and General Ham responded favorably.
Details were being worked out the very next day to convene
exactly this kind of battlefield truce and negotiating process;
either in Tripoli, or right off the shores of Libya on a
designated US military ship.  And in fact, there was a halt on
the part of Qaddafi of the military movement toward Benghazi and
Misurata.  So, in other words, everything was there within the
first 24 hours of when the bombing began of Libya, for the
conflict to stop right there; for Qaddafi’s departure; for none
of the death and destruction that followed to actually take
place.  On the evening of March 20, 2011, General Carter Ham
issued a statement saying that the United States had no interest
in targetting Qaddafi.  That was the return signal that the
Libyans were looking for, coming from AFRICOM, that the
negotiations could begin perhaps as early as the next morning.
However that entire situation was cancelled; Admiral Kubic was
ordered to stand down, to drop the contact.  AFRICOM was ordered
to stand down and abandon any plans for any such negotiation for
Qaddafi’s departure.  Because the decision had been made “higher
up in the administration” that there would be no turning back;
that this was a regime change operation, and in fact, a part of
that was the fact that the British — who had agents inside the
inner circle of Qaddafi’s own personal security detail — were
the ones who fingered his location and set up his assassination
later that year.
So, in other words, the destruction of Libya, the
destruction of Africa, that came in part as a measure of Hillary
Clinton’s capitulation to President Obama, and above all else, to
the British; could have been at least short-circuited and the
worst damage prevented.  The death of Ambassador Stephens and the
three other American officials a year and later probably could
have been averted.  But none of that happened, because there was
a willful decision; undoubtedly the decision was made in London,
was passed in through Obama.  And rather than fighting against
that, Hillary Clinton capitulated; and it was out of a fear of
Obama, out of a fear that this was a killer President.  There
were a number of opportunities where she had the possibility to
resign and put the spotlight where it properly belonged; but none
of those things happened.
And as the result of that, all of the African continent is
now one extended battle zone.  As the result of that, we have the
existence of the Islamic State; because Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar flooded Syria and Iraq with the kinds of weapons that had
been derived from what was at one point a secured Qaddafi arsenal
of all kinds of weapons.  And those weapons have now spread
chaos, death, and destruction across that entire swath of North
Africa and the Middle East.  That’s the legacy, that’s the
consequence of the fact that, as Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton failed to uphold her responsibilities; capitulated to her
own worst avowed enemies in the Obama administration, and
unfortunately, the rest is history.
Mr. LaRouche, at the time, pointedly said, from the moment
that he heard that Qaddafi had been assassinated, that the real
targets were Russia and China; and that these events in 2011 were
the beginning of a process that would now accelerate towards the
general warfare — potentially thermonuclear warfare — involving
the United States, Russia, and China.  So, look back with a
certain degree of hindsight, and understand the consequences of
what happened in that critical moment of March of 2011; and see
how all of the events that have followed from that, and why we
are on the verge of a potential thermonuclear war of annihilation
of mankind.  Understand how critical decisions in critical
moments, shape events for long periods of time to come.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much, Jeff.  Now, in the context of
what Jeff just said about the overarching policy that has
emanated from this Obama administration against Russia and
against China, you’ve seen obvious economic warfare also that’s
taken place from the United States against both of those
countries.  The next question pertains to one of those aspects;
and I know that it will also give Jeff an opportunity to discuss
a little bit about what Mr. LaRouche’s views are on the necessity
of a massive mobilization inside the United States to rebuild our
economy, spearheaded by Kesha Rogers’ efforts in Texas to revive
the legacy of the NASA space program.
So, the question reads as follows:  “Mr. LaRouche, the US
Department of Commerce has imposed a 265% tariff on Chinese
cold-rolled steel.  The Department of Commerce stated that the
tariffs are meant to punish China for dumping cold-rolled steel
onto the market; which is used to make auto parts, appliances,
and shipping containers.  In your view, will these imposed
tariffs help the US steel industry?  And if not, what measures do
you recommend to revitalize our steel industry?”

STEINBERG:  Well, the first thing that Mr. LaRouche said
was, if you want to revitalize the US economy, then you’ve got to
start out by shutting down Wall Street; because Wall Street right
now is about the only steel sector left in the United States —
they steal everything that’s available to be stolen.
Now, I think that this move by the Commerce Department came
as the result of pressure from a number of members of Congress;
most of whom are simply desperate and misguided and are not even
among the worst people in the US Congress.  The idea that somehow
or other, putting prohibitive tariffs on the importing of Chinese
steel at this stage of the game, when the entire real economy of
the United States is in a state of absolute collapse, is the
ultimate folly.  Now, let’s just look at some of the basic facts
of what’s been going on inside the US economy; and particularly,
let’s look at the steel sector.  We don’t have the data for all
of 2015, but we know that between 2014 and 2015 there was
actually a 26% decline in the amount of steel imported from
China.  And the reason for that is because there was an even
greater decline in the overall steel utilization inside the US
economy; because the US economy is in a state of physical,
economic collapse.  One of the areas where you had substantial
use of steel, not on a gigantic scale, but on a significant
scale, was in the shale oil and gas sector; which we know is in a
state of collapse right now.  And the fact that it was that
sector that was a major source of steel use in the US economy,
just tells you how far down the scale of real economic
development that we have fallen.
Now, the fact of the matter is, that on a global scale
centered in the trans-Atlantic region, you have a significant
collapse in physical economic output.  Real production in the
United States has collapsed; we’ve gone through 15 consecutive
months of a decline in industrial output.  The shale oil and gas
sector collapse is a small piece at the tail end of a 40-year
process of economic collapse, disintegration, out-sourcing of
what little real economic activity was going on.  So the idea
that a tariff, at this point, is going to protect a domestic
industry that collapsed over the past 40 years, is an act of
desperation; when in fact, we need real creative thinking.
Now, {Executive Intelligence Review} has recently — we’ve
talked about it on this show before — produced a supplement to
the World Land-Bridge report, called “The United States Must Join
the World Land-Bridge”; and it lays out a clear game plan for a
genuine economic revival of the United States.  It starts by
shutting down Wall Street; they’re hopelessly bankrupt.  And the
bankruptcy of Wall Street is now in the process of advancing the
disintegration of the real economy of the United States; and the
real economy of the United States means the American people.
When we were discussing earlier today with Mr. LaRouche, he said,
“Look, what’s the most chilling indication of the real rate of
collapse of the US economy?  It’s the exponential increase in the
number of people dying of heroin overdoses; it’s the number of
people, the exponential rise in the number of people committing
suicide in other ways, as well.  It’s the desperation and
demoralization of a population that was once inspired, that was
once the most productive population in the world; and is now
fallen into a state of complete collapse.”  In 2005, we saw the
takedown of the auto sector; and what that meant was the machine
tool design sector associated with the US auto sector was wiped
out.  Under President Obama, there has been a conscious and
systematic policy of shutting down our space program; and it’s
only through that space exploration, as Megan just emphasized,
that you have any prospect of a genuine future for mankind.
The good news is that the report coming out of Texas is that
some of the leading circles historically associated with NASA,
current and former NASA employees, have reached the point where
they realize: 1) that it’s all over for the United States if
there’s not a real fight to revive the space program.  They see
certain glimmers of reflection of what was once a driving force
in the growth of real productivity in the American economy;
namely, the space program, centered in NASA Houston.  You had the
return to Earth of Scott Kelly, who spent a year up in space; an
exciting development, it’s a glimmer.  It’s a sort of smell or
fragrance of the fact that NASA can be revived; that we can have
a resurgence of the kind of optimism that we had during the
Kennedy Presidency, before he was assassinated.  Where the Apollo
program was the centerpiece for the whole development of the real
US economy.  You’ve got NASA people now beginning to say, “Yes,
we’re ready for a real fight.”  The fight is on; and you’ve got
reflections of that that you’ll see emerging as a tendency in
other parts of the country.  Southern California used to be a
major center of our space program; you had the Jet Propulsion Lab
in the Los Angeles area, a crucial component.  And you, of
course, had the Lawrence Livermore Lab up in the Bay area.  These
are centers that can be revived; but only if we get a core
revival of that NASA mission.  The mission to join with China,
with Russia, with India, with other nations, in exploring and
developing the universe as part of man’s extraterrestrial
mission.
So, if you think about the steel issue again, from that
standpoint, how much steel would be required for the kind of
nationwide high-speed rail system that is part of the “US joins
the World Land-Bridge”?  How much steel will be required for a
proliferation of nuclear power plants throughout the United
States?  The modernization of the existing plants, and they’re
replacement where appropriate, by fourth generation nuclear power
plants.  What would be the requirements once we’ve actually
completed the process of successfully commercializing fusion?
These are the issues for the future; but these fights have to won
today.  And if you want to understand the biggest mass kill
factor with President Obama, it has been his killing of the NASA
space program; because that is a mass execution of the future.
And so, these issues are all very much inextricably tied
together.  Unless we get a revolutionary change in policy, which
means a return to the kind of Hamiltonian principles that we last
saw on display in the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency overall, and
in the Kennedy Apollo program in particular.  These ideas are
there; and we’re getting now, coming from the Houston vicinity,
from the NASA center there, a rumbling.  The start of a real
fight to basically bring the United States back into space; as
part of a collaborative mission for all of mankind.  And as I
say, once that happens, the issue of steel, the issue of dumping;
all of this becomes meaningless.  Because the actual physical
requirements will be so enormous, the return to optimism and the
benefits of that — particularly for a lost generation of young
people, who represent a high percentage of those who are going
off as heroin addicts, who are committing suicide, who have no
sense of future.  We’ve got to restore the future; and that
starts with a fight to revive NASA.  And the good news is that
that fight is now beginning; it’s in its early moments, but it’s
a fight that is winnable.  And the future of the United States
hangs in the balance.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much.  Because Jeff mentioned it, I
would just encourage our viewers to revisit the pamphlet; which
is both available in print form, and in digital form:  “The
United States Must Join the New Silk Road; A Hamiltonian Vision
for an Economic Renaissance”; which features much of what Jeff
just discussed in terms of a national high-speed rail program, a
Bering Straits tunnel or bridge project to connect us to Eurasia.
To the phenomenal developments that are happening now in China;
but it also has an entire section on a science-driver development
mission, which includes much of the cutting edge work that needs
to be done with a revived space program — not just in the United
States, but also collaboration that we must begin to cooperate
with China’s and Russia’s space programs.  And have what Mr.
LaRouche has so aptly termed the common aims of mankind; that is
the truest form of a war avoidance program for a durable piece.
So, with that said, I would like to thank Jeff; and I would
also like to thank Megan Beets for joining us here this evening.
And I would encourage you to stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
Thank you very much.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

En delegation fra Schiller Instituttet, med formand Tom Gillesberg som ordførende, havde foretræde for Folketingets Udenrigsudvalg. Hør talen og se diasbilleder:

Vi står netop nu med en enestående mulighed for at sikre, at den langvarige mareridtsagtige proces med krig og ødelæggelse, der har præget Mellemøsten i årtier, og som har spredt sig til Europa og resten af verden i form af terror fra Islamisk Stat og en flygtningebølge, der er ved at løbe Europa over ende, kan bringes til ophør og erstattes af et nyt paradigme for fred gennem fælles økonomisk udvikling.

Dias til mødet:

24. februar, 2016 – Den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi, der talte ved en timelang pressekonference med den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry i forlængelse af deres møde i Washington tirsdag, fremsatte flere afgørende forslag, der, såfremt de accepteres, kunne få USA væk fra den selvmorderiske kurs, som præsident Obama har sat, for krig med Kina.

Med hensyn til Koreakrisen sagde Wang Yi, at han og Kerry var enedes om en formulering af en FN-resolution, der fordømmer den nordkoreanske prøvesprængning af atomvåben og test af missilaffyring. Resolutionen skal frigives efter begge regeringers godkendelse. Men, tilføjede Yi, en sådan resolution ”kan ikke tilvejebringe en grundlæggende løsning på spørgsmålet om koreanske atomvåben. For virkeligt at gøre dette, er vi nødt til at vende tilbage til sporet med dialog og forhandling.”

Han sagde, at Kerry var enig i dette, men tilføjede, at den kinesiske side havde “fremsat et primært forslag: dvs., at vi ønsker at forfølge atomafrustningen af den koreanske halvø sideløbende med udskiftningen af den koreanske våbenhvile med en fredsaftale. Vi ved, at visse parter har et andet syn på dette forslag.”

Dette markerer en betydningsfuld intervention. Nordkorea vil kun diskutere fredsaftalen, og Obama vil kun diskutere atomprogrammet. Pyongyang hverken kan eller vil opgive sit atomvåbenprogram under trussel om krig fra Obamas side, vel vidende, hvad USA gjorde imod Irak og Libyen, da disse stoppede deres atomprogrammer. Hvis der kunne findes en fredsaftale, der garanterede deres sikkerhed, så kunne de overveje alternativer til atomprogrammet.

Kerry holdt sig til Obamas linje – opgiv atomprogrammet, og vi vil overveje en fredsplan – men Kina har derimod lagt en gennemførlig plan på bordet.

Wang Yi berørte også krisens aktualitet og sagde, at han og Kerry var enedes om, at “vi er nødt til at overvåge situationen på halvøen tæt i de kommende to måneder. Forskellige ustabile faktorer kunne overlappe hinanden og have en virkning, så under de omstændigheder er det meget vigtigt, at de forskellige parter fører mere dialog for at forhindre, at spændingen øges eller situationen optrappes. Vi må især forhindre situationen på halvøen i at spinde ud af kontrol.”

Om det Sydkinesiske Hav sagde Wang Yi, at regionen, til trods for Vestens hylen op, er fredeligere end andre dele af verden, og at intet handelsfartøj er stødt på nogen trussel mod den fri sejlads. Forsikringspræmier er ikke steget en øre, sagde han (det frie marked siger, at der ikke er noget problem!).

På den anden side, sagde han, “håber jeg, at venner inden for medierne ikke kun vil se radaren (Kinas radaranlæg på en af øerne), men måske snarere, og nok så vigtigt, at der for hver dag dukker avancerede våbensystemer og udstyr op i det Sydkinesiske Hav, inklusive de strategiske bombefly, krigsskibe med missilforsvarssystemer – hvorfor har folk har valgt at se bort fra dem eller ignorere dem?”

24. februar 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin går frem i denne uge med det nye initiativ for en våbenhvile i Syrien, med dens fulde implikationer for at standse krigsmagerne. Elementer i denne proces i perioden 22.-23. feb. tøjrer Obama og hans London-kontrollers med flere og flere begrænsninger. Det geopolitiske slæng finder det stadig vanskeligere at gennemføre deres sædvanlige, beskidte tricks. Dette skaber en ny mulighed for os til at handle for at få Obama væk, og virkelig bryde med det britiske imperieparadigme, der er den oprindelig ansvarlige for ødelæggelsen i Mellemøsten/Nordafrika og Europa. De aktuelle omstændigheder udgør de perfekte betingelser for fornuftige kræfter i hele USA – og i hele verden – for at komme frem og præstere dette.

»Der er ingen mulighed«, sagde Lyndon LaRouche i dag og understregede det som en presserende hastesag. »Med mindre der gøres noget særligt for at få Obama smidt ud af embedet«, er der ingen chance for succes. Det er vigtigt, sagde han, at »bryde det britiske overtag. Det er menneskehedens eneste chance. Obama må fjernes, på den ene eller anden måde. Det er den eneste mulighed.«

Den 22. feb. nåede de fælles formænd for ISSG (Den Internationale Støttegruppe for Syrien) – Rusland og USA – frem til en formel aftale om »Betingelser for Ophør af Fjendtligheder i Syrien«, efter en telefonsamtale mellem Putin og Obama, efter anmodning fra Kreml. Dernæst udstedte Putin en fuld og officiel »Særlig Erklæring« http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51376

om den nye aftales betydning, der omfatter en gentagelse af principperne og en specifikation af deres gennemførelse. Med hensyn til overholdelse af kravene siger Putins erklæring: »For at opnå dette mål vil vi etablere en kommunikations-hotline og, om nødvendigt, en arbejdsgruppe til udveksling af relevant information … «

Putin understregede yderligere, at der må skabes betingelser »for lancering af en politisk proces på lang sigt gennem en bred, inter-syrisk dialog i Geneve, under FN’s regi«.

Moskva annoncerede dernæst, inden for 24 timer, mere implementering. Generalmajor Igor Konashenkov, talsmand for Forsvarsministeriet, udstedte i dag en erklæring, der sagde, at Rusland har forberedt logistikken for den ’varme linje’ mellem USA og Rusland og overgivet det til USA til at blive igangsat. For det andet har Rusland etableret et »koordinationscenter til forsoning« af de krigsførende parter, på Kheimin-flybasen nær Latakia idet vestlige Syrien. Dets funktioner vil være at »yde maksimum assistance« til alle, der beder om det. Der vil blive oprettet hotlines for at overvåge våbenstilstanden. Centeret vil assistere indsatser for humanitær hjælp.

I modsætning hertil fulgte Obama op på telefonsamtalen og aftalen med Putin ved ikke at komme med en erklæring og blot frigive et udskrift på to afsnit, der blev udlagt på Det Hvide Hus’ nyhedsside. Første afsnit bekræftede blot telefonsamtalen og aftalen; alt imens det andet afsnit rapporterede, at Obama revsede Putin for forseelser i Ukraine. Den britiske udenrigsminister Philip Hammond fulgte trop ved at rave om, at den nye aftale »kun vil holde, hvis der finder et betydeligt sindelagsskift sted i det syriske regimes og dets støtters opførsel. Især må Rusland honorere denne aftale ved at afslutte sine angreb på syriske civile … « osv.

I realiteten udgør Putins fredsinitiativer i Syrien rammerne for den Silkevej/Marshallplan, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Schiller Instituttets mobilisering har foreslået, og som er indbefattet i præsident Xis nylige besøg til regionen. Dette er midlet til at afslutte striden og genoprette en fremtid i hele regionen.

Det, der blokerer for dette, er, at amerikanere stadig finder sig i, at Obama sidder i embedet, og i den britiske imperiebesættelse. Tiden til at komme af med dette er for længst overskredet.

Foto: Vladimir Putins tale efter Ruslands og USA’s vedtagelse af en fælles erklæring om Syrien. (en.kremlin.ru)

20. februar 2016 – »Beijing må fuldt ud forberede sig militært og diplomatisk til krig på den Koreanske Halvø. Vi bør tilpasse vores militære deployering langs den nordøstlige grænse og vore maritime sikkerhedsstrategier så snart som muligt«, skriver Wang Haiyun, den tidligere kinesiske militærattaché ved ambassaden i Rusland, og nuværende ekspert ved Kinas Internationale Institut for Strategisk Samfund.

Wang kritiserer skarpt Nordkorea for sin atomprøvesprængning og lancering af en rumraket og fremfører, at »For mellemstore og små lande vil ethvert forsøg på at udvikle atomvåben og strategiske bomber for at sikre den nationale sikkerhed ikke medføre andet end ulykke«.

Vi må imidlertid, siger han, »også få Seoul til at forstå, at introduktionen af udefrakommende styrker for at øge regionale spændinger vil være destruktiv … Sydkoreanerne må huske på, at deres land vil bære den fulde effekt af kaos på den Koreanske Halvø, hvis der udbryder krig«.

Men USA’s mål, siger han, er Kina. Kina må »mønstre de relevante modforholdsregler imod de amerikanske og japanske flåder, der omgiver vore vande, og Washingtons deployering af missilforsvarssystemet i Sydkorea« og tilføjer, at »USA og dets to, asiatiske allierede er i færd med at forstærke deres militære deployering i Nordøstasien under påskud af, at de håndterer truslen fra Nordkorea«.

Rettet mod Obama skriver han: »Washingtons plan om at inddæmme Beijing ved at øge den militære deployering og skabe vanskeligheder på halvøen vil blot lemlæste dets egen militærmagt, der gradvist er blevet svagt.«

Foto: THAAD missilforsvarssystemet, som USA vil deployere til Sydkorea.

Som Lyndon LaRouche omhyggeligt har påpeget, så var en side af denne britisk anførte fordærvelse og ødelæggelse af det 20. og 21. århundredes USA, det diktatur over videnskab, og dernæst som en konsekvens over tænkning generelt, som blev udøvet af Storbritanniens Lord Bertrand Russell. Russell dekreterede, at al fysisk videnskab måtte reduceres til blot og bar matematik, og han forfulgte aggressivt Albert Einstein som det geni, der erklærede sig uenig og aldrig ville acceptere dette diktat. Russell havde held med sig – et besøg til et hvilket som helst såkaldt »videnskabeligt« klasseværelse burde overbevise dig om det. Som Russell forstod, at den ville, har denne afskrælning af videnskab fremtvunget en fordummelse af al tænkning. Amerikanere er blevet gennemgribende bedøvede netop sådan, som vores tidligere store geni Edgar Allan Poe havde forudset disse virkninger. Dette er grunden til, at han kæmpede til sit sidste åndedrag imod det, han fordømte som matematisk tankegang, og imod hele den imperiekultur, der udstrålede fra London.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

17. februar 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Efter endnu et fejlslagent »topmøde«-forsøg på at vende ASEAN-landene imod Kina, brugte Barack Obama sin pressekonference den 16. februar på at fordømme og forsøge at nedgøre Rusland, og i særdeleshed den russiske præsident Putins succesrige forandring af situationen i Mellemøsten.

Obamaregeringen forsøger, gennem medierne, at hævde, at våbenhvilen i Syrien, som den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry forhandlede igennem med den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, vil mislykkes! Dette, fordi Obama ikke kan tolerere de succesrige økonomiske og politiske roller, som Rusland og Kina nu spiller i verden, og sine egne fiaskoer.

Det, som Putins succesrige rolle repræsenterer, er overførslen af indflydelse over menneskelige anliggender fra det britiske imperiesystem – for hvilket Obama har været en villig faktor – og over til de fremvoksende eurasiske nationer.

Det repræsenterer også en næsten 20 år lang succesrig kamp imod al jihadistisk terrorisme, både i Rusland og internationalt – et samarbejde, der uafbrudt er blevet tilbudt USA siden 11. september [2001], og som altid er blevet afvist af Bush og Obama.

Kina og Rusland og Indien er blevet de primære agenter for en ændring af civilisationens fremtid. De europæiske nationer og USA er for en nedadgående kurs, og de vil gå ned, med mindre de radikalt ændrer deres politik for den krise, der omslutter deres banksystemer.

Siden præsident Franklin Roosevelts død har USA befundet sig i en lang nedgangsperiode for økonomisk produktivitet; og siden mordene på JFK og RFK, for et accelererende tab af videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt, og for de fleste af sine borgeres livsbetingelser.

Spørgsmålet drejer sig ikke om, hvad Obama siger; det drejer sig om, hvad man skal gøre med ham. Vil USA være intelligent nok til at gå sammen med Rusland og Kina om samarbejde om rumprogrammer, i internationale kreditbanker, i store infrastrukturprojekter, i overvindelsen af terrorisme, der er fostret af briterne og saudierne? Hvis ikke, vil USA blive ødelagt som magt.

Præsident Putin udøver ikke stor magt, men effektiv magt, og han udøver den med intelligens. Rusland, Kina og Indien styrer i stigende grad planetens fremtidige historie.

Og USA har – Obama! Hvis han blev dumpet nu, så har USA en historisk afprøvet politik for økonomisk genrejsning, der kunne genoprette dets fremtid: FDR’s politik. Luk Wall Streets kasino-banksystem, der er ved at få fallit, ned, og skab dernæst statslig kredit til genindførelse af produktivitet og produktiv beskæftigelse. Det er det eneste alternativ, og det vil ikke ske med Obama i embedet.

Foto: Præsidenterne Xi Jinping og Vladimir Putin mødes under G20-mødet i Tyrkiet i 2015.

Kinesisk general kræver krigsberedskab over krisen i Korea

16. februar 2016 – I en meget tankevækkende artikel i den kinesiske udgave af Global Times, advarer general Wang Haiyan, seniorrådgiver ved Kinesisk Selskab for International Strategi, en tænketank, der ledes af Sun Jianguo, vicechef for den Centrale Militærkommissions Fællesstab, om faren for en krig på den Koreanske Halvø. General Wang advarer om, at, i betragtning af denne eventualitet, må Kina være forberedt og bør omgående tage forholdsregler i denne henseende, inklusive at forøge troppestyrkerne på grænsen, så vel som også at deployere en forøget flådetilstedeværelse i området. Kina bør også overveje, hvordan det skal håndtere et eventuelt radioaktivt nedfald, stammende fra en udveksling af atombomber på halvøen, samt håndtere en situation, hvor nordkoreanske soldater flygter fra krigsskuepladsen.

General Wang fremlægger situationen. På den ene side giver han den nordkoreanske regerings handlinger skylden for krisen, med den nordkoreanske regerings seneste atombombeprøvesprængning og dens raketaffyring. Dette har givet Japan og USA et påskud til at øge deres militære stilling på halvøen, som samtidig er et yderligere skridt i deres forsøg på at inddæmme Kina, siger han. Han kræver klar tale med det nordkoreanske lederskab for at advare dem om, at ethvert forsøg på at gøre fremstød for en militær konflikt vil gøre dem stor fortræd. Han siger også, at det bør siges tydeligt, at Kina ikke er indstillet på at yde de ofre, landet ydede under Koreakrigen, og han indikerede således, at en krig, fremprovokeret af Nordkorea, ikke ville blive støttet af Kina, der ville handle for at forsvare sine egne, nationale interesser.

General Wang giver også udtryk for bekymring over de forøgede militære deployeringer i området og over verserende rygter om, at et angreb på Nordkorea måske er undervejs, ved månedens afslutning. Han siger, at der bør udøves pres på »fornuftens stemmer« i de vestlige lande for at forhindre dem i at begynde en krig på halvøen. Han appellerer også til FN om ikke at yde støtte til NOGEN SOM HELST nation, der har planer om at indlede en krig på halvøen, og at indkalde til en genetablering af Sekspartsforhandlingerne. Han appellerer til Rusland, som medlem af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, om også at spille sin rolle i at effektuere dette.

General Wang gentager opfordringen til USA fra tidligere på ugen fra Fu Ying, viceminister i Udenrigsministeriet, om, at USA må gøre mere på det diplomatiske plan for at bringe spørgsmålet om Nordkorea tilbage til forhandlingsbordet, inklusive en villighed til at påbegynde forhandlinger om en permanent fredsaftale med Nordkorea.

Sydkoreas præsident Park kapitulerer yderligere til Obamas krigsplaner

16. februar 2016 – Den sydkoreanske præsident Park Geun Hye, der har forladt sin tidligere, forsigtige balancegang mellem USA på den ene hånd og Kina og Rusland på den anden, har nu yderligere undermineret Sydkorea ved åbenlyst at true med regimeskift i Nordkorea – Obamas og hans ligesindede neokonservatives drøm om at levere gnisten til en krig med Kina. Park befinder sig i et humør for selvdestruktion over Nordkoreas prøvesprængning af en hybridbrintbombe i januar og en succesfuld lancering ud i rummet i denne måned, som Obama, i et nyt udtryk for teknologisk apartheid, fejlagtigt kalder en ballistisk missiltest.

Udover at gå med til opstilling af THAAD-missiler i sit land – en alvorlig, strategisk trussel mod Kina og Rusland – lukkede hun også ned for den i fællesskab udviklede Kaesong industripark i Nordkorea i sidste uge, der nedlukkede 124 sydkoreanske selskaber, og som rammer den sydkoreanske økonomi på et farligt tidspunkt, med kollapsende handel og investering.

I dag holdt hun i parlamentet en tale, der blev udsendt over nationalt fjernsyn, og hvor hun forsvarede sin beslutning om at nedlukke Kaesong, imod stærk opposition fra oppositionspartiet og fra kræfter i sit eget parti, og Park sagde, iflg. Korean Herald: »Fra nu af vil regeringen gennemføre en række magtfulde og effektive forholdsregler for at få det nordkoreanske regime til at indse, at udvikling af atomvåben ikke vil sikre overlevelse, men kun fremme systemets ødelæggelse.« At referere til »regimeskift« på denne måde har været tabu i Seoul, eftersom planer om regimeskift netop udgør Nordkoreas retfærdiggørelse af at opbygge en atomvåbenkapacitet.

Park er tydeligvis bekymret for, at hendes handlinger skal splitte hendes land, og siger, »At pege sværdspidsen tilbage på os og splitte os er noget, der ikke må finde sted«, iflg. AP.

Situationens farlighed blev også demonstreret i mandags, da Nationalforsamlingens formand, fra Parks regeringsparti, åbenlyst krævede, at Sydkorea skulle udvikle atomvåben. Parlamentsmedlem Won Yoo-chul sagde: »I betragtning af Nordkoreas atomvåben- og missilkapaciteter, må vi tænke over vores egen overlevelsesstrategi og modforholdsregler, der inkluderer fredelige [sic] atomvåben- og missilprogrammer til brug for vores selvforsvar.«

Kolossal stor deployering af amerikanske, strategiske styrker til Sydkorea

16. februar 2016 – Yonhap rapporterer i dag, at USA vil sende fire F-22 Raptor stealth kampfly til Sydkorea, iflg. officielle forsvarsfolk, der beskriver flyet som »et amerikansk, strategisk hovedvåben«. Pentagon udsendte et B-25 bombefly til Sydkorea kort efter Nordkoreas atomvåbenprøvesprængning i sidste måned. For nylig ankom angrebs-ubåden USS North Carolina til Sydkorea til fælles træning, og det atombevæbnede hangarskib USS John C. Stennis skal efter planen tilslutte sig de årlige, fælles sydkoreansk-amerikanske forsvarsøvelser, der begynder i marts måned.

I mellemtiden gentog det Sydkoreanske Forsvarsministerium, at det ville prioritere »militær effektivitet« ved valg af lokalitet for opstillingen af det amerikanske THAAD-missilforsvarsbatteri, sagde Yonhap. THAAD X-Band radarsystemet vil give USA radardækning over næsten hele Kina og en stor del af det russiske Fjernøsten, sammen med THAAD missilkapaciteten, der tilsigter at ødelægge Kinas gengældelses-angrebsstyrke.

Kina forbereder sig til krig over Korea

17. februar 2016 – En usigneret lederartikel i Kinas Kommunistiske Partis officielle avis Global Times i dag, med overskriften, »Kina må forberede sig på det værste på den Koreanske Halvø«, advarer om, at USA’s politik i Nord- og Sydkorea i høj grad øger chancen for krig. Med en påpegning af den massive opbygning af luftvåben- og flådekampstyrker i Sydkorea, og planerne om at opstille THAAD-missiler der, advarer lederartiklen: »Hvis Washington og Seoul overskrider den 38. nordlige breddegrad (der efter Anden Verdenskrig opdelte i Nord- og Sydkorea, –red.) og skrider til omfattende militær handling, bør de tage risikoen for Kinas militære intervention med i betragtning. Vi støtter denne analyse.«

Artiklen kommer kun en dag efter en artikel i den samme avis, Global Times, hvor general Wang Haiyan krævede krigsberedskab som respons til den eskalerende Koreakrise, og dagens leder bemærker skiftet i tone og handling hos den sydkoreanske præsident Park Geun-Hye, inklusive hendes advarsel fra i går til Nordkorea om, at en fortsættelse af deres atomvåbenprogram vil føre til »regimets sammenbrud«. Artiklen siger: »Ud fra det store perspektiv om det asiatiske Stillehavsområde er fraværet af en løsning på den nordkoreanske atomvåbenkrise resultatet af USA’s planer om at kontrollere det Nordøstlige Asien og blande sig i Kinas opkomst … Hvis en krig finder sted, vil den offentlige, kinesiske mening støtte landets handlinger i betragtning af, hvordan Kinas sikkerhed er truet.«

I en anden lederartikel, der blev udgivet i går, fordømmer Global Times Nordkoreas »hensynsløse træk«, men advarer dernæst Seoul: »Når THAAD-systemet først er opstillet i Sydkorea, vil det kinesiske samfund være nødt til at støtte Folkets Befrielseshær i at respondere via en stærk, militær deployering i nordøst. I så tilfælde kunne Sydkorea forvandles til et særdeles følsomt område i spillet om militære deployeringer mellem Kina og USA. Det vil få det Blå Hus (officiel residens for det sydkoreanske statsoverhoved, -red.) til yderligere at miste sin nationale uafhængighed og blive en skakbrik i spillet mellem stormagter.«

Kina har gentagne gange advaret Filippinerne på en lignende måde med, at det at agere skakbrik for Obama kunne forvandle deres land til murbrokker, når USA aktiverer Prompt Global Strike-doktrinen imod Kina.

Foto: Sydkoreas præsident Park Guen-Hye og USA’s præsident Barack Obama på vej ud af det Blå Hus. Foto fra april 2014.

17. februar 2016 – USA’s forsvarsminister Ashton Carters foreløbige fremlæggelse af Obamas forsvarsbudget for 2017, der blev givet til Washington Economic Club den 2. feb., samt en lederartikel i Washington Post i dag, »En ny tids afskrækkelse«, indikerer begge Obamas plan om at starte en krig imod Rusland og Kina.

Obama præsenterer et budget for Tredje Verdenskrig for Kongressen. I 2013 blev Rusland knapt nævnt i Obamas budget, indrømmer WP. I sit budget for 2017 foreslår Obama udgifter til 3,4 mia. dollar til »Det europæiske forsikringsinitiativ«, en stigning fra 789 mio. dollar i 2013, og som skal finansiere flere roterende styrker i Europa; mere uddannelse og flere øvelser; mere udstyr, der forhåndsdeployeres; alt dette »vil ved slutningen af 2017 lade os hurtigt danne en særdeles kapabel styrke på jorden med kombinationen af våben, og som kan respondere over hele skuepladsen, om nødvendigt«.

»Skiftet kommer sent«, klager WP, »og er kun en udbetaling. Men erkendelsen af, at Rusland har udviklet sig fra at være en partner in spe og til seriøs trussel, hilses velkommen«.

Hensigten med de forøgede udgifter er at forsikre allierede, der er blevet nervøse over Ruslands nye aggressivitet, og »sende et stærkt budskab om afskrækkelse. Rusland og dets stedfortrædende militser besætter dele af tre tidligere sovjetrepublikker – Moldova, Georgien og Ukraine – og dets militær har taget initiativet i Syrien … I hele Europa fører russerne en ubehagelig informationskrig og bruger åbenlyse og fordækte metoder til at underminere NATO og den Europæiske Union«. WP kommer med den vilde påstand, at mange vestlige regeringsfolk mener, at Putin »med overlæg forværrer flygtningekrisen, der truer europæisk enhed, en taktik, som de refererer til som »at gøre migration til et våben«.

I løbet af det seneste årti »har Rusland gjort imponerende fremskridt inden for elektronisk krigsførelse og andre militære teknologier. Ligesom Kina har Rusland et lavere forsvarsbudget end USA, men de har hældt ressourcer ind i våbensystemer, der er ’asymmetriske’, hvilket vil sige, at en relativ lille investering kan underminere en formidabel, konventionel amerikansk kapacitet … Rusland har angiveligt udviklet en ny, ubemandet undervandsdrone, der kan medføre atomvåben, alt imens Kina forbedrer sin anti-satellit kapacitet. De har begge foretaget kæmpespring over teknologiske hurdler … Hvordan skal man respondere?«

Opgradering af atomvåben, som Carter og WP ikke nævner, er afgørende for atomar aktivitet. Planen kræver 13 mia. dollar til en ny ubåd med ballistiske missiler over de næste fem år, til erstatning af den nuværende flåde af ubåde i Ohio-klassen. Af dette beløb vil 4 mia. dollar blive brugt til forskning og udvikling, og resten på anskaffelse af elementer, som har lang leveringstid, således, at konstruktion af de første nye både kan begynde i 2021.

Pentagons plan vil også understrege behovet for at finansiere alle tre ben af USA’s afskrækkelses-»triade« – ikke blot de nye ubåde, men også nye, atombevæbnede interkontinentale ballistiske missiler og et nyt bombefly til luftvåbnet, sagde en unavngiven kilde til Reuters.

Så her står vi. Husk på billedet af John og Robert Kennedy; og husk, at vi atter kan genoptage denne søgen efter menneskets rolle i universet, og skabe fremtidige generationer af genier. For det er menneskehedens natur; og det er en synd, hver gang, et barn nægtes evnen til at blive et sådant geni, som gør en opdagelse, der har indflydelse på hele menneskeheden.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelfoto: Neil Armstrong, første mand på Månen, 1930-2012.

Dette fredags-webcast vil fokusere på LaRouches nødmobilisering for at genoprette det amerikanske rumprogram og gøre Barack Obamas ødelæggelse af rumprogrammet til det mest fremtrædende tema i spørgsmålet om nødvendigheden af at stille ham for en rigsret som præsident for USA. Engelsk udskrift.

This Friday’s LaRouchePAC webcast will focus on LaRouche’s emergency mobilization to restore the American space program and make its destruction by Barack Obama the most prominent feature of his necessary impeachment as President of the United States.

Transcript-MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly Friday evening broadcast, here, from larouchepac.com. This is our webcast for February 12, 2016. Today is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. I’m joined in the studio today by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review magazine, as well as Megan Beets and Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC science team. I’m also joined, via video, by a special guest again this week — Kesha Rogers, joining us from Houston, Texas.

We have all just come from a discussion that we had with both Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. I think the content of the presentation that you’ll hear tonight is directly informed by the tenor of that discussion. It’s very clear that there are immediate problems, an immediate crisis, which must be addressed and must be resolved, that are right in front of us as we speak. However, that will be the subject of the answer to our institutional question, which we have decided to leave to the end of tonight’s broadcast.

To begin with, we have the responsibility to take a step back and look at the much bigger picture. We have a responsibility of leadership, as an organization, and as a movement which involves the viewers of this webcast tonight. That responsibility of leadership requires us to go far beyond these immediate challenges, to look into the future, and to imagine what mankind can be, what mankind must be, and to take the necessary action to bring that future into being.

The recent attention to the incomparable genius of Albert Einstein that has been forced upon us by a very interesting outcome of an experimental investigation that has just had results that were reported yesterday, forces us to consider, however, not just the outcome of that experiment, but forces us to consider what mankind as a species is capable of, and what the identity of mankind as a species must become in a self-conscious way.

This is something that we’re going to take up in much more detail a little bit later in the broadcast tonight, but what we begin to consider, is that the space program as we knew it from President John F. Kennedy and others, is the necessary ingredient of a mission of any civilization which is worthy of representing mankind as a species on this planet. Mankind must not be a creature of the Earth. Man is not an Earthling. Mankind must be a creature of the stars! He must learn, both physically and mentally, how to navigate that wide ocean which is outer space. He must come to know what he does not know. He must come to understand the inner workings of the galaxy which he is an integral part of, and also other galactic systems. And, he must come to know his role as a species within that complex of galactic systems which comprise the Universe as we know it today.

In doing so, man affirms his nature as a species completely unique from all other species. Mr. LaRouche was emphatic that the insights of Vladimir Vernadsky and his understanding of the noösphere, and the uniqueness of the human mind and the human species as a whole, setting mankind apart from the animals, is something which very few people understand today, but was a very crucial investigation into the nature of the human race. Coincidentally, Vladimir Vernadsky and Albert Einstein were direct contemporaries.

We made great leaps, giant leaps, in this direction of man as a galactic species, not an earthbound species, with our landing of men on the Moon during the Apollo project of the 1960s and 1970s, and other great accomplishments of that era. To a certain extent, the legacy of that era has continued along certain trajectories. But since that time, when the mission of man leaving this planet was a professed mission of the United States government itself under the figure of John F. Kennedy, since that time, our progress in that direction has been moving backwards, compared to where we should have been, where we should have come by now, had we continued that directionality, and especially compared to what other countries, most notably China, have now accomplished and are committed to accomplishing further in the very near future ahead.

As President John F. Kennedy was wont to say in several speeches that he made, where he quoted Scripture: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” And that is absolutely true today. That is what the last 50 years of a “backwards progress” has brought us, as an American people — as we’ve presented repeatedly over the past several weeks in this webcast — and as a trans-Atlantic system, where face an absolutely dire crisis — economic, social, and military crisis today.

Our job here this evening, is to take the necessary steps to restoring that vision, and there’s nobody more qualified to that, in my opinion, than my good friend Kesha Rogers. Following the remarks that Kesha makes, we will have follow-up remarks from Megan Beets, who will elaborate much more on what China is doing in their ambitious space program and where that’s come from in the recent years, and where that’s going towards. Ben Deniston will follow up immediately after her, to elaborate a little bit more of what the necessary insight into the genius of Albert Einstein and Vladimir Vernadsky must be, from the perspective of this recent experiment that affirmed many of Einstein’s hypotheses that he made nearly a century ago.

For those of you who may not know, or may need to be reminded, Kesha Rogers was the Democratic nominee for Congress in Texas’s 22nd District two years in a row — the 2010 elections and the elections in 2012, which, I’m sure, was a real thorn in the side of the political hacks in that area. She established her campaign based on the idea that we must revive NASA, restore NASA, despite the attempts by the Obama administration to destroy what NASA was committed to doing.

In 2014, Kesha expanded on her successes as an electoral candidate in the previous two elections, and declared a state-wide race for United States Senate, which, despite the fact that she was massively outspent by the Democratic Party establishment and by their chosen candidate, she came so close in the preliminary primary elections, that she forced those primaries into a runoff election, and received not just national prominence, but international prominence as a very significant political figure.

So, without more said about Kesha’s unique role in this mission to restore the vision to the American people, I’d like to introduce to you, Kesha Rogers.

KESHA ROGERS: Thank you, Matthew! Well, I think what you’ve laid out, and also in the discussions we had from Mr. LaRouche, one thing that’s important to point out is, this is the level of discussion which is absolutely critical to revive the educational and human commitment that has been lost in our society. The real question is, when we’re dealing with the space program — and this is what’s not being discussed in any of the political debates or amongst the space community itself — is this question of what is the nature of man; what is the responsibility to the understanding of the mind of man as different from any other species, animal species, out there.

I’ve gone to a number of events in the NASA community with certain representatives of the space community. You have this discussion where people want to talk about innovation or something of that nature; but what’s missing right now, is that there’s no real discussion on the principle of true discovery, on the principle of true creativity. If you’re going to get back to the foundation of what our space program truly represents, then that has to be the focal point of what is understood and what we’re fighting for. Looking at the space program, one of the things that is extremely important right now, is that what has been a dividing line, is this very question of what is the nature of man. It’s not about money, or it’s not about what projects are more reasonable or will actually work better; but more so it is what is the destiny of mankind to discover and to do what has never been done before.

I love the remarks from Mike Griffin, former NASA Administrator, who I believe made them in 2006, working under the [George W.] Bush Administration, who demonstrated the idea that mankind has always committed itself to doing that which is going to leave something behind for the children, grand-children, next generations — the building of great cathedrals. We think about Brunelleschi or Charlemagne, those individuals who played a significant role in creating something that they weren’t going to be able to see themselves, that they may not be able to participate in; but knew that their responsibility was to actually create for the future. I think that’s the ultimate question right now. What has been done in the progress of the society of mankind has been with the intention of creating for the future.

When you take the conception of the future out, and that human beings have no ability to actually determine or act upon that future, that was the understanding of the fight between Zeus and Prometheus, [where] Prometheus had a higher conception that mankind can know, and not only know, can actually act on and create the future.

How do we do this? We do this through the basis of discovery. We do this through the basis of understanding that human beings don’t have to live like their fathers and grandfathers before them, like the beavers, before them. We can create new discoveries! And that’s what we’re finding and which has been essential in understanding what the space program brings us, and the understanding of the new principles that were put forth in development of what you see in terms of the beautiful ideas that foster the creation of such wonderful and beautiful cathedrals; that mankind not only just enjoys, in terms of aesthetic beauty, but also which has created the ability for a mastery of science that had never been known before.

That’s what the space program represents! The same idea is actually recognized, when you look at music, what great Classical composition truly represents. The fostering of our society has been, always, to take the discoveries of mankind to the next level, to a higher conception, to a higher principle of mankind. The space program represents not just a program itself, but is what is the destiny of mankind.

I want to reiterate the beautiful example, again, of Krafft-Ehricke, because I think this gets at the truly beautiful and fundamental idea of that conception, as to why we have to have a space program. It is only for those very reasons, on the conception of what is the destiny of mankind, what is our responsibility. This is what we should be addressing in our education systems; that, as [krafft-]Ehricke explained, “The concept of space travel carries with it enormous impact, because it challenges man on practically all fronts of his physical and spiritual existence. The idea of traveling to other celestial bodies reflects the highest degree, the independence and agility of the human mind. It lends ultimate dignity to man’s technical and scientific endeavors. Above all, it touches on the philosophy of his very existence.”

And what we have to address in terms of looking at what has been lost in the space program, is that very conception of touching on that which is human. And identifying that which only mankind has the ability, based on our creative powers based on the image of the Creator, to be able to actually participate in. And we have taken that away. We’ve taken it away through the actions of the last two administrations through a policy of capitulation to Wall Street and a bankrupt financial system. The idea that our mission, as China has clearly set forward, and the paradox in that is the fact that we have been denied access through the insanity of certain Congress members and people who have taken away the collaboration, for human beings to collaborate on discoveries that are going to impact all of mankind. By denying the access of NASA per se to work with China, this was known as a clear understanding that nations had to work together if we were going to actually address the problems on Earth facing mankind, that were going to be addressed through discoveries that were going to benefit all mankind.

So that’s what we have to address right now. Can we get back to that understanding once again? What is going to be our direction? What type of future are we going to see — are we going to create, I should say, on the progress of where society and civilization are going. And I think what we are seeing coming down the pike in terms of a continued escalation toward war and chaos, we have a clear dividing line in front of us. And this is extremely important that the space program has — what it represents gives us a commitment again toward restoring a new direction for mankind. And doing what it is that is our responsibility and intention to do.

OGDEN: Thank you, Kesha. Now let me ask Megan Beets to come to the podium.

MEGAN BEETS: So Kesha referenced German space pioneer Krafft-Ehricke. I’d like to reference another German space pioneer, who lived at the beginning of the 1600s — Johannes Kepler. And Kepler also identified the Moon as a very unique place, and a unique destination for mankind. In 1608, he authored a really beautiful, fanciful document called “The Dream”; in which he imagined a journey to the Moon, and described and unfolded in his imagination what astronomical observation would be like from the vantage point of the Moon. Taking man off of Earth, taking man’s mind off of Earth and reconstructing the structure of the Solar System as seen from the vantage point of the Moon.

Now, very interestingly, he also discussed and imagined what the unique differences might be between the near side of the Moon — which we see every night when we look up into the sky and see the Moon — and what the differences would be with the far side of the Moon, and what those unique characteristics might be.

Now, 400 years after Kepler wrote this, man for the first time is finally planning to land on that far side of the Moon. Just a little over two years from today, China plans to send its Chang’e 4 lunar mission to go to the Moon, and for the first time in mankind’s history, to perform a soft landing on the far side of the Moon. The far side of the Moon is a very unique place; it’s unique in terms of the Moon itself. It presents geological characteristics which we believe to be quite different from the near side. It presents resources such as Helium-3, which might be in higher quantities than on the near side of the Moon. But it’s also a very unique vantage point in terms of the Solar System itself; allowing us to perform astronomical observations in wavelengths which we just simply can’t see from anyplace near Earth or Earth’s orbit.

So, as Kepler foresaw in a sense, the far side of the Moon is a beginning point for us to begin to exercise our creative play; and to begin to peer out into the Solar System and the galaxy beyond and reconsider the processes of that Solar System as something that might be different than anything we’ve known before. So this landing on the far side of the Moon will come precisely one year after China does something else; which is sending their Chang’e 5 mission as a sample return mission, to land on the surface of the Moon, sample lunar material, rendezvous with an orbiter, and sen this lunar sample back to Earth. This is the first time this has occurred in over 40 years, and using entirely new and different technology. Now that 2017 sample return mission is coming roughly after three years after something which happened just one year ago; which was China’s Chang’e5T — for test — mission. Which sent an orbiter to the Moon which went around the back side of the Moon, sent back some beautiful images from its orbit around the Moon; sent a capsule from lunar orbit back to Earth orbit, which was able to make a successful re-entry onto Earth and be recovered by Chinese space scientists. Again, this is the first time anything like this has happened in over 40 years.

Now, an important element for China’s space program is its quest for a very rare isotope for helium. Helium-3, which, as has been said by the father of the Chinese lunar program, Ouyang Ziyuan, is a unique fusion fuel which could power the Earth as far into the future as we could think. This is a fusion fuel which is very, very rare on Earth; but which exists in abundance on the Moon. Another promise of the Moon drawing mankind in to a higher level of power and a higher level of existence.

Those are the very recent and also immediate future plans and accomplishments of China in space. Going back to 2007, just prior to the launch of the very first phase of their lunar program, the Chang’e 1, China’s newspaper interviewed 10,000 Chinese youth. And of those 10,000 young Chinese, 99% were following the developments of the lunar mission; another 90% believed that they one day would travel to the Moon. This remarkable progress of China in their Moon program has been complemented by a very robust, in terms of the success of the accomplishments, manned space program — the Shenzhou program; which began in 1992, and is coupled with the Tiangong program, the space station program. So, it was in 2003 that China put its first man into space. It was five years after that that China put the first man into space to perform the first space walk of China; which was beamed back down to Earth in a live broadcast. In 2012, China sent a Shenzhou mission up into space to rendezvous and dock with the first component of their space station; the Tiangong I. The crew rendezvoused with the space station, opened the portal and entered the space station to beam photographs and video back down to Earth. Only one year after that, the next Shenzhou mission rendezvoused with the same component of the space station; the astronauts entered the space station, and one of the astronauts taught a simple physics class, performing simple physics experiments live to 60 million Chinese students in classrooms on Earth.

This year, 2016, the second phase of the space station, the Tiangong 2, will be sent up; shortly followed by the next manned mission to rendezvous with the space capsule. Now this is progress towards a full-size space station, which is expected to be launched in the early 2020s; which will permit long-term habitation and scientific work in space. Which is expected to be completed roughly at the same time as the International Space Station is decommissioned.

So, that’s a very brief overview, but I want to make two points on this. Number one, the entire Chang’e lunar exploration program and the manned space program, including the space station, is vectored toward establishing mankind on the Moon; not simply a mission to plant a flag and go home. The idea of China is to begin folding the Moon into mankind’s sphere of influence; fold the Moon into the noösphere in the sense of Vladimir Vernadsky. But also, to allow the Moon to transform mankind; to allow the discoveries that we make and the secrets of the Moon to change and upgrade man’s power in and over the universe. They also plan to use the Moon, very clearly, as a launch pad, a base for further expansion into deep space.

The second point to be made is, that while this progress is being made by China, these missions are being launched by China, this is an international program. This is not for the Chinese; and they’ve been very clear about that. China has nearly 100 agreements for space cooperation with over two dozen countries, which is part and parcel of their win-win cooperation vision for collaboration among all mankind.

Having said all of this, I think it’s important to back up and look down on the whole thing. It’s not the specifics of what China is doing here which are really the most important thing. What is important is the modality which China has committed itself to. The fact that the minds and the lives of the Chinese people are being engaged in the kind of creative play which we see in the manned space program, and the joy in the accomplishments of that. In the space station program. In their plans for the exploration of Mars and further out into deep space. And especially in their lunar program. This kind of creative play and progress is moving mankind as a species closer to what the German space pioneer Krafft-Ehricke called not homo sapiens, but “homo extraterrestris”. Mankind becoming a new species which is not based on Earth, but which is based in the Solar System as a whole. It’s in that sense that China today, with their commitment to their space program, with their commitment to involving people around to the world to participate in these kinds of accomplishments. It is in this sense that China today is leading the cause of humanity.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Megan and Kesha. Maybe just to pick up off directly what we were just presented with China’s focus, I just wanted to highlight some of what Mr. LaRouche was emphasizing today on the importance of this for uplifting mankind to a new level. And as we discussed last week, we have some very important elements with the lunar far side, which Megan referenced. This is a unique capability mankind will have when accessing the far side of the Moon, to give us a completely new perspective on the universe. But I want to just — coming off of Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis earlier today, and what Kesha was just bringing up, I want to emphasize that this is not just the ability to discover the currently unseen. We’ll see new things, but the point is, this will give us the ability to discover what is currently unknown. What does that mean? What does the unknown mean? This requires a fundamental return to real science, is what Mr. LaRouche was emphasizing earlier today. A real, true scientific conception of mankind as a creative force in collaboration with a creative universe. And today, as was mentioned, we have the excellent standard of Einstein brought to us again today, with the confirmation of something he had forecast a century ago; which was the existence of so-called “gravitational waves”, or waves in the space-time characteristics of the universe. This is getting all kinds of media headlines, media attention, coverage all over the place. I think it’s a pretty remarkable thing to reflect upon; just the very conception of waves, changes in the structure of the very space-time fabric of the universe; which Einstein had forecast, and expected to be there. And we’re finally with our technology, catching up to where Einstein had said we would be, over a century earlier; confirming what he had expected with his conception of gravity.

You can read plenty of media coverage about this particular confirmation of Einstein all over the place now. But take a look at Einstein himself; look at Einstein’s conception of gravity as a curved space-time. And Einstein, as a scientific thinker coming out of very specific scientific tradition, explicitly referencing back to the work of Riemann and Gauss. Riemann, somebody who overturned the entire chessboard of science, so to speak, with his calling for the ending of a priori notions of science, of geometry. Including conceptions about space and time, for example, which Einstein demonstrated. You see a direct reflection of orientation of this in Riemann’s work, in Gauss’ work earlier, who Riemann picked up on.

Look at this another way; what were they overturning? They were saying science, the process of mankind’s understanding of the relation of the universe, that must completely rid itself of these a priori notions about space, time, geometry, or what became even worse, the mathematical approach pushed by Russell and his followers. That science must rid itself of these a priori conceptions The kind of a priori sense perception, that type of a priori geometry of absolute space, absolute time, for example; which are really just a reflection of a sense perceptual reflection of the universe. That real science must rid itself of these conceptions.

What does that leave us with? If we are not going to base, premise science on these a priori notions — or I would say, sense perceptual notions, or you could maybe even say a kind of an animalistic notion, a biological notion of your interaction with the universe. Then what’s the basis, what’s the substance of mankind’s ability to have science, to change his relationship with the fundamental nature of the universe? It’s in human creativity; the human mind. The process of human discovery, is the substance of the ability of mankind to change his relationship to the universe; become a more powerful creative force in the universe. And that’s what’s primary; human creative thought is what tells something about the fundamental nature of the universe, because that’s the basis of the ability of mankind to come into a higher degree of coherence with the fundamental organizing principles of that universe. That it doesn’t come from sense perception; it doesn’t come from sense perceptual notions. It comes from a specific quality of the human mind, which we can define as human creativity; which is a non-logical, non-deductive process, a uniquely creative process which can’t be explained away as a phenomenon of something else. It’s its own capability, that Einstein knew; that Riemann knew. That this competent true current of scientific thought has been premised on the knowledge, the recognition, that this is the basis of science; this is the basis of our ability to understand the nature of the universe. This is the basis of the nature of the universe itself, if you invert it and understand it that way; that human creative thought is the key issue. Which means that mankind is a creative force in a creative universe. We’re in a very real scientific sense, a co-creator in a process of creation.

And I think it’s worth just highlighting another of Einstein’s insights into this reality of the true nature of science, the true nature of mankind. Interestingly, this takes us away from the very large, as Riemann had discussed, into the very small. And if you look at Einstein’s work on the very small, on the nature of atomic processes, sub-atomic processes; the activity in the very, very small, so-called quantum processes. And this was, as most people are familiar, this was the subject of a major scientific debate and fight at the time about what is the nature of causality? What is happening on these very small quantum scales? And Einstein was adamantly fighting against this hardcore reductionist approach that tried to just say everything on this level is purely statistical; there’s no cause that can be known, it’s just a statistical random process with no causality and no ability to know causality.

And people are probably more familiar with Einstein’s famous quote that he doesn’t think God plays dice; he doesn’t think the universe is, in its essence, just organized around completely random randomness. That’s the more well-known quote. He clearly had more developed thoughts than just that. In another discussion, he had said, if we want to actually understand causality on this level, understand the nature of quantum processes, perhaps it’s our own notion of causality which is what needs to be overthrown. It’s not, is the quantum world, the very small, deterministic in the way we were thinking about deterministic causality before, vs. just statistically random; or is it that our idea of causality is too simple, is wrong? And he used the example of a Bach fugue, a musical composition; and he said, our current notion of causality is equivalent to a very beginner trying to play a Bach fugue on the piano by just going one note to one note to the next note to the next note, in a linear fashion. And he says, you ruin the piece that way; the conception doesn’t come across, because a Bach fugue is not organized as a linear sequence of notes. There’s a certain conception and intention governing the piece as a whole; and all of the individual components, the keys are organized in a completely different fashion than a linear causality.

So if you want to understand quantum processes, if you want to understand what’s happening in the very small, we should reflect upon the ignorance of our own notions of causality; and look to insights to causality and organization which are coherent with the characteristics of human creative thought. That human creative thought and human creative discovery are what we know are the things that enable mankind to create higher states of organization; to make new fundamental scientific discoveries. And that is what therefore tells us something about the nature, the fundamental organization of the universe as a whole.

So, I think we look to the Moon, we look to mankind going into space; but we need to look to this prospective future from this proper standpoint of mankind having an obligation to be a fundamentally creative driving force in a fundamentally creative universe. That the only real science is a science of mankind as a co-creator in a creative universe. And Einstein certainly understood that from his own perspective, and the future development of mankind requires the Einstein standard today to be applied.

OGDEN: Thank you very much. What we’re going to do next is, I will read our institutional question for this evening; and Jeff Steinberg will deliver a more elaborated answer encapsulating some of Mr. LaRouche’s responses to it. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche: The World Health Organization has declared the Zika virus a global public health emergency. The National Institute of Health calls it ‘a pandemic in progress’. The infection is suspected of leading to thousands of babies being born with under-developed brains. Some areas have declared a state of emergency; doctors have described it as a pandemic in process, and some are even advising women in affected countries to delay getting pregnant.

“Mr. LaRouche, in your view, could the Zika virus become a major global pandemic; and in your opinion, how can the spread of the virus be stopped?”

STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I’ll refer people to an article that’s published in the current issue of Executive Intelligence Review, the issue dated February 12, 2016, which takes up some technical questions which I’m not going to get into here. There are serious questions about whether or not a British company produced a genetically modified mosquito, ostensibly aimed at curbing the spread of Zika virus and other mosquito-borne viruses; and that there were poor controls over it. There were other factors that may have contributed to this now becoming a very dangerous global pandemic.

But I think we’ve got to step back and take a different perspective on this. As early as 1975, Lyndon LaRouche directed a biological holocaust task force with the question on the table of whether or not the conscious policies of the British monarchy and other allied institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, were creating the conditions willfully for a new biological holocaust by virtue of austerity policies. Literally genocide policies that would have the effect of breaking down the systems that had been built up over centuries for dealing with and avoiding the spread of the kinds of diseases than can create mass-kill pandemics of the sort that we saw in Europe in the 14th Century, where one-third of the population and half of the parishes of continental Europe were wiped out in a relatively small period of time. In other words, the question is, are we dealing with the consequences of what can justifiably and fairly be called a Satanic policy coming from certain leading British oligarchical circles with their co-thinkers and allies around the world?

That biological holocaust project, that was directed by Mr. LaRouche, came as the result of the ending of the Bretton Woods system, and the shift of the IMF and World Bank towards policies of promoting population reduction, the fraudulent concept which you should understand as the result of what we’ve discussed here this evening, of limits to growth. And in particular, from that period of early 1970s moment onward, the advent of a fundamental assault against basic science, taking the form of various Green policies that repudiate the very nature of man as a creative species; whose very existence is based on the idea that mankind will make discoveries that will give mankind a greater understanding of how the universe works. Knowing that those discoveries will lead future generations to make even greater discoveries.

And that basically, within that possibility, every child born on this planet, should have the ability — through proper nurturing, proper education — to be able to make the kinds of discoveries that were made by people like Einstein, like Kepler, and others. This is the nature of mankind. And to the extent that there are polices that are put forward that deter mankind from realizing its true nature as the only known creative being in the universe; this is, in fact, indeed, a Satanic policy.

So, we’re dealing with a situation where there will be concrete initiatives taken to come up with an understanding of how the Zika virus has been spread; an understanding of what emergency measures can be taken; plus, the development of protective measures like vaccines and things like that. But on a much larger scale, we’ve got to look at the massive crimes against humanity that are being committed by virtue of the conscious assault against the kind of scientific education that leads to more and more people being actually able to participate in what it means to be truly human.

So, if you want to talk about a deadly virus that has to be stopped, let’s talk about President Obama’s policy; which has been to systematically shut down the entire NASA space program. Remember that at the beginning of the Obama administration, there were plans under way to replace the Shuttle program with the Constellation, which was to be a new rocket system for delivering man into space exploration. In his very first budget, President Obama canceled the Constellation program; knowing full well that with the cancellation and ending of the Shuttle program and the ending of Constellation, that there would be wide gap in the ability of the United States to even engage in any kind of manned space activity without hitching a ride from China or Russia, or one of the other nations that was going ahead with these programs.

Now we find that the rationale that President Obama used for canceling Constellation was that there was another rocket program called the Orion, which offered better prospects than Constellation. Well, what’s happened systematically over the course of the Obama Presidency, is once Constellation was canceled and literally shut down, you had the cancellation through attrition of budgeting, to where now the Orion program has been canceled as well. Major projects for the kind of exploration that Megan described; developing windows into the universe through the back side of the Moon have been shut down, and stripped or greatly reduced from the NASA budget in favor of “Earth science”. Which means the spreading of the false propaganda about the causes of global warming.

These are the policies that kill. That’s why the term “Satanic” can be appropriately used. If you take what’s happened under the last 15 years, particularly under the last 7 years of the Obama administration; the take down and destruction of America’s ability to participate as a qualified partner with nations like China, like Russia, like India in exploring mankind’s next discoveries of the universe; you realize that the United States has been done a terrible injustice — it is literally a crime against every citizen of this nation, both current and future citizens — that this has been done, that these programs have been shut down. We know that President Obama, every Tuesday, relishes the idea that he holds a kill session, and comes up with a target list of people to be executed during that next 60-day period; but when you consider the killing of the space program, you’ve got to consider that this is an act of mass genocide, not just against the present generation, but against future as yet unborn generations that will be dependent on making these kinds of discoveries, branching out deeper into the universe.

And if you take that idea, that understanding of what has been done to us, particularly over this last 7-year period under Obama, and go back and remember; have a clear image in your mind of President John F Kennedy announcing the Apollo program, and announcing that we are going to do this because it represents the challenge to mankind to make great leaps of discovery and to better understand man’s position in the universe. And if you consider that his brother, Robert Kennedy, would have revived and continued exactly that program; had Robert Kennedy not been assassinated, had John Kennedy not been assassinated, where would the United States be today? Would there have been anyone who dared to shut down our space program, our scientific research?

So, this is where we are. Remember the image of John and Robert Kennedy; and remember that we can once again resume that quest for mankind’s role in the universe, and to create future generations of geniuses. Because that’s the nature of mankind; and it’s a sin every time an individual child is denied the capacity to be that kind of creative individual who makes a discovery that impacts on mankind as a whole.

OGDEN: Thank you very much to everybody who participated tonight: Jeff, Megan, Ben, and especially Kesha. Mr. LaRouche, of course, has been very emphatic, as many of you heard him even in the discussion last night during the national activists’ call — the Fireside Chat — that Kesha has a very special role to play in her ability to mobilize the American people to restore that vision of the future once again. So, I’d like thank Kesha very much for joining us here tonight. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, and good night.

LaRouchePAC havde følgende lederartikler den 9. og 10. februar:

Uden et rumprogram er der ingen menneskehed

9. februar 2016 – Af alle præsident Obamas forbrydelser, fra den økonomiske redning af et bankerot Wall Street til permanent krigsførelse, der er i færd med at drive verden hen mod Tredje Verdenskrig, så er den mest modbydelige forbrydelse af alle den at ødelægge det engang så strålende amerikanske rumprogram. Rumprogrammet, især siden John F. Kennedys præsidentskab, var ikke alene en videnskabelig drivkraft for hele verdens økonomi, men også hele en vision for hele menneskeheden, der frembragte sand kreativitet i ethvert barn og flyttede mænds og kvinders intellekt ind i fremtiden, hvor kreativitet er. Ødelæggelsen af rumprogrammet ikke alene standsede menneskets fremskridt, men tvang det tilbage. Det omstødte historien.

Kravet om at genoprette rumprogrammet, og vores fremtid, for menneskeheden vil være temaet for LaRouchePAC’s fredags-webcast den 12. februar. Lyndon LaRouche talte om det i dag som den handling, der kræves for »det menneskelige intellekts genfødsel«. Den 10. februar er Kesha Rogers særlig gæst på LPAC’s videnskabelige udsendelse »New Paradigm«; hun fører an i den politiske indsats for et rumprogram i USA. Med dette perspektiv deltog hun i dag i NASA’s »åbent hus« i Johnson Space Center i Texas.

En ting er nødvendigt for at bane vejen, og det er at konfrontere det faktum, at Wall Street er bankerot. Gør en ende på bail-out (statslige redningspakker), bail-in (ekspropriering af bankindeståender/-indskud), forbrydelser, svindel og mord.

Se på sagaen om Deutsche Bank – verdens største indehaver af derivater. I mandags faldt bankens aktier mere end 10 procent i forhold til den foregående fredag, og har således oplevet et fald i aktiernes værdi på 40 procent hidtil i år. Midt i mandagens fald udstedte banken en erklæring, hvor den forsikrede om, at den har midlerne til at honorere sine forfaldne økonomiske forpligtelser. Tirsdag faldt bankens aktier så endnu mere. Så udstedte bankens meddirektør John Cryan en erklæring om, at banken er »bundsolid«.  Dernæst sagde ingen anden end den tyske finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble, der var i Paris til en afslappet snak blandt finansminister, til medierne, at han ikke er bekymret for Deutsche Bank.

I realiteten viser Deutsche Banks kvaler og det voksende, finansielle kaos, at selve systemet er dødt og befinder sig i forrådnelsesstadiet.

I den amerikanske Kongres findes midlerne, i form af fremstillede lovforslag om en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, til at påbegynde en udrensning af alt rodet og bane vejen for sund, økonomisk aktivitet, der kan give kraft til fremtiden, men handling er gået i stå. Ironisk nok vil der finde »reality-udstillinger« sted på Capitol Hill i denne uge: flere senatorer fremviser filmen »The Big Short« – om Wall Streets kriminalitet, den 10. februar; og den 11. februar vil der være en briefing i Senatet om den kendsgerning, at amerikanske landbrugs indkomster er faldet med 50 procent. Vil de, der har øjne, se?

Hvis vi er villige til at se virkeligheden i øjnene, understregede Lyndon LaRouche i dag, »så er ideen om, at man må gøre noget for at være med til at redde bankerne det rene ævl!«

Det haster også med at applikere kravet om den »bydende nødvendige virkelighed« på at se og handle imod den umiddelbare fare for atomkrig. Netop nu mødes NATO’s forsvarsministre i Bruxelles, hvor e følger en linje med at satse på mere konfrontation med Rusland og truer med et totalt, atomart Armageddon. Det geopolitiske fremstød fra briterne og Det Hvide Hus går frem for fuld kraft.

I Rusland blev ved daggry den 8. februar en overraskelsesøvelse med militære styrker annonceret i det Sydlige Militærdistrikt, der strækker sig til Sortehavet og det Kaspiske Hav. Med involvering også af det Centrale Militærdistrikts kommando- og kontrolelementer har den fejende aktion tests om mobilitet, der strækker sig over 3.000 kilometer via jernbane, med flåde- og flytransport. Snap-mobiliseringen involverer 8.500 tropper, 900 stk. militært hårdt isenkram, 50 krigsskibe og på til 200 fly.

»Houston, vi har et problem: Det er Obama«

10. februar 2016 – Som præsident har Barack Obama drevet USA hen imod krig med Rusland og Kina og berøvet USA for dets videnskabelige identitet ved helt at skrotte den amerikanske rumforskningsmission.

LaRouchePAC’s kandidat for det Demokratiske Parti, Kesha Rogers, Texas, erklærede i dag en ny, national mobilisering for at omstøde Obamas ødelæggelse af det amerikanske rumprogram. I 2010 og 2012 vandt Rogers demokraternes nomineringsvalg til Kongressen (Repræsentanternes Hus) med udgangspunkt i banneret, »Red NASA; Stil Obama for en rigsret«.

I et webcast i dag sagde Rogers: »Obamas plan, der går helt tilbage til nedtagningen af rumprogrammet i 2010, er baseret på det faktum, at man fuldstændig har iturevet det, der under præsident John F. Kennedy var et visionært lederskabsperspektiv, som blev nedtaget under Obamaregeringen – og hvor planen var at fremme en nulvækst-politik.

»I går deltog jeg i et arrangement ved navn »NASA’s tilstand«. Mange mennesker så denne begivenhed, som blev transmitteret live med NASA’s direktør, Charlie Bolden, såvel som også andre personer. 

»Det, som simpelt hen forbløffede mig, var det faktum, at præsidenten skærer ned på hele budgettet, fortsætter med at skære ned på budgettet for Orion-missionen, den bemandede mission, fortsætter med at nedtage Månemissionen – faktisk er der ikke længere nogen Månemission; og samtidig skærer han ned på alle fusionsprogrammer, skærer ned på programmerne på visse universiteter, såsom Rice Universitetet her i Texas. Præsident John F. Kennedy fremlagde en vision, ’Vi rejser til Månen, og vi gør disse ting, ikke, fordi det er let, men fordi det er svært.’ Og hvor man havde en reel vision, en inspiration for hele befolkningen.«

»Direktøren for rumprogrammet fremlægger, at ’Vi er nærmere end nogensinde til at komme til den Røde Planet’. Dette finder jeg paradoksalt ud fra det standpunkt, at vi har afskaffet alle missioner om at komme tilbage til og industrialisere og faktisk udvikle Månen.

Vi må gå tilbage og se på historien med hensyn til, at et visionært lederskab begyndte med de personer, der havde en idé om det menneskelige intellekt, der rakte langt frem i vores Solsystems bestemmelse. Og det var ikke blot en profitmekanisme, eller det drejede sig ikke blot om budgetter og om budgetnedskæringer eller om at forsøge at rejse ud i rummet på et ’discount’-program.

Men, vi gjorde det, der var nødvendigt – fiasko var ikke en valgmulighed – for at sikre, at menneskets fremskridt i rummet var prioritet nummer ét. Og et visionært lederskab er således det ultimative spørgsmål her, og det er, hvad vi faktisk diskuterer her. Det er det, der er blevet fuldstændigt forladt af vores samfund; det, der ikke længere eksisterer.

Jeg vil gerne her give et ægte eksempel på et visionært lederskab:

Krafft Ehrickes store ånd og intellekt, en pioner inden for rumflyvning, raketvidenskab og ingeniørvidenskab; og Krafft Ehricke arbejdede sammen med, og var en student, der udviklede von Brauns ideer og det, der virkelig skabte vores rumprogram og den vision, der bragte os til Månen, med Apollo 11 og frem til Saturn V-raketten.

Men igen, han var udtryk for noget, der tilhørte en højere orden med hensyn til filosofien og tankegangen i det, som han forstod, var grundlaget for rumprogrammet, og som igen var forsvaret for det menneskelige intellekt, og dette menneskelige intellekts kreativitet. Men han siger det smukkere selv. I Krafft Ehrickes ’Anthropology of Astronautics’ fremlægger han disse tre, fundamentale love:

1. Ingen og intet under dette univers’ naturlige love kan påtvinge mennesket nogen begrænsninger, undtagen mennesket selv.
2. Ikke alene Jorden, men hele Solsystemet, og lige så meget af universet, som mennesket kan nå ud til under naturens love, er menneskets retmæssige aktivitetsfelt.
3. Ved at gå ud i hele universet, opfylder mennesket sin bestemmelse som et element i livet, der er skænket fornuftens evne og den moralske lovs visdom inde i ham selv.’

 »Som jeg sagde før, så advarede Krafft Ehricke om, at et samfund, der vendte sig imod ægte fremskridt og vedtog en kurs for nulvækst, grænser for vækst, der er i modstrid med det, han siger i sin første, fundamentale lov, at ’Ingen og intet under dette univers’ naturlige love kan påtvinge mennesket nogen begrænsninger, undtagen menneskets selv’, så ville man få et samfund at se, der var ophørt med at anerkende sit sande, menneskelige potentiale.«

Ehricke skrev: »Begrebet om rumrejser bærer med sig en enorm indvirkning, fordi det udfordrer mennesket på stort set alle fronter af dets fysiske og spirituelle eksistens. Ideen om at rejse til andre himmellegemer reflekterer den højeste grad af det menneskelige intellekts uafhængighed og adræthed. Det giver menneskets tekniske og videnskabelige bestræbelser ultimativ værdighed. Frem for alt drejer det sig om filosofien for enhver eksistens. Som resultat ignorerer begrebet om rumrejser nationale grænser, afviser at anerkende forskelle af historisk eller etnologisk oprindelse, og gennemtrænger ens sociologiske eller politiske overbevisnings struktur lige så hurtigt som den næste.«

»Og i betragtning af de omstændigheder, som samfundet netop nu befinder sig i, med den fortsatte optrapning af konflikt og spænding mellem nationer, med det, vi ser med det fortsatte fremstød for krig eller optrapningen imod Rusland, imod Kina; det er et angreb på selve dette begreb om det menneskelige intellekt.«

Kesha Rogers har her sat fingeren på forbrydelsen, som Obama som præsident har begået: Berøvelsen af USA’s mission, og derfor også af dets borgeres intellektuelle evner. Hendes kampagne har til formål at genoprette denne mission.

Titelfoto: Præsident Obama, Michelle Obama og vicepræsident Biden ser på NASA’s Lunar Electric Rover under indvielsesparaden i 2009. Af NASA/Bill Ingalls.

DOKUMENTATION:

Obama tilintetgør USA’s fremtid i rummet

10. februar 2016 – Barack Obamas budgetanmodning for NASA for budgetåret 2017 markerer første gang, NASA nogensinde er blevet skåret ned til under 0,5 % af statsbudgettet – under årene med JFK’s Apollo-program var dets andel af budgettet nær ved 5 %.

Ved at anmode om 19 mia. dollar til NASA skar Obama Kongressens bevilling til rumagenturet ned med 300 mio. dollar. Men han krævede endnu dybere nedskæringer inden for udforskning af »det ydre rum« og »planeter«, det område af NASA’s arbejde, hvorfra nationale missioner i fremtiden kunne vokse frem. Disse nedskæringer tilsammen var i størrelsesordenen 1 mia. dollar iflg. en gennemgang i USA Today.

I 2006 var NASA, på trods af års nedgang i ressourcerne, stadig i gang med at udarbejde planer for en Månebase med en fremtid med videnskabelig observation af universet og forberedelser til at udnytte Månen, inklusive som en potentiel fremskudt base for rejser til Mars. I nogle versioner af NASA’s planer skulle Månebasen ligger på bagsiden.

Dette skrottede Obama i 2009-10 ved at aflive Constellation-programmet og således gøre Månen utilgængelig på ubegrænset tid, og med en formel afvisning af det som mål.

Nu er Kina og Rusland de nationer, der planlægger robot- og menneskelig landing på Månen – muligvis som et samarbejde – anført af Kinas netop bebudede plan om at starte en base på Månens bagside i 2018-20.

Da Obama aflivede Constellation, hævdede han, at USA i en eller anden fremtid kunne rejse direkte til Mars med et nyt Space Launch System (SLS) og »Orion«-program. Nu, i FY2017-budgettet, afliver han dem i realiteten; han ville have gjort det allerede, hvis ikke Kongressen havde insisteret på at investere omkring 10 mia. dollar i SLS/Orion siden FY2011.

For SLS, f.eks., var Kongressens bevilling i FY2016 omkring 2 mia. dollar; Obama anmoder om 1,3 mia. dollar i FY2017.

Det, som Obama ønsker at øge i NASA’s budget, er »videnskaber om Jorden« – detektering af klimaforandringer, i hans syge grønne hjerne, til gavn for at drive menneskelig videnskab og teknologi tilbage til fortiden. Som EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, beskrev det, »Ved at annullere rumprogrammet, skruer du [Obama] historien tilbage i tiden.«

Formanden for Repræsentanternes Hus’ Videnskabskomite, Lamar Smith (R-TX), fordømte omgående Obamas budget i en udtalelse til Ars Technica, som et »ubalanceret forslag, der fortsat binder vore astronauters fødder til jorden og gør en Marsmission stort set umulig.«

Men den virkelige kamp vil komme, ikke fra nedskærings-forvirrede Republikanere, men fra aktivister med ledere som LaRouche-demokraten Kesha Rogers fra Texas, der to gange vandt primærvalgene til Kongressen med planen: »Red NASA: stil Obama for en rigsret.«

6. februar 2016 – NATO-forsvarsministre forventes at godkende planer om at deployere flere tropper i Polen og de Baltiske Stater under deres møde i Bruxelles i næste uge. Dette kommer i kølvandet på den amerikanske forsvarsminister Ashton Carters meddelelse den 2. feb. om, at USA ville fordoble sit buget for militærstyrker i Østeuropa. NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg hilste Carters plan velkommen og sagde, det ville betyde »flere tropper i alliancens østlige del … en fremskudt opstilling af udstyr, tanks, pansrede vogne … flere øvelser og mere investering i infrastruktur«. Antallet af amerikanske tropper, der flytter rundt i Østeuropa, forventes at stige fra omkring 600 i dag til omkring 4.000. En amerikansk embedsmand sagde til Wall Street Journal, at Obamaregeringen håber, at dens eksempel vil anspore andre NATO-medlemmer til at sende flere tropper til Østeuropa.

Ifølge nyhedsrapporteringer mødtes NATO-embedsmænd i Bruxelles i går for at begynde at sammensætte pakken, der forventes at inkludere et netværk af små, østlige poster, roterende styrker, regelmæssige krigsspil og lagerudstyr, klart til en hurtig responsstyrke, iflg. Reuters. Det inkluderer ikke permanente baser, som den polske højrefløjsregering har krævet, eftersom USA, Tyskland og Storbritannien er imod at krænke NATO-Ruslands-Akten fra 1997[1]. Det er ikke desto mindre planen, at disse roterende styrker skal være til stede i Østeuropa på ubestemt tid, og således opfatter russerne den planlagte deployering. »Som vi hører disse meddelelser fra USA, så skaber alt dette grundlag for at rulle militære planer imod Rusland ud og tage reelle, praktiske skridt til at fremrykke militær infrastruktur tættere til Ruslands grænser«, sagde talskvinde for det Russiske Udenrigsministerium Maria Zakharova den 4. feb.

[1] Til eftertanke: Indledningen til Akten fra 1997: Grundlæggende Akt om gensidige forbindelser, samarbejde og sikkerhed mellem NATO og Den Russiske Føderation blev undertegnet i Paris, Frankrig.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation og dens medlemsstater på den ene side og Den Russiske Føderation på den anden side, i det følgende benævnt NATO og Rusland, vil, baseret på et varigt politisk tilsagn på højeste politiske niveau, sammen bygge en varig og altomfattende fred i det euro-atlantiske område på principperne om demokrati og kooperativ sikkerhed. NATO og Rusland anser ikke hinanden som modstandere. De deler målet om at overvinde levn fra tidligere konfrontation og konkurrence, og om at styrke den gensidige tillid og det gensidige samarbejde. Den nuværende lov bekræfter ​​NATO’s og Ruslands beslutning om at give konkret indhold til deres fælles forpligtelse til at opbygge et stabilt, fredeligt og udelt Europa, helt og frit, til gavn for alle dets folk. At denne forpligtelse indgås på højeste politiske niveau markerer indledningen af et fundamentalt nyt forhold mellem NATO og Rusland. De har, på grundlag af fælles interesse, gensidighed og gennemsigtighed, til hensigt at udvikle et stærkt, stabilt og varigt partnerskab. Loven definerer mål og mekanisme for konsultation, samarbejde, fælles beslutningstagning og fælles indsats, der vil udgøre kernen i de gensidige forbindelser mellem NATO og Rusland. (-red.)

Foto: USA’s forsvarsminister Ashton Carter annoncerer det nye forsvarsbudget 2. februar 2016.

Det tilkommer jer, det amerikanske folk, at forstå og handle på den moralske fordel, der nu er blevet fremlagt gennem Kinas og Ruslands handlinger, især Kinas, og som repræsenterer en ny fremtid for menneskehedens fremskridt i rummet og gennem en »win-win«-strategi om samarbejde mellem alle nationer. Den vision, som Kina og dets rumprogram har fremlagt, om at udforske Månens bagside, blive de første til at lande der og gøre, hvad ingen nation hidtil har gjort, vil ikke alene være en stor sejr for Kina, men for hele menneskeheden.

Det var den samme vision, som USA repræsenterede gennem præsident John F. Kennedys vision og lederskab, da han i 1961 for nationen og hele verden fremlagde forpligtelsen til at landsætte en mand på Månen og bringe ham sikkert tilbage til Jorden.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

31. januar 2016 – Hej, alle sammen, jeg er Kesha Rogers fra LaRouche Komite for Politisk Strategi (LPAC), og jeg er her i dag ved NASA’s Johnson Space Center, hvor jeg var for seks år siden, da jeg lancerede en kampagne for Den amerikanske Kongres og krævede en rigsretssag mod præsident Barack Obama for hans nedbrydning og afmontering af det bemandede rumprogram, privatisering af det bemandede rumprogram og ødelæggelsen af det, der var vores nations vision under præsident John F. Kennedy. Det var Kennedys plan at gennemføre et forpligtende engagement for videnskab som reel drivkraft for økonomisk fremgang.

Det, vi har set i de seneste seks år under præsident Obama, og tidligere også under præsident Bush, er en fortsat degeneration af vores kultur; en håbløshed, og fortvivlelse. Vi har set et rekordhøjt tal og en stigning i selvmord, stigning i narkomisbrug blandt folk, der normalt er mere velhavende og velstillet, især blandt de mennesker, der ser på minoritetssamfund som dem, der ville være berørt af narkoepidemien; nu er det folk blandt den hvide befolkningsgruppe i aldersgrupperne 25 og 35 til 45 år.

Hvorfor er dette sket? Der er sket, fordi vi har fjernet en vision, vi har fjernet følelsen af at have en mission. Vi har ikke længere en videnskabelig drivkraft i nationen, og det skyldes præsident Barack Obamas bevidste politik, og den bevidste politik for ødelæggelse af denne nation gennem at kapitulere til Wall Street. Nu har vi så en situation, hvor vore unge mennesker befinder sig i dyb fortvivlelse og håbløshed.

Og det er ikke bare unge mennesker! Det er den kendsgerning, at denne nations befolkning ikke har nogen muligheder. Den største ulighed og ødelæggelse har ramt vores nation; hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er bankerot.

Hvad er løsningen? Kina har foreslået en løsning. Kina fremstår med visionen om en »win-win«-strategi med en stor mission for samarbejde, til beskuelse og inspiration for ikke alene Kina, ikke alene USA, men for hele verden, nemlig, at vi kan samarbejde om store projekter, såsom at minere Månen [for helium-3],[1] og atter betragte Månen som en affyringsrampe for hele udforskningen af rummet og forståelsen af menneskets rolle, menneskehedens rolle i galaksen. Det er gennem dette, at vi må inspirere mennesket.

Hvis vi gør dette, kan vi lukke Wall Street ned, og vi kan faktisk skaffe den nødvendige kredit, som det var Alexander Hamiltons hensigt, så vi ikke behøver at gå til Elon Musk eller nogen af disse folk med deres kæmpemæssige pengebank, der allerede er bankerot. Vi kan faktisk gøre det, Kennedy gjorde, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde, og vi kan anvende den nødvendige kredit til at opbygge et videnskabsdrevet program og atter opbygge en stor mission for denne nation.

Vi kan sørge for, at vore unge mennesker ikke tager deres eget liv, at de gives en vision med en ægte kultur. Dette videnskabsdrevne program ville sikre, at vi har energi til Jorden, med helium-3 fra Månen, i flere generationer fremover. Vi kan sørge for, at folk bliver inspireret ikke alene af et videnskabsdrevet program, men et, der er forbundet med en storslået kultur, en storslået musikkultur, som hr. LaRouche har lanceret i vores Manhattanprojekt i New York. Og vi kan forene disse to kræfter og atter give inspiration til forpligtelsen over for menneskehedens fremskridt, der engang var den håbets bavn, der inspirerede hele menneskeheden, og atter bringe USA tilbage i spidsen for denne form for vision.

Tak.

[1] Se: Tema-artikel: Udvinding af helium-3 på Månen for en menneskehed med fusionskraft, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=1894

LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast 29. jan. 2016.

Ved at genindføre Glass-Steagall gør man en ende på den idé, at der kommer nogen redning fra skatteborgernes penge (bail-out) til dette massive bjerg af ulovlig og illegitim gæld. Jeg siger ulovlig, fordi en af de største komponenter i denne gæld er de illegale fortjenester fra den internationale narkohandel og anden international kriminel aktivitet, der har fået lov at passere igennem de amerikanske banker som en del af hele Bush-Cheney-politikken først og nu, Obama-politikken. Så der er et kriminelt element i systemet i øjeblikket, der gør krisen i amerikanske husstande større ved at sprede afhængighed af narkotiske stoffer i et hidtil uset tempo over hele landet.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

14. januar 2016 – Kinas officielle regeringsavis Xinhua udgav i dag en respons til præsident Obamas årlige tale til Den amerikanske Kongres, af en af sine journalister, Liu Si.

»Tirsdagens svanesang for Barack Obamas præsidentskab var ikke imponerende«, skrev han, »ud over hans højtravende retorik – ’De forenede Stater er den mest magtfulde nation på Jorden’«.

Liu Si henviste til Obamas tema om »forandring« for syv år siden, men der var ikke mange forandringer som resultat: »For det første er der de to krige i Afghanistan og Irak, som Obama lovede at afslutte, da han tiltrådte i 2009. Dernæst er der indsatsen for en fredsproces mellem Israel og Palæstina.« I stedet ser vi »flere problemer i Mellemøsten – et samfund i forfald, endeløse konflikter, utallige flygtninge, opkomsten af Islamisk Stat og en fredsproces, der negligeres.« Han bemærker, at »militære aktioner ikke vil udrydde terrorister, med mindre Det Hvide Hus forfølger en anden orientering i sin udenrigspolitik og militærstrategi.«

Om Kina siger Liu Si, at »Obama i talen understregede, at det vil blive USA snarere end Kina, der vil fastsætte reglerne i Asien, i kontrast til Kinas idé om, at Stillehavet er stort nok til både at imødekomme Kina og USA«.

Han konkluderer: »Uanset, hvor meget Washington længes efter sine ’gode, gamle dage’, må det konfrontere den kendsgerning, at verden hastigt bevæger sig mod en multi-polær verden, og den falske stolthed med ’Amerika er førende i verden’ vil blot vise sig kontraproduktiv i USA’s interaktioner med resten af verden.«

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. januar 2016 – USA og verden står over for en umiddelbart forestående, alvorlig fare. Præsident Obamas Årlige tale til den amerikanske Kongres demonstrerede, at han er totalt ude af kontrol, sagde Lyndon LaRouche i dag. Talen var et komplet falsum, og enhver, der accepterer Obamas løgne, lægger USA åben for den totale ødelæggelse. På vegne af briterne er Obama rede til at sprænge USA totalt i luften. Denne mulighed er umiddelbart forestående. Spørgsmålet om Wall Street skal i realiteten dække over den kendsgerning, at USA som helhed gøres klar til folkemord. Dette er den britiske politik for folkemord, og den nuværende Pave er blevet grundigt narret ind i denne britiske intrige, hvis formål er folkemord.

Det er ikke bare Obama, der udfører drabene; Obama er blot førerhunden. Det er briterne – Det britiske Imperium.

Og selvfølgelig er folk bange; men de er måske ikke bange nok. Men hvorom alting er, så må vi sige, hvad vi skal sige.

Dette er hemmeligheden bag den massive COP21 »klimaforandringskonference« i Paris i november-december sidste år, med dens skønsmæssigt 50.000 deltagere, der repræsenterede 196 nationer. Men det var ikke muligt at nå frem til en bindende aftale – hvad var da konferencens formål? Formålet var en massiv erklæring om en plan for dette folkemord. Det var en samling af tropperne til det planlagte »store drab«. Det var Dødedansen.

Og samme Paves encyklika fra maj 2015 med et krav om, at menneskeheden skulle ofres for »klimaet«, var nøjagtig det samme. Denne Pave er kommet ind under britisk styrelse og kontrol; han bliver brugt i en britisk operation. Han begår forbrydelser.

Verdensomspændende terrorangreb udført af ISIS, som det britisk-saudiske yngel, det er, er præcis det samme – som vi så det i Paris, i Californien og nu i Jakarta – sidstnævnte som det første ISIS-angreb i Sydøstasien. Bombeangrebet den 12. jan. i Istanbul, Tyrkiet, hvis regering, der er kontrolleret af det Muslimske Broderskab, er venligtsindet over for ISIS, var særlig skummelt. Ofrene var tyske turister, og de tyske massemedier har åbenlyst kastet tvivl over den tyrkiske regerings redegørelse for deres undersøgelse. Tysk fjernsyn siger, at der »ingen beviser« er for den tyrkiske regerings påstand om, at de skulle have dræbt 200 ISIS-kæmpere over grænsen i Syrien som gengældelse.

Fremstødet for folkemord er rettet direkte mod det transatlantiske område. Det ledsages af den britiske trussel om at ødelægge Asien gennem krig. Det er, hvad Obama foretager sig i det vestlige Stillehavsområde; dette bliver totalt forstået af ruserne.

11. januar 2016 – På et forum, der fejrede 50-året for stiftelsen af Nationalkomiteen for Amerikansk-kinesiske Relationer, hvor 4 tidligere amerikanske forsvarsministre fremlagde et »tilbageblik« på USA-Kina-forholdet under deres embedsperiode, indgav Helga Zepp-LaRouche en dosis virkelighed i det, der var ved at blive en lovlig behagelig udveksling af synspunkter mellem kolleger i lighed med, hvad der måtte have fundet sted på dækket af Titanic, før skibet ramte isbjerget. Forsvarsministrene var Harold Brown, William Cohen, Chuck Hagel og (over video) William Perry. Alt imens spørgsmålet om atomvåben ikke var blevet bragt på bane, især af Perry, der tidligere har givet udtryk for stor bekymring over faren for atomvåbenspredning og faren for en atomar konflikt med Rusland, så manglede den fornemmelse for en nødsituation, der svarer til den virkelighed, vi i dag står overfor.

Alt imens mødelederen, formand for NCUSCR Steve Orlins, gjorde, hvad han kunne, for at finde en anden person end Helga til at stille det første spørgsmål, så lykkedes det hende at få taletid. Helga præsenterede sig som præsident for Schiller Instituttet.

»Der er mange militære eksperter på internationalt plan, der siger, at vi er nærmere en atomkrig, end vi var på højden af den Kolde Krig, af forskellige årsager«, sagde hun. »Hvis dette skulle indtræffe, ved et uheld eller på anden vis, så ville det føre til menneskehedens udslettelse. Der er mange andre destabiliserende faktorer. En af disse faktorer er, at Verdensbanken netop har sagt, at vi står foran den perfekte, politiske storm på grund af det nye finanskrak. EU står for at eksplodere over flygtningekrisen.« Vi har ISIS.

Her afbrød en temmelig utålmodig Orlins Helga, »Hvad er Deres spørgsmål?«, spurgte han.

Helga svarede: »Mit spørgsmål lyder, hvorfor kan vi ikke skabe et nyt paradigme, hvor vi besvarer præsident Xi Jinpings tilbud, som han gav til præsident Obama under APEC-mødet i 2014, og som gik ud på, at USA burde samarbejde om den Nye Silkevej i en win-win-strategi? I sin nytårstale gentog han, at vi må bygge et samfund for menneskehedens fælles bestemmelse. Hvorfor kan vi ikke bygge en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, der er baseret på fælles, økonomisk samarbejde?«

Den første til at svare var Harold Brown, der var forsvarsminister under Jimmy Carter.

»Det tror jeg, vi har gjort«, sagde han. »Jeg tror, tingene ville se meget værre ud, hvis vi ikke havde økonomisk samarbejde, men at sige, at man går ind for fred og samarbejde, er blot det allerførste skridt. Mekanikken i detaljerne betyder alt.«

Dernæst ønskede Bill Cohen at svare. Cohen sagde, at han ønskede, at Perry skulle tale om dette spørgsmål, men at han ville kommentere det på egne vegne. »Jeg mener, at vi er blevet for slappe i vores bekymring for atomvåben«, sagde han. »Jeg går tilbage til Churchill, der sagde, at, en dag ville vi vende tilbage til Stenalderen på videnskabens lysende vinger. Jeg tror, at det, vi ser med spredningen af atomvåben – Pakistan bygger flere og flere, Nordkorea bygger flere, Iran kunne meget vel bygge flere i en ikke så fjern fremtid. Så jeg mener, at denne eksistentielle trussel, såvel som også klimaforandringen, må få os til virkeligt at tænke eller gentænke, hvordan vi skal overleve på denne planet. For jeg mener, at truslen om spredning af atomvåben er langt større i dag, fordi flere og flere personer og radikale grupper forsøger at få fingre i dem. Det ville jeg sætte i sammenhæng med en generel arkitektur, som vi må bekymre os om, måske mere end tidligere, for vi havde rationelle regeringer, der håndterede dette spørgsmål, der er ved at komme dertil, hvor der er tale om at balancere på kanten af sikkerhed og mulig udslettelse.«

Dernæst fokuserede Orlins på spørgsmålet om terrorisme og ignorerede Cohens forslag om, at Perry skulle kommentere spørgsmålet (se supplerende rapport).

Mødet brev transmitteret live på C-Span, se http://www.c-span.org/video/?402996-1%2Fformer-defense-secretaries-uschina-relations&start=4626

Titelbillede: Helga Zepp-LaRouche præsenterer det Nye Paradigme med USA’s samarbejde om den Ny Silkevej, i National Press Club, Washington, D.C., den 27. oktober 2015. 

Supplerende dokumentation:

11. januar 2016 – Alt imens tidligere forsvarsminister William Perry ikke var helt så ligefrem, som han tidligere har været i spørgsmålet om faren for atomkrig (se 30. dec., ’Stands dette forbandede atomvåbenkapløb!’) under NCUSCR’s forum med deltagelse af tidligere forsvarsministre, og ikke fik lejlighed til, eller selv tog muligheden for at svare på Zepp-LaRouches afgørende spørgsmål, så indikerede han klart, at atomtruslen var nummer ét på hans dagsorden. Da mødelederen gennemgik en indkøbsliste over spørgsmål, som han anså for vigtige, spurgte han alle forsvarsministrene, om klimaforandring var en strategisk trussel!

»Ih, ja«, svarede på rad og række forsvarsministrene Brown, Cohen og Hagel. Perry understregede og brød således den »politiske korrekthed«, at han var langt mindre bekymret for noget, der muligvis ville blive et stort problem i 2030, end han var over atomtruslen, der er et spørgsmål om den yderste hastesag. Med hensyn til mulige »brændpunkter«, eller steder, hvor en opblussen af krig kunne finde sted, påpegede Perry specifikt det Sydkinesiske Hav som en mulig udløser af en konflikt.

»Kinesernes syn på det Sydkinesiske Hav er meget anderledes end vores«, sagde han og bemærkede, at de anser det for at være en del af deres territorium, hvorimod USA anser det for at være en del af de åbne (frie) have. »Dette sætter scenen for betydelige uoverensstemmelser, der kunne føre til konflikt.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Det, som FDR forstod og handlede på, var den fundamentale forpligtelse, der stadfæstes i Den amerikanske Forfatning, og som på enestående måde gives udtryk i Fortalen, nemlig, at de umiddelbare forholdsregler, der var nødvendige for at få folk ud af Den store Depressions elendighed, på samme tid måtte lægge grunden til fremskridt på længere sigt (redaktionens fremhævelse).

Han udtrykte det således: »Fra min regerings allerførste dag lå tryghed os lige så meget på sinde, som afstivning af bankerne, umiddelbar fremskaffelse af jobs og købekraftens forbedring. Vi er i rimeligt tempo kommet langt med genrejsningen; vi er ikke kommet så langt med reformerne i det samme tidsrum. Men her i foråret 1938 er reformer lige så påtrængende nødvendige, som de var i foråret 1933.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/EIR-juni-2015-Londons-mord-p%C3%A5-McKinley-lancerede-et-%C3%A5rhundrede-med-politiske-mord.pdf

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)