Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 8. januar, 2017 – Én dag efter den nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump mødtes med direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste James Clapper, chef for CIA John Brennan og chef for NSA Michael Rogers, der intenderede at overbevise ham om, at Rusland, og Putin personligt, er ude på at ødelægge det amerikanske, demokratiske system, udstedte nyvalgte præsident Trump en erklæring, der sandfærdigt identificerede Amerika og den amerikanske befolkning og frembød et konkret skridt hen imod løsningen:

»At have gode relationer med Rusland er en god ting, ikke en dårlig ting. Kun ’dumme’ mennesker, eller tåber, ville tænke, at det er dårligt! Vi har problemer nok i verden uden endnu ét. Når jeg bliver præsident, vil Rusland have meget mere respekt for os, end de nu har, og begge lande vil, måske, arbejde sammen for at løse nogle af de mange store og presserende problemer og spørgsmål i VERDEN.«

Denne sandhed kom til udtryk gennem LaRouches Schiller Institut i lørdags, i en smuk demonstration af det sande venskab mellem det amerikanske og russiske folk, som kan og må genetableres omgående. En mindebegivenhed blev afholdt ved Tåredråbemindesmærket i Bayonne, New Jersey – det mindesmærke, som blev skænket af den russiske regering for at ære de mennesker, der blev dræbt i terrorangrebene mod USA. (se: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Struggle_Against_World_Terrorism)

Ved begivenheden fremførte Schiller Instituttets Kor både Ruslands nationalhymne (på russisk) og USA’s nationalhymne (på engelsk), og der var også indlæg af New Yorks Politikorps’ Ceremonienhed; af den Russiske Føderations første, permanente vicerepræsentant til FN; forkvinde for 11/9-Familier Forenede for Juridisk Retfærdighed mod Terror; Bayonne Brandmandskorps; og Schiller Instituttet. Begivenheden fandt sted for at ære dem, der mistede livet i det russiske Tu-154 flystyrt juledag, og især de 64 medlemmer af Alexandrov Ensemblet (kendt som Den røde Armés Kor), som omkom på vej til Syrien for at dele deres musik og dedikation til kultur med det syriske folk. Se en 24 minutters video af begivenheden på https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fchk5m8HJe0&feature=youtu.be

Dræbermaskinen under Obama bruger også sine sidste dage i embedet til at underminere Trumps forpligtende engagement til at afslutte de kriminelle »regimeskiftkrige«, der har forvandlet de seneste 16 år under Bush og Obama til en æra med ondskab og blodsudgydelser uden fortilfælde i amerikansk historie, samtidig med et forsøg på at styre den nye administration gennem militære konfrontationer med både Rusland og Kina. Samtidig med, at Obama deployerede et enormt antal tanks, helikoptere og andet militærudstyr til den russiske grænse i Europa i løbet af weekenden, har han også deployeret atomhangarskibsgruppen U.S.S. Carl Vinson til Stillehavet, der er timet til at ankomme til asiatiske farvande i nærheden af Kina samme dag, som Trumps indsættelse finder sted. I Sydkorea har Obama fået autorisation fra præsident Park Geun-hyes regering – som selv konfronteres med en rigsretssag, der kunne gøre en ende på dens administration i løbet af få dage – der giver USA tilladelse til at etablere et 1000 til 2000 mand stort »drabsteam«, der har »opgaven at eliminere Pyongyangs krigskommando, inklusive Kim Jong-un, og paralysere dens funktioner«, ifølge Sydkoreas største nyhedstjeneste, Yonhap. En sådan provokation må både afsløres og afsluttes omgående.

Verden har kun to muligheder – økonomisk kollaps og verdenskrig under den imperiale sammenhæng, der udgøres af London/Wall Street, og som kontrollerede både Bush og Obama, eller også et revolutionært skifte, der reflekterer Amerikas historiske rødder i Alexander Hamiltons principper, og som gør det muligt for USA at tilslutte sig Rusland og Kina og deres fælles bestræbelse på at knuse terrorisme og samtidig opbygge moderne nationalstater gennem udviklingen med den Nye Silkevej, som Kina har lanceret.

LaRouche-organisationen er helt fokuseret på den presserende opgave, der konfronterer den nye Kongres og den nye præsident: implementer Glass-Steagall nu og knus således Wall Streets hasardspilsboble og genopliv Amerikas forpligtende engagement til videnskabens fremskudte grænser, og hæv således den produktive og kulturelle platform for alle amerikanere. En appel, der nu omdeles af LaRouchePAC, kræver, at Donald Trump lever op til sit kampagneløfte om at implementere Glass-Steagall og kræver, at han annoncerer dette i sin indsættelsestale og i sin Tale til Unionen (se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17198 ).

Vi befinder os i et af historiens enestående øjeblikke, hvor denne transformation er mulig, og nødvendig, for den menneskelige art som helhed.

»Underskriverne af dette brev føler stærkt, at det er nødvendigt at beskytte vores økonomi fra endnu et unødvendigt markedssammenbrud og en recession som den, vi oplevede i december, 2007. Med Deres indtræden i embedet er omstændighederne for et kollaps alt for lig dem, der eksisterede i 2007: stigende værdi af værdipapirer, sammen med en manglende adskillelse af bankvirksomhed, der er beskyttet af FDIC, og så højrisiko-investeringsaktivitet.

»Dette brev blev oprindeligt omdelt af en gruppe ved navn, ’Vores revolution i det nordvestlige Ohio, med et forpligtende engagement til at forene hele nationen. De har udstedt en opfordring til alle grupper – for eksempel, Tea Party, Republikanere, Demokrater, fagforeninger og erhvervslivet – til at komme sammen omkring det nødvendige, første skridt, som er vedtagelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven. Da deres indsats er i overensstemmelse med LaRouchePAC’s mål, cirkulerer vi det, som en del af en national mobilisering for en omgående vedtagelse af Glass/Steagall-loven i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og underskrevet og sat i kraft af præsident Trump.

På dette grundlag anmoder vi alle borgere om at samles omkring dette økonomiske program, som den eneste, reelle måde, hvorpå både den alvorlige, økonomiske og finansielle krise, efter årtiers ødelæggende politik, kan adresseres, såvel som også muligheden for storslået udvikling – som vi nu ser det i hele Asien og videre, med Kinas initiativ for den Nye Silkevej.«

Dernæst anmoder brevet:

»Underskriv denne appel; omdel den til jeres venner, familie og netværk. Hvert underskrevet eksemplar vil blive personligt overbragt til jeres kongresmedlem og senatorer. Som præsident Franklin Roosevelt erklærede i sin første indsættelsestale: ’Denne nation kræver handling, og handling nu.’«

Teksten til dette åbne brev er som det følgende. Det bærer titlen,

»Åbent brev til Donald Trump og til alle medlemmerne af Kongressen«; dato januar 2017.

»Underskriverne af dette brev føler stærkt, at det er nødvendigt at beskytte vores økonomi fra endnu et unødvendigt markedssammenbrud og en recession som den, vi oplevede i december, 2007. Med Deres indtræden i embedet er omstændighederne for et kollaps alt for lig dem, der eksisterede i 2007: stigende værdi af værdipapirer, sammen med en manglende adskillelse af bankvirksomhed, der er beskyttet af FDIC, og så højrisiko-investeringsaktivitet.

Vi bifalder [præsident Trumps] kampagneudtalelse i Charlotte, North Carolina, 26. okt., 2016, hvor han støttede et krav om ’En Glass/Steagall-version for det 21. århundrede’, og om en genindførelse af en moderne Glass/Steagall-lov. Vi har tillid til, at De forstår, at en stabilisering af erhvervsklimaet og en sikring af de værdier, der er adskilt fra Wall Streets spekulation, er af afgørende betydning for velstand under Deres administration.

For at slå tonen for drøftelser i Kongressen i 2017 an, anmoder vi om, at [præsident Trump] gentager [sin] støtte til Glass/Steagall-loven i sin Tale til Unionen.

De kan være forvisset om, at, med denne handling, vil De finde fælles fodslag med både Republikanere og Demokrater; siden begge partiers politiske programerklæringer indeholder støtte til en banklovgivning, der adskiller forsikrede konti fra Wall Street spekulation, i de respektive partiers politiske programmer.

Vi takker Dem for Deres respons til krav fra borgere, folk fra erhvervslivet, bankierer og kongresmedlemmer, på vores vej frem. [Med en opfordring til, at Glass/Steagall-loven vedtages i både USA’s Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og at loven underskrives og sættes i kraft af den tiltrædende præsident, Donald Trump, underskriver de følgende personer:]«

(Foto: Donald Trump ved et kampagnemøde i Newtown, Bucks County, PA, fredag, 21. okt., 2016.)

Vi befinder os i en nedtællingsperiode; vi er i de sidste to uger, før overgangen til det nye præsidentskab. Om præcis to uger fra i dag er det indsættelsesdag, den 20. januar, og vi vil have en ny præsident i dette land. Som I ved, hvis I var med i går på Fireside Chat på LaRouchePAC’s hjemmeside, og hvis I har fået vore daglige og ugentlige e-mailopdateringer, så er vi engageret i en stor mobilisering. Det er vores ansvar, og jeres ansvar, at skabe dagsordenen for dette tiltrædende præsidentskab. Det må være vores holdning, at 2017 er året for den Nye Silkevej, året for det Nye Paradigme internationalt, året for en genoplivelse af Alexanders Hamiltons ideer, og for Lyndon LaRouches ideer. I USA betyder det, at Glass-Steagall omgående må vedtages; må sættes på dagsordenen; må underskrives og sættes i kraft som lov af den nye præsident. Dette vil ikke ske af sig selv; der er intet internt momentum, der vil gøre det muligt for dette at ske, mens vi læner os tilbage og kigger på. Som det hele tiden har været tilfældet, så vil dette kun ske på baggrund af en ekstraordinær mobilisering fra aktivisters side, i hele USA. Et meget vigtigt initiativ er blevet taget af en gruppe aktivister fra det nordlige Ohio; og LaRouchePAC vil udgive et åbent brev eller en pamflet, som skal forstærke og opmuntre mobiliseringen omkring dette initiativ.

Jeg vil indlede vores udsendelse med at læse LaRouchePAC’s introduktion i denne pamflet, og derefter oplæse lidt af teksten i dette åbne brev. Det lyder som følger:

»Dette brev blev oprindeligt omdelt af en gruppe ved navn, ’Vores revolution i det nordvestlige Ohio, med et forpligtende engagement til at forene hele nationen. De har udstedt en opfordring til alle grupper – for eksempel, Tea Party, Republikanere, Demokrater, fagforeninger og erhvervslivet – til at komme sammen omkring det nødvendige, første skridt, som er vedtagelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven. Da deres indsats er i overensstemmelse med LaRouchePAC’s mål, cirkulerer vi det, som en del af en national mobilisering for en omgående vedtagelse af Glass/Steagall-loven i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og underskrevet og sat i kraft af præsident Trump.

På dette grundlag anmoder vi alle borgere om at samles omkring dette økonomiske program, som den eneste, reelle måde, hvorpå både den alvorlige, økonomiske og finansielle krise, efter årtiers ødelæggende politik, kan adresseres, såvel som også muligheden for storslået udvikling – som vi nu ser det i hele Asien og videre, med Kinas initiativ for den Nye Silkevej.«

Dernæst anmoder brevet:

»Underskriv denne appel; omdel den til jeres venner, familie og netværk. Hvert underskrevet eksemplar vil blive personligt overbragt til jeres kongresmedlem og senatorer. Som præsident Franklin Roosevelt erklærede i sin første indsættelsestale: ’Denne nation kræver handling, og handling nu.’«

Teksten til dette åbne brev er som det følgende. Jeg læser det i sin helhed, fordi vi støtter dette initiativ. Det bærer titlen, »Åbent brev til Donald Trump og til alle medlemmerne af Kongressen«; dato januar 2017.

»Underskriverne af dette brev føler stærkt, at det er nødvendigt at beskytte vores økonomi fra endnu et unødvendigt markedssammenbrud og en recession som den, vi oplevede i december, 2007. Med Deres indtræden i embedet er omstændighederne for et kollaps alt for lig dem, der eksisterede i 2007: stigende værdi af værdipapirer, sammen med en manglende adskillelse af bankvirksomhed, der er beskyttet af FDIC, og så højrisiko-investeringsaktivitet.

Vi bifalder [præsident Trumps] kampagneudtalelse i Charlotte, North Carolina, 26. okt., 2016, hvor han støttede et krav om ’En Glass/Steagall-version for det 21. århundrede’, og om en genindførelse af en moderne Glass/Steagall-lov. Vi har tillid til, at De forstår, at en stabilisering af erhvervsklimaet og en sikring af de værdier, der er adskilt fra Wall Streets spekulation, er af afgørende betydning for velstand under Deres administration.

For at slå tonen for drøftelser i Kongressen i 2017 an, anmoder vi om, at [præsident Trump] gentager [sin] støtte til Glass/Steagall-loven i sin Tale til Unionen.

De kan være forvisset om, at, med denne handling, vil De finde fælles fodslag med både Republikanere og Demokrater; siden begge partiers politiske programerklæringer indeholder støtte til en banklovgivning, der adskiller forsikrede konti fra Wall Street spekulation, i de respektive partiers politiske programmer.

Vi takker Dem for Deres respons til krav fra borgere, folk fra erhvervslivet, bankierer og kongresmedlemmer, på vores vej frem. [Med en opfordring til, at Glass/Steagall-loven vedtages i både USA’s Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og at loven underskrives og sættes i kraft af den tiltrædende præsident, Donald Trump, underskriver de følgende personer:]«

Så igen, dette er en appel, der cirkuleres af en gruppe aktivister; mange af dem var oprindeligt tilknyttet Bernie Sanders kampagne i det nordlige Ohio. Men det er en tværpolitisk gruppe ved navn »Vores revolution« med hjemsted i det nordlige Ohio, og som nævnt i pamflettens indledende afsnit, så er LaRouchePAC enige i dette initiativ; og dette er ét aspekt af vores nationale mobilisering for at tvinge Glass-Steagall på dagsordenen i de 14 dage, der er til indsættelsen af den nye præsident. Dette må selvfølgelig ske i sammenhæng med den fulde vedtagelse af programmet for LaRouches Fire Love; dette adresseredes af en resolution, der blev vedtaget af staten Illinois’ delstatskongres i juni sidste år, 2016, med titlen, »Appel til Kongressen om at vedtage Loven om Amerikas Økonomiske Genrejsning«, og som nævner de fire elementer i LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love – Glass-Steagall; statslig bankvirksomhed efter Hamiltons princip; statslige kreditter til forøgelse af den produktive arbejdsstyrke i USA; og en tilbagevenden til et forceret rumprogram, med videnskab som drivkraft, og et forceret program for opnåelse af fusionsteknologi, og så fremdeles.

Så jeg siger det ligeud, at vi har 14 dage; vi befinder os i en nedtælling. Obama-administrationen er for afgående, og den nye administration tiltræder. Som vi ser på mange fronter, så befinder USA sig virkelig i et opgør netop nu om, hvad det nye præsidentskab vil blive; intet er afgjort. Vi ved dog, at der er hysteri mange steder, som de ses af de deciderede angreb på den tiltrædende præsident fra førende medlemmer af efterretningssamfundet; virkelig et uhørt niveau af angreb, giftigheder fra James Clapper og andre i deres beretninger for kongressen. Jeg tror ikke, vi har set dette tidligere i historien; og det står klart, at hysteriet opstår omkring den kendsgerning, at der er udsigt til et dramatisk skift i vores udenrigspolitik. [Dette skift] defineres mest af den kendsgerning, at den tiltrædende præsident har erklæret, at vi ikke vil indtage en holdning med krigskonfrontation med Rusland; hvilket har været de sidste otte års politik med Obama, hvis ikke mere. Så der er et stort potentiale mht. USA’s forhold til et paradigmeskift, til en dynamik, der er under forandring, på verdensscenen; men meget er fortsat uafgjort. Det er vores ansvar at tvinge Glass-Steagall/Hamilton-programmet på dagsordenen i løbet af de næste 14 dage.

For at kunne gennemføre dette, har vi brug for et langt dybere niveau af forståelse hos den amerikanske befolkning som helhed, og især hos de ledende borgeraktivister i dette land, en forståelse af, hvor Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske politik kommer fra, og hvad den større dybsindighed bag denne politik er. Vi erklærer hermed, at år 2017 vil blive et år, hvor disse ideers større dybsindighed bliver udviklet og forstået; meget lig den måde, hvorpå vi i løbet af de seneste måneder har haft en aktivering omkring en forståelse af Alexander Hamiltons ideer, med en tilbagevenden til hans politik, hans originale rapporter [til Kongressen] om statsbankvirksomhed, om producenter og så videre. Det er denne form for fordybelse og undersøgelse af den fysiske økonomis grundlæggende principper, der vil gøre dette initiativ succesfuldt og gøre det muligt for os at hæve niveauet mht. vores involvering i skabelsen af dette Nye Paradigme på verdensscenen.

Det vil Ben [Deniston] uddybe lidt nærmere; men dette er i realiteten en appel om handling og om mobilisering for at komme godt i gang med dette i det nye år.

(Her følger udskrift af hele webcastet på engelsk):

 MAKE 2017 THE YEAR OF LAROUCHE'S IDEAS! CHANGE YOUR CONCEPT OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast, January 6, 2017

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's January 6, 2017. Happy
New Year! This is our first Friday evening webcast of the new year from larouchepac.com.

My name is Matthew Ogden, and joining
me in the studio is Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team; and two members of our Policy Committee joining us over
video. Kesha is joining us from Houston, Texas; and Rachel is
joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
        We are in a countdown period; this is the final two weeks of
the Presidential transition.  Exactly two weeks from today is
Inauguration Day, January 20th, and we will have a new President
in this country.  As you know, on the LaRouche PAC website, if
you were on the activist call last night, the Fireside Chat, if
you've been receiving our daily and weekly email updates; we are
engaged in a major mobilization.  It is our responsibility, and
it is your responsibility, to shape the agenda of this incoming
Presidency.  We have to have the attitude that 2017 is the year
of the New Silk Road, the year of the New Paradigm
internationally, the year of the revival of Alexander Hamilton,
and the year of the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.  What that means
immediately in the United States is that Glass-Steagall must
immediately be adopted; must be put on the agenda; must be signed
into law by the new President.  This is not going to happen on
its own; there is no internal momentum which is going to allow
this to happen while we sit back and watch.  Just as has been the
case all along, this is only going to happen from an
extraordinary mobilization by activists from all across the
United States.  A very important initiative has been taken by a
group of activists in northern Ohio; and LaRouche PAC is issuing
an open letter or leaflet which is meant to amplify and encourage
the mobilization around this initiative.
        I'm going to begin our broadcast by just reading the
LaRouche PAC introduction, and then some of the text of this open
letter.  This reads as follows:
        "This letter was originally distributed by a group entitled
'Our Revolution' in northwest Ohio, with a commitment to unify
the whole nation.  They have issued a call to all groups — for
example, the Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats, labor, and
business — to rally around the necessary first step of passing
Glass-Steagall legislation.  As their effort is consistent with
the aims of LaRouche PAC, we are circulating this as part of a
national mobilization for the immediate passage of Glass-Steagall
legislation by the House and the Senate; to be signed into law by
President Trump.
        "On this page, we are asking every citizen to rally around
this economic program as the only effective way to address both
the dire economic and financial crisis after decades of
destructive policies, as well as the potential for great
development — as we now see throughout Asia and beyond, with
China's New Silk Road initiative."
        So it asks, "Sign this petition; share it with your friends,
family, and networks.  Each signed copy will be hand-delivered to
your Congressman and Senators.  As President Franklin Roosevelt
stated in his first inaugural address, 'This nation asks for
action, and action now.'"
        Now the text of this open letter is as follows.  I'm going
to read it in full, because we're encouraging this initiative.
It is entitled "Open Letter to Donald Trump and to All Members of
Congress"; dateline January 2017.
        "We the undersigned strongly feel the need for protecting
our economy from another unnecessary market crash and recession
like the one experienced in December of 2007.  As you take
office, the conditions for a collapse are too similar to those of
2007: rising asset values together with a lack of separation
between FDIC insured banking and risk-investment brokering.

        "We applaud [President Trump’s] campaign statement in
Charlotte, North Carolina, October 26, 2016, endorsing a call for
'A 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall,' and reintroducing a
modern day Glass-Steagall Act.  We trust that you understand that
stabilizing the business climate and securing the assets as
separate from Wall Street speculation is a key to prosperity
during your administration.

        "To set the tone of discourse in Congress 2017, we ask that
[President Trump] restate [his] support for a Glass-Steagall Act
during [the] State of the Union address.

        "Be assured in doing so, you will find common ground with
both the Republicans and the Democrats; since both party
platforms have the support of banking legislation that separates
insured accounts from Wall Street speculation in their respective
platforms.

        "Thank you for responding to the call from citizens,
businesspersons, bankers and legislators as we move forward. [In
urging that Glass-Steagall legislation be passed in both the
House and the Senate of the U.S. Congress, and signed into law by
incoming President Donald Trump, we are the undersigned:]"

        So again, this is a petition which is being circulated by a
group of activists; many of whom were originally associated with
the Bernie Sanders campaign in northern Ohio. But it's a
non-partisan group called "Our Revolution" based in northern
Ohio, and as we said in the introductory paragraph, LaRouche PAC
finds common cause with this initiative; and this is one aspect
of our national mobilization to force Glass-Steagall onto the
agenda in the 14 days between now and the inauguration of the new
Presidency.  Of course, this also has to go along with the full
enactment of the LaRouche Four Laws program; this was addressed
by a resolution which was adopted by the Illinois state
legislature in June of last year, 2016, which was called "Call
Upon Congress to Enact the American Recovery Act" and this cites
the four elements of LaRouche's Four Economic Laws — Glass
Steagall; national banking in a Hamiltonian form; Federal credit
to increase the productive labor force in the United States; and
a return to a crash science driver program for space, fusion
technology, and so forth.
        So again, I'll just say right off the bat, we have 14 days;
we are in a countdown.  The Obama administration will be exiting
and the new administration will be coming in.  As we can see on
many fronts, the United States is really in a showdown right now
for what the new Presidency will be; nothing is defined.  We {do}
know that there is hysteria in many quarters, as can be seen by
the outright attacks on the incoming President by the leading
members of the intelligence community; really an unprecedented
level of attack, vitriol from James Clapper and others in
Congressional testimony.  I think this has not been seen before
in history; and it's clear that the hysteria is coming around the
fact that there is a dramatic change in our foreign policy on the
horizon.  Defined mostly by the fact that the incoming President
has declared that we will not be in a war-confrontation posture
with Russia; which has been the policy of the last eight years of
the Obama administration if not before.  So, there's a lot of
potential in terms of the relationship of the United States to a
changing paradigm, to a changing dynamic on the world stage; but
a lot remains undefined.  It's our responsibility to force the
Glass-Steagall Hamiltonian program onto the agenda in the next 14
days.
        Now in order to do that, we are going to require a much
deeper level of comprehension among the American population as a
whole, and especially among the leading citizen-activists of this
country, of where Lyndon LaRouche's economic policies come from
and what the deeper profundity is behind this policy.  We are
declaring that 2017 is going to be a year in which the deeper
profundity of these ideas is developed and understood; much in
the way that we had an activation around understanding the ideas
of Alexander Hamilton in the last few months with a return to his
policies, his original reports on national banking, on
manufactures, and so forth.  It's this kind of delving deep and
researching the essential principles of physical economics which
is going to make this initiative successful and allow us to raise
the bar in terms of our involvement in creating this New Paradigm
on the world stage.
        So, I think Ben might have a little more to say on that
subject; but we're really approaching this as sort of a call to
action and a mobilization to get the new year off to this kind of
start.

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  The key point is that Mr. LaRouche has
defined the scientific standard for a recovery of the United
States; that's true, but more fundamentally, for the future of
mankind.  His work in defining a more rigorous science — he
definitely drew upon the work of Hamilton and followers of
Hamilton — but he made a completely revolutionary discovery in
terms of what is the actual hard, physical science underlying
human progress, underlying economics.  One area that we're doing
some work on, this is kind of a critical convergence point in the
fight around understanding these issues, is what people call
infrastructure.  It's become a kind of hot, popular word;
everyone just says it.  Republicans say it, Democrats say it;
it's become kind of a buzz word as some people have said.  It's
as American as apple pie at this point; everyone talks about how
great infrastructure is.  I think Schwarzenegger even struggled
to pronounce it once or twice in California.  But do people know
what it actually means?  That's a fight that Mr. LaRouche has
waged in the recent years, that people don't understand what the
real significance of full-scale, integrated infrastructure
systems is.  You're not going to define what's needed in terms of
the next level of infrastructure if you're not operating from the
standpoint of an insight into the role this actually plays in
revolutionary economic progress.  You can have a lot of
discussions about how we need to rebuild this, this is decaying,
our water systems — the American Society of Civil Engineers I
think it is, puts out this report card, and you can just run
through it on the infrastructure systems and it's just
horrendous.  The water leakage, the transportation systems being
run down, the power systems, the locks and dams that are ready to
bust.  But the issue is not just repairing all of those things;
the issue is infrastructure mediates a process by which mankind
is able to initiate completely unique and revolutionary
self-transformations in mankind's very nature of his relationship
to the natural world, so-called.  Mr. LaRouche pioneered key
metrics of this with his work on potential relative population
density, for example; and actually examining how we can quantify
and understand the fundamental nature of human economic progress.
One starting point might be if you just take the standpoint of
ecology; ecology is a general idea of studying a species'
relation to an environment.  If you apply that to species, you're
able to define certain characteristics of what that species is;
not just by its color, or size, or mass, but by how it relates to
the natural world — to the biosphere around it.  That as much
defines that species as its other characteristics.
        So, it's a general study for life that has validity.  But
what happens when you apply that to mankind?  You don't get any
fixed metric; mankind is not defined by any particular ecological
relationship to the environment.  What you see that distinguishes
mankind is something fascinating; that mankind actually changes
those metrics.  Mankind's very nature is the fact that he can
fundamentally change his relationship with the natural world
through his own actions and the actions of society.  You can
measure this in terms of what Mr. LaRouche defined as the metric
of potential relative population density.  If you take any animal
species, you can have some idea of a carrying capacity, a maximum
potential population that could be sustained for that species in
an environment in the biosphere as a whole, for example.  You can
apply similar studies for mankind, and you can define — maybe in
broad strokes — certain boundary conditions for the number of
people the planet can sustain.  But those change; and that's the
most fascinating thing.  Mankind changes those characteristics.
Today, we have 7-8 billion people on the planet; hopefully
increasing now that we have some order in the world moving in a
better direction.  You go back to society 1000 years ago, you
could not have supported that level of population in the
conditions of human society back at that time.  Today, you can;
and if we win, tomorrow we'll be able to support a whole lot
more.
        What drives that? This concept is critical right now,
because especially in the West in the United States, people have
really gone full on board with this zero-growth idea. The very
fundamental concept of completely revolutionizing our society as
a whole to support an order-of-magnitude higher population,
completely revolutionary technological development — that should
be natural; that's not in most people's minds today.
        But that's infrastructure! That's what infrastructure is.
Infrastructure is an expression of defining how mankind creates a
system by which he relates to the natural world. I think some of
Mr. LaRouche's work on this is really worth digging into a lot
more. He took his understanding of potential relative population
density to some degree to a new level with this concept of the
physical-economic platform, as a proper understanding of what
"infrastructure" really is. He laid out this amazing insight into
the arc of human development as expressed in a motion between
successive physical-economic platforms. He said go back as far as
we have records of civilized humanity, to what is sometimes
called "pre-history," and certain insights into very ancient
intercontinental ocean maritime civilization that was very
sophisticated. It could travel the world much earlier than most
modern academics admit.
        The very nature of that society was defined by mankind's
relation to the ocean systems and to the coastal regions. That
kind of defined a certain boundary condition for the potential
relative population density, the state of the society globally at
that time. And then you had a complete revolution with the
beginning development of inland water systems. That became a
means by which — and the technologies associated with being able
to do that, and the energy-flux densities associated with being
able to do that — that defined a means by which an entire region
of the planet, of the natural world, which was just not
accessible to human development, became accessible to human
development. People could go to these places; you could walk
inland, but you couldn't support a city there. You couldn't
support society there, you couldn't support a growing population
there; it wasn't part of the domain of the influence of mankind.
With the development of these inland waterway systems — and Mr.
LaRouche points to the work of Charlemagne in particular as
really pioneering this — this was a revolution in mankind's
ecology (if you want to call it that), in his ability to interact
with the natural world in a completely new way.
        But it didn't end there! Then you had the development of
rail systems. Now you're not just limited to certain rivers and
man-made canal systems and waterways. Now you can bring, with
rail — and again, the associated leaps in physical-chemistry,
materials sciences, energy-flux density obviously with moving
into new fuel sources: steam engines and these sorts of things —
now you open up the inland territories in a completely new way,
in a way that was never …

        OGDEN: Rail corridors are almost like artificial rivers —
places where you didn't have the means of navigation, but now all
of a sudden you have this rail corridor which allows you to open
up areas that are not even accessible through water.

        DENISTON: Yeah, absolutely! Once again, you have a complete
transformation in what territories, what areas are accessible to
real human development. Mr. LaRouche said the next step is really
high-speed rail systems; magnetic levitation, other advanced
high-speed rail; also inter-continental connections. You're
integrating the whole world in a very high-speed transportation
system; which is being pursued now by what China's leading, with
the New Silk Road program. We could spend hours going through all
the spin-offs of that that are really taking us closer and closer
to this full World Land-Bridge proposal. But that is really the
pursuit — the development of this next platform that Mr.
LaRouche had defined. The next one, really beyond that, is space,
and we should be looking to that.
        But the thing is, people have to understand infrastructure
is not something you measure just by the payback you get from it
itself. It's not a cost you have to pay for by the direct
immediate service. It pays you! It pays society. It's what
supports the ability, for again, these kind of revolutionary
changes. These issues are usually banalized by discussions, just
by using the term "infrastructure." Take transportation systems.
When mankind goes through revolutionary changes in his
transportation systems, people reduce it to "just getting
somewhere quicker." You're literally changing the physical
space-time relationship of mankind; individuals, but also
productive processes. A day means something completely different
in the context of an integrated high-speed rail system, maglev
system, than it did in the prior platform. What does "one day"
mean? It means now you can have access to a much greater
territory, various types of productions, various specialized
regions that were not accessible in that same timeframe, or maybe
for the same processes. Now they become accessible to you.
        You're talking about revolutionary leaps in the very
fundamental character of mankind's interaction with the natural
world. That has to be the standard. We're not going to have a
recovery by rebuilding what we had before. We need to fix things
that need to be fixed; but it needs to be done in the process of
creating this next higher stage that's going to support, again, a
completely new level of existence. We have a critical role in
elevating the discussion to that level. Because you take
transportation, you take water management — another key issue —
it's pretty obvious and simple. Mankind takes desert regions and
then they become flourishing, green bastions of life. The
greenies out there don't like water projects, they don't like
green; they don't want to actually have increased plant growth.
It's insane. If you look at the kind of water management systems
we can be developing, you take entire territories that are just
devoid, pretty much, of life; and we could make them into very
productive, accessible regions. You combine that with a real
driver for fusion power, nuclear power, a full nuclear economy;
and you're defining a future of mankind which can have the same
relation to how we view society presently, as we might look back
to the 1850s or something.
        That's how we should be thinking! That also defines the
space program on a completely new level. Space doesn't always
have to be this super-expensive niche area that only a few things
can be done in, but it's left to this exciting side-part of
society. It's going to become an integrated part of human
activity more and more, if we pursue these natural qualities of
human progress.

        OGDEN: What you said in the beginning about these platforms
of infrastructure being measured, not by the money that it
returns, or the tax revenue, or something, but by, literally, the
metric of how have you changed your carrying capacity, how have
you changed your potential relative population density for a
given area.
        You can think about that in the negative. If you didn't have
that sort of transportation infrastructure to bring the food to
the cities, if you didn't have the sanitation infrastructure, if
you didn't have the water management, if you didn't have the
electricity infrastructure; think about how quickly your
population your population level would collapse. Think about how
quickly you would lose the current carrying capacity of a given
land area; and how you would move backwards in what you were able
to support in terms of population density.
        That is the metric for any given platform, and how you
quantify one platform to the next. It needs to be seen as that
sort of metric of potential relative population density. The
other thing to think about is the fact that over the last 40-50
years, we've had access to technologies which really should have
revolutionized our economy, but for one reason or another, have
not. We have yet to reach full saturation, in terms of nuclear
power. We have yet to reach full saturation, in terms of
high-speed rail — rail for that matter — but high-speed rail.
We have yet to fully exploit even what our capabilities were, in
terms of space exploration. Coming up in two years, in July 2019,
we're going to be observing the 50th anniversary of man landing
on the Moon, and we haven't even been back to the Moon for 45
years; let alone have we gone where we should have gone, as was
envisaged at the time that Kennedy created the mission to put a
man on the Moon. We have yet to exploit and yet to follow
through, even on the level of technology that we had {then}, let
alone using that as the diving board to leap off and to get to
the next platform of what we should have achieved.

        KESHA ROGERS: What you're talking about, what we're speaking
about, is not just inter-continental development; we're talking
about inter-galactic development. I think it's important to go
back to, again, making 2017 the year of Lyndon LaRouche's ideas,
which have completely shaped and transformed the planet, to this
very point. I think it's important that we really draw out the
conception that what Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws and the
foundation of his work behind those Four Laws, really do, is to
take away the power of the oligarchy and of this British imperial
system which has been involved in the destruction of nations and
of bringing down the potential for real scientific progress of
mankind to flourish. LaRouche's Four Laws takes away the power of
the oligarchy to push through their policy of population
reduction.
        The idea that Mr. LaRouche has founded his science of
physical-economy on, is, in essence, to take the idea from
Genesis 1:28. That is, the prerogative of mankind to multiply and
subdue and replenish the Earth. This is what the oligarchy has a
problem with; this is what the British imperial system doesn't
want to see happen. I think that what Mr. LaRouche has continued
to define — even before the question of infrastructure came out
— he really coined and developed this conception of a true
science of physical-economy, which is the basis of what was
established and what was really at the center of the human
creative mind of Alexander Hamilton's works — the definitions
that were defined in Hamilton's understanding of a national
banking policy and a credit policy.
        But even with that, it's not as understood as what Mr.
LaRouche has been able to take up, as you just said, Ben, in the
beginning. How is it that society has been able to get to a point
where we have over 7 billion people on the planet? Without the
breakthroughs in technological and scientific leaps of making new
discoveries and bringing new principles into the domain of the
organization of society, we would not have ever gone from a
coal-burning society. We would not have ever developed the
capability where right now, despite the fact that the British
oligarchy and their puppets like Obama want to hold mankind back
from the development and the complete breakthroughs which are
necessary in fusion technologies, in advancing mankind into
taking up a new leap in fusion development; we are now on the
verge of doing that, because of what has been set forth in the
potential for international cooperation and relations.
        So, I think we're saying we are now in an urgent
mobilization to put on the table the immediate economic solutions
that the newly-elected President Donald Trump must take up.
First of all, there has to be a crash educational on getting the
American people and getting the leadership of this nation —
Congressional leaders and others — to understand that economics
is not what you were taught in your 101 classes in college, of
macro- and micro-economics and following the charts of the Wall
Street market status of where the markets were taking you.  The
question of economics is on this question of the power of the
individual human mind to make new discoveries that are going to
increase and actually develop new capabilities for replenishing,
multiplying, and creating a more fruitful society.  I think
that's what has been missing, now that the buzz-words that are
thrown around as you said — "infrastructure" — they don't have
a real human foundation to go with them.  How are you going to
build infrastructure if you don't have a productive labor force?
This is what Mr. LaRouche has laid out in some of the
fundamentals and the foundations of his educationals in
economics.  The power of labor and the science of physical
economy start with the fact that at the core of economics is the
human mind, and are human beings.  The productive capabilities of
human beings which have been destroyed.  That's going to be the
challenge to President-elect Trump; and what he really has a
challenge of doing right now, which is something which has not
been done in a very long time.  Not really since the foundation
of our nation under Alexander Hamilton.  What Hamilton, what
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to create, was really a new
economic system; that's what we're challenging and educating on.
This is not just about passing a piece of legislation and
separating the banking system by putting forth Glass-Steagall.
LaRouche has laid out the metrics to create a new economic system
that is going to be a system based on the development of the U.S.
potential for increasing our productivity and productive powers
of labor in collaboration with international relations which are
absolutely fundamental right now.  It's not going to happen, as
has been pointed out in many cases already, without very concrete
and prominent cooperation with leading nations such as Russia and
China.  We can come back to some of that, but I just wanted to
make those points at present.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY:  Listening to this discussion and
participating in it, it's just very fresh and optimistic compared
to what you hear everywhere else in the media.  I think it's just
there for 2017 — we're entering a new year — to take it upon
ourselves, for every person viewing this webcast to take it upon
themselves to really live these ideas and grow by it.  To see
your life not just as trying to pay the bills and survive in a
British mode of existence in our current culture; but to realize
that this is the way the Universe operates.  I think it's just
very fresh and exciting; people should not just view it as
something that they watch and support; but really figure out how
you can do more yourself as a person to make this happen.  It's
not just going to come from Trump.  We support what he's done in
the positive, and he deserves all support of the population at
this time; but we also have to look at this from LaRouche's work,
as has been discussed.  And as Helga LaRouche has really
emphasized, this has to really be the year of LaRouche's ideas.
We need to recognize that we're in a cycle of history which is a
larger arc of history, which is created by ideas which actually
had no physical existence — had no color, had no weight — but
are having an effect.
        Just for the sake of this idea of the Year of LaRouche, I'll
just read a short section from his paper from 2006 called "Saving
the U.S. Economy".  He says:  "The most common failure of
economists and others today is their inclination to view economic
and cultural cycles incompetently from the standpoint of
Cartesian or Cartesian-like mechanistic statistical projections.
That method is easily recognized as the common failure of
generally-accepted economic forecasting today.  However, a still
deeper problem presents itself.  Actual cycles in history are
never determined in the way which mechanical, statistical methods
tend to imply.  Actual cycles of importance are, as I have said,
dynamical rather than mechanistic; and may be compared on that
account with the notion of astronomical cycles as Johannes Kepler
first, uniquely, introduced those conceptions into modern
physical science in his {Mysterium Cosmographicum} and {The New
Astronomy}.  The proper term for astronomical-like cycles in
history is again, Riemannian.  The notion of a Riemannian rather
than a statistical conception of forecasting of economy is of
crucial importance for those among us engaged in providing a
genuine physical economic recovery from those quicksands of
misery which the alleged reforms of the 1971 to 2006" — or you
could say now, 2016 — "interval have dumped upon especially the
lower eighty percentile of our income brackets today."  Then he
adds:  "Hey, Congress!  Tell us; tell the lower eighty percentile
of our citizens what have you done to the U.S. Constitutional
General Welfare principle's superior role in the making of our
law?  Without a fair comprehension of the issues associated with
that distinction, no competent legislation could be crafted for
the presently onrushing crisis."
        So, I think it's true; we have to look to LaRouche's history
and ideas for this period.  Just on that, we were in Congress
this week, discussing Glass-Steagall; and the current Congress
does not view Glass-Steagall as a priority.  Many Congressmen are
exactly what LaRouche refers to here — still thinking in
statistical modes or basically looking at economy the same way a
Wall Street banker does.  They say they're against Wall Street,
or trying to rein it in, but they're doing the exact same thing,
in effect.  There's no change.  It is going to be up to us and
the population to demand this idea of a resurgence of the U.S.
Constitutional principle of the General Welfare.  The only way
that can be done, is with Glass-Steagall.
        This system is absolutely ready to go.  There are two
components of that.  One is the level of bankruptcy, of the
derivative debt and the leverage ratio; and the second is the
interconnection of the system, of U.S. banks to European banks,
and different sectors of the economy all tied in together also.
Insurance with hedge funds, with banks, with commercial banks;
it's all interconnected.  The system can't be saved in its
current form; it has to be Glass-Steagall joined with the rest of
LaRouche's Four Laws.  So, that's the urgent call to put this
legislation on Trump's desk; it's what we have to do.

        DENISTON:  Absolutely.  The point is, we have to make clear
with people that this is what Glass-Steagall opens up.  Just
clean out the system; cut out the speculation; and use money and
credit in the financial system for what its intended purpose is
— to facilitate this kind of process.  Some of the difficulty
comes when people compartmentalize these laws as distinct things.
But money doesn't mean anything outside of the context of the
physical economy.  The Four Laws are really one entity and I
think making that point, if people want a recovery, if they want
living wages, if they want their infrastructure rebuilt, if they
want water that's not going to kill them and make them sick; you
need Glass-Steagall so you have a system that can facilitate the
kind of long-term investment and growth that will enable these
things to happen.  I think breaking this totally ridiculous idea
of market economics and the way people think about these things
today, shattering that with this real physical conception is
critical.
        Just to come back to the global picture also, the world is
moving in this direction; you have a potential now.  That's
what's so exciting about this period, the potential.  A lot is
not decided, a lot is unclear; but we have an opening that hasn't
existed for — you could say the past 16 years, you could say
back to Truman coming in and completely overthrowing the Franklin
Roosevelt vision and orientation for the post-war world.  All of
that is now up in the air; and you have now the openness where
serious people in power are honestly thinking, "What do we do to
move mankind forward?"  Instead of people like Prince Phillip,
who are saying "What can I do to kill as many people today before
I go out for lunch?"  This is the time when you need to have this
full outreach orientation and make these ideas the dominant
conception in the American population today.
        So, I think what's been referenced in terms of this call to
action is really critical.  Everyone watching this should be
taking to heart the responsibility we all have right now at this
current historical moment to make this a reality.  This is not
something that comes and goes frequently, these kinds of
opportunities.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, and I just want to reiterate that.  The
responsibility lies on the citizens of the United States that
decide to take that responsibility on.  Nobody should be under
any impression that somehow everything is just going to fall into
place, or that even this administration is necessarily positive
on its own merits.  Everything that has been created as an
opening has been forced as such by years and years of activism
among people in the United States and a shifting global dynamic;
something that the LaRouches have been right in the middle of.
It's true that Trump has definitely overturned a bunch of chess
boards and has made a lot of enemies among the neo-cons and the
anti-Russia crowd and so forth.  But on economics, it is our
responsibility to set the agenda.  It's very unclear what that
policy is going to be.  The only thing that is clear is that
there is a core group of people among the activist-citizens in
the United States who have made a decision to say, "We are going
to hold him to Glass-Steagall; and we are going to force the
agenda around this policy."  That's why we are highlighting this
initiative that's been taken by the group of activists out of
Ohio and others who are now coming in on that.
        But people do have to have a sense of a broader sweep of
history.  What is it that makes a President great?  In the
history of the United States, especially, you can actually go
back to every great President and associate with them a
seriousness about moving mankind to the next level of economic
achievement.  What Hamilton did for the Washington
administration, creating the ability to have the United States
become a manufacturing country; a lot of that was done through
inland navigation, canals.  Water power was a major aspect of
what we were able to accomplish in the first few decades of our
existence as a country.  John Quincy Adams built more of those
canals, but also initiated the age of the railroad in the United
States.  And of course, Abraham Lincoln took that to its logical
next step through the construction of the Transcontinental
Railroad in the midst of the Civil War; but he understood this
was the next economic platform for the United States.  Franklin
Roosevelt — I mean, this was the age of mass power generation.
At that time, it was hydroelectric power; look at the Grand
Cooley Dam, look at the TVA.  But also, Franklin Roosevelt
understood that electrification was not just something for the
urban areas; even though it was not something that you were not
going to get a monetary return from immediately, Roosevelt
understood that you needed electrification for the whole country.
The Rural Electrification Administration used the power of the
Federal government to extend that financing, to extend that
credit, to do something that was not immediately profitable in
monetary terms, but was necessary to move the country to the next
level economically.  Then, of course, that was the time of the
exploration of the harnessing of the power of the atom with the
Manhattan Project.  Then, John F Kennedy, in his very short time
in office, became the champion of the space program, which was
the next step.  What is it that makes a Presidency great?  It's
moving the country and the world to that next platform in terms
of economic achievement; and that's what Lyndon LaRouche has been
defining for 30 years.  The breakthrough in fusion, the
breakthrough in space exploration, and technologies that we don't
even know exist yet.  But forcing the mind of man to push the
envelope in terms what we know and what we are able to imagine.

        DENISTON:  Sounds like a fun year to me.

        ROGERS:  Yes, and I think that what you just laid out, Matt,
has to be seen with all of these breakthroughs and continued
developments, is that the impact that it had on increasing the
level of productivity not just of the United States, but of the
entire world economy.  What Franklin Roosevelt did with his
programs around the TVA, the rural electrification, wasn't just a
project for a certain southern part of the United States.  People
came from all over the world to be inspired and to come to
understand the science and the metrics that went into this
development and the understanding of the policies of Franklin
Roosevelt.  Today, the question still remains; what are going to
be the unique contributions of the United States working in
collaboration and cooperation with other nations to increase the
productivity of the world economy?  We are in a global system,
where the question right now is really to find an increase in a
new paradigm which is going to effect the common aims of all
mankind.  The best expression of that is some of the beautiful
expressions that we're getting back from the space program.
Those in cooperation with participating in the International
Space Station from all over the world right now, and the
continued idea is that the nature of man goes beyond any kind of
war, conflict, or borders.  The identity of the increasing of the
productivity of society is really the basis for all human
progress.  I think that continues to be the point right now.  We
have a unique shift that's happening globally, which honestly is
freaking the oligarchy and the empire out.  They don't know what
to do about the fact that they have lost all control; that's what
you're dealing with right now.
        As we were discussing before the show a little bit, this is
not necessarily about attacks on President-elect Trump himself;
this is not Trump vs. those forces who want to go against him —
such as the intelligence community and so forth — because they
don't like the way he's talking to them.  It goes a little bit
deeper than that, because you now have the emergence of a new
system coming into being right now, of cooperation that the
British Empire and financial oligarchy and Wall Street interests
have been trying to keep separated and keep tabs on for a long
time.  They've lost control and they've lost power.  As we
continue to say, with 60-plus nations joining with the New Silk
Road and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, this is what
we're talking about bringing the United States into; and
Glass-Steagall will be the first step in bringing the United
States into this global alliance and international cooperation
that breaks the back of the financial oligarchy and destroys this
Wall Street control.  That is what people have to look forward to
— their role in the galactic system of the Universe in creating
something more profound.

        OGDEN:  Helga LaRouche, when we were speaking with her
earlier, cited the fact that President Xi Jinping of China always
talks about this in terms of a future of shared destiny among
mankind as a whole.  This is the same thing that Dr. Edward
Teller talked about in the 1980s, and Mr. LaRouche has cited, as
the common aims of mankind.  This is how you have to think about
international cooperation; nations have their own self-interests,
but it's in the interest of all mankind to achieve this future of
shared destiny, or these common aims of mankind.  That doesn't
mean that there aren't differences between nations, and that
there aren't different policies; but the higher principle which
unites the contradictions through which you can resolve these
conflicts or contradictions among peoples is through this idea of
a vision for the future.  This has to be what defines our
relationship with China; this has to be what defines our
relationship with Russia.  Some of the more sober people have
begun to realize that the only way we can defeat terrorism — as
can be seen in Syria — is through collaboration with Russia.
        But there are other positive programs that have to be
pursued; and you can see a lot of potential right underneath the
surface.  Last week we talked about how the memorial to the
Alexandrov Russian choir, many of whom died in the tragic plane
crash on their way to Syria, the Schiller Institute went to the
Russian consulate in New York City and sang a memorial for these
individuals.  This has become an overnight sensation on the
internet, on YouTube; this video already has over half a million
views.  This is the kind of relationship among peoples that we
have to pursue.  On that subject, there will be another memorial
by the Schiller Institute Chorus in New York City, who will be
visiting the 9/11 Teardrop Memorial in Bayonne, New Jersey; which
is right across the Hudson River, looking at downtown Manhattan.
This memorial to the victims of 9/11 was contributed by the
Russian people to the people of the United States.  This is being
highly anticipated; the press release has been circulated widely.
The Committee for East-West Accord has posted the announcement of
this on their website.  The very beginning of this press release
is as follows, and we're going to be watching this tomorrow.
        "Christmas Remembrance of the Alexandrov Ensemble of the
Victims of 9/11.  On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10AM, the
Schiller Institute New York City Chorus will be singing the
'Star-Spangled Banner' and the Russian national anthem at a
wreath-laying ceremony at the Teardrop 9/11 Memorial in Bayonne,
New Jersey.  The chorus will be joined by: the NYPD Ceremonial
Unit Color Guard, as well as FDNY representatives; Ms. Terry
Strada, the chairman of the 9/11 Families United for Justice
Against Terror, and others will make brief remarks."
        I think this is just one of many initiatives that can guide
us into this New Paradigm as we begin the new year.  We have to
realize that a lot has changed; this is not business as usual.  A
lot of the ideas of what was possible and what was pragmatic
under the former rules of the game, and so forth, have got to be
changed.  Members of Congress who might have supported
Glass-Steagall in the past, but said, "Oh, there's too much
opposition; the Republicans won't let it pass"; or "The Wall
Street bankers are too powerful."  All of those parameters have
changed now; and it's up to us to tell people, "This is a changed
world; this is not business as usual.  You have to renew your
commitment to what you think what must be done, and you have to
change your concept of what is possible."
        So, I think with that said, I'll go back and cite that
petition we presented earlier in the show.  This is obviously the
initiative over the next few days.  We have 14 days until the
inauguration; the countdown of this transition to a new
Presidency.  The only thing that is assured is what you decide to
do; the mobilization that you engage in, and the responsibility
that you take over the coming days, in order to set the agenda
for the future of the United States.
        Thank you for tuning in today.  Please sign up to the
LaRouche PAC email list if you haven't already.  Over the next
two weeks, you will receive daily emails which will be essential
in terms of marching orders in this mobilization.  And subscribe
to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel if you haven't already.
Thank you for joining us, and thank you to Ben, Kesha, and
Rachel.  Happy New Year to you.  Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. januar, 2017 – For at få et indtryk af LaRouche Manhattan Project’s stormende fremskridt, se pressemeddelelsen på New York Schiller Instituttets forestående begivenhed denne lørdag, 7. januar. Manhattan Projektets voksende, nationale magt, tilsammen med de nye, globale betingelser, som Putin og Kina, og valget af Donald Trump, har skabt, vil gøre det muligt for os at intensivere og udvide en mobilisering for vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall som vejen frem mod LaRouches Fire Love i deres helhed, og for at bringe USA ind i samarbejde med andre nationer som Rusland og Kina.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche er i gang med at lancere initiativer for en intensiv mobilisering for Glass-Steagall og de Fire Love, med langt mere vidtrækkende overskrifter, som vil begynde at give genlyd i de forestående timer og dage.

New Yorks senator Chuck Schumer, der er leder af et Senatsmindretal, angreb den 3. jan. den nyvalgte præsident for at være »virkelig dum« for at modsige chefer for USA’s efterretningstjenester. »Jeg siger jer, hvis man går op imod efterretningssamfundet, så har de utallige måder, hvorpå de kan angribe jer«, sagde senatoren på Rachel Maddox showet. »Så, selv for en praktisk, angiveligt benhård forretningsmand, er det virkelig dumt af ham at gøre dette.« Schumer, sagde, at han forstår, at efterretningsfolk er »oprørte over den måde, Trump har behandlet dem på og omtalt dem«.

Lyndon LaRouche sagde, at efterretningssamfundet er blevet korrumperet; at vi må dumpe al denne korruption, og at Schumers kritik af Trump ikke var værd at støtte.

De bemærkninger fra Trumps side, der i den grad har oprørt efterretningscheferne, var et tweet i tirsdags, der lød: »Briefingen om ’efterretningerne’ om den såkaldte ’russiske hacking’ blev udsat til fredag, måske fordi der var brug for mere tid til at opbygge en sag. Meget mærkeligt!« Men han havde ikke alene ret, for direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste, James Clapper, samt de andre, har stadig brug for mere tid; det blev klart i dag, at de ikke vil blive i stand til at få deres sag op at stå før i næste uge – og de ved stadig ikke, hvilken dag i næste uge.

I mellemtiden rapporterede Wall Street Journal den 4. jan. fra kilder, der er bekendte med Trumps planer, at han ville omstrukturere og nedskære direktøren for den Nationale Efterretningstjenestes kontor, som nu ledes af Clapper, og som han (Trump) mener, er oppustet og politiseret. (Bare se på Clapper …) Han vil omstrukturere CIA og nedskære personalet på Virginia-hovedkvarteret og få folk ud i poster i marken. »Trump-teamets synspunkt er, at efterretningsverdenen er blevet fuldstændig politiseret. De skal på slankekur.« Trumps tiltrædende nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, general Michael Flynn, som blev fyret af Obama som chef for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, er i centrum for den planlagte reorganisering.

Clapper blev tilsagt til at aflægge forklaring om »den russiske hacking af valget« for Lindsay Grahams og John McCains Senatskomite for de Bevæbnede Styrker i dag, men han sagde, at, før hans memo var klart, var han ikke indstillet på at sige mere, end han allerede havde sagt. Når dette memo er til rådighed på en ikke nærmere angivet dag i næste uge, sagde Clapper, at han vil aflægge forklaring om det for fire komiteer i Huset og Senatet, dernæst for hele Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og sluttelig offentliggøre en ikke-klassificeret version for hele landet.

De memoer, som Obama hidtil har fået fremstillet om den angivelige russiske hacking, har været temmelig latterlige – professionelle IT-sikkerhedsfolk fra alle politiske tendenser har kaldt dem et sjusket job. Den seneste version, der blev offentliggjort den 29. dec. af Homeland Security og FBI, har denne advarsel skrevet øverst. ANSVARSFRASKRIVELSE: Denne rapport udgives ’som den er’ udelukkende til informationsspørgsmål. Afdelingen for Homeland Security giver ingen garantier af nogen som helst art mht. de informationer, der er indeholdt i rapporten.« Efterretningsveteranerne William Binney og Ray McGovern afslører Clapper som en serieløgner i en kronik i Baltimore Sun i dag. Den 12. marts, 2013, aflagde han falsk vidnesbyrd til Kongressen mht. rækkevidden af NSA’s indsamling af data om amerikanere, som han indrømmede fire måneder senere efter Edward Snowdens afsløringer. Clapper havde tidligere hjulpet Donald Rumsfeld med at opretholde løgnen om de angivelige masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak.

Ingen af disse anklager mod Rusland vil holde vand – og således rejser den afsluttende del af et radioshow den 3. jan. med prof. emeritus fra New Yorks Universitet, Stephen F. Cohen, spørgsmålet, om »Obama kunne gribe til endnu mere radikale skridt i løbet af sine sidste dage i embedet … « Dette anså Lyndon LaRouche for en relevant og signifikant advarsel.

LaRouche tilrådede også, at den nyvalgte præsident spiller en ledende rolle mht. Glass-Steagall. Giv Trump større juridisk spillerum. Hav en velvillig indstilling til den tiltrædende præsident. Erkend, at han har et vanskeligt job som udgangspunkt, og at vi derfor må give ham en vis opmuntring. Åbn sagen i sin helhed på denne måde, og gå ikke ind i enkelte punkter.      

2. jan., 2017 – I en impromptu pressekonference før deltagelse i en nytårsfest i nærheden af sit hjem i Florida stillede nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump endnu engang et stort spørgsmålstegn ved den fratrædende administrations version af begivenhederne omkring den russiske »hacking« af de nylige valg og sammenlignede beskyldningerne med Bush’ fabrikerede anklager om masseødelæggelsesvåben, før invasionen af Irak.  

»Jeg vil gerne have, at de er helt sikre«, sagde Trump, »for det er en temmelig alvorlig anklage, og jeg ønsker, at de skal være sikre i deres sag. Hvis man ser på masseødelæggelsesvåbnene, så var det en katastrofe, og de tog fejl. Derfor vil jeg have, at de er helt sikre. Og jeg ved en del om hacking. Hacking er meget vanskeligt at bevise. Så det kunne altså være nogle andre.«

Trump hævdede også at »vide ting, andre mennesker ikke ved« mht. spørgsmålet og tilføjede, »så de kan altså ikke være sikre på denne situation«. Da han blev yderligere presset af reporteren om hans hemmelige viden, sagde Trump blot, »Det finder I ud af tirsdag eller onsdag«.

Idet han derudover afviste reporternes nysgerrighed omkring spørgsmål om den potentielle politik til efter den 20. januar, så udtalte Trump dog sine »nytårstanker« og sagde: »Det vil forhåbentlig udvikle sig godt. Vi vil forhåbentlig få gode relationer med mange lande … og det inkluderer Rusland, og det inkluderer Kina.« Sluttelig sagde han, »Tiden er inde til, at vi går videre til større og bedre ting«.  

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 2. januar, 2017 – Da præsident Herbert Hoover havde tabt valget til Franklin D. Roosevelt i 1932, brugte han hele overgangsperioden til at forsøge at tvinge FDR til offentligt at støtte hans, Hoovers, mislykkede politik; og da FDR ikke ville det, tog en rasende Hoover til indsættelsesceremonien, hvor han nægtede at tale, eller bare se på den nyvalgte præsident. Hoover bar på et bittert nag imod FDR’s nye paradigme – New Deal – frem til 1950’erne, hvor han spillede en rolle i fremvæksten af »McCarthy-giften«.

Alle Barack Obamas handlinger udgør nu et forsøg på at tvinge nyvalgte præsident Trump til at følge hans, Obamas, mislykkede politik; og til at angribe og bagvaske Rusland og dets præsident Putin.

Obama har i enhver forstand svigtet nationen – dens arbejdsstyrke, beskæftigelse, produktivitet, husstandsindkomst, narkoafhængighed, hjemløshed, stigende dødsrate og faldende gennemsnitslevealder, katastrofale krige. Han tyer nu til angivelige »uigenkaldelige eksekutive ordrer« og til deciderede misinformationskampagner fra regeringen, for at forsøge at tvinge Trump ind i – mindst – en ny kold krig. Dette kommer fra en præsident, der ikke kunne klare præsident Putin, og heller ikke Kinas præsident Xi Jinping.

Trump vil stadig ikke gå med, som hans bemærkninger i Florida nytårsaften indikerer. Men, hvilken politik, han vil føre, er stadig ikke klart.

Det, som er klart, er det nye paradigme med økonomisk og videnskabeligt fremskridt, og med potentialet for fred, der er blevet skabt i løbet af 2016 af Xis Kina, Putins Rusland og deres allierede blandt eurasiske og afrikanske nationer, og med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, der fortsat spiller en katalyserende rolle. Og lige så klar er »sangens kraft« i dette nye paradigme, der må have det bedste af alle nationers kulturhistorie, deres »klassik«, som kan gives til de andre. Dette demonstreredes af den over Internettet, især af russiske speakere, med lynets hast spredte kondolencehilsen fra Helga LaRouche i anledning af tabet af Alexandrov Ensemblet i et flystyrt. (Det er overflødigt at nævne, at Barack Obama ikke kommenterede den tragiske død af hvert eneste medlem af Ruslands nationale kor.)

Det nye paradigme dikterer også ganske klart, hvad Trump og den tiltrædende Kongres omgående må gøre: Genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven og skab en statslig kreditinstitution til at hælde investeringer ind i rumforskning, gennembrud i kernefusion og ny infrastruktur med høj produktivitet.

Vi hører, at Obama har til hensigt at »sige farvel og takke nationen« den 10. januar i en tale i Chicago. Han bør holde den tale en uge før, og gå.

   

          

Leder af LaRouchePAC, 23. december, 2016 – De neokonservative i USA, inklusive Obama og hans controllers, flipper ud over, at det lækkede Trump-Pentagon overgangsmemo ikke opregner Rusland som den første, eksistentielle trussel mod USA, på trods af tågesnakken fra nogle af de højtplacerede inden for det amerikanske civile lederskab under Obama. »I årevis har topregeringsfolk i Forsvarsministeriet og efterretningssamfundet nævnt Rusland som den største trussel på grund af dets enorme atomarsenal, sofistikerede cyber-kapaciteter, sit nyligt moderniserede militær og beredvillighed til at udfordre USA og dettes allierede i Mellemøsten, Østeuropa og andre områder«, lyder det samstemmende i Foreign Policy Journal i en artikel, udlagt den 20. dec. General Joseph Dunford, den nuværende amerikanske generalstabschef, har endda nævnt Rusland som den største trussel mod USA foran ISIS, Iran og Nordkorea!

Vi citerer Myra Ricardel, en af den nyvalgte præsident Donald Trumps overgangsfolk i Pentagon, i et memo, der siger, at Trumps prioriteringer inden for forsvaret er:

1. Udvikling af en strategi til at besejre ISIS;
2. Opbygning af et stærkt forsvar;
3. Udvikling af en omfattende cyber-strategi; og
4. Finde større effektivitet i Forsvarsministeriet.

Rusland nævnes ikke.

Realiteten er den, at alt, hvad Washingtons udenrigspolitiske etablissement og det amerikanske militær har gjort for en omdirigering imod Rusland, frygter dette etablissement kunne blive omstødt af en Trump-administration, der ønsker bedre relationer med Moskva.  

I dag påpegede Lyndon LaRouche, at nøglen til den aktuelle, strategiske og økonomiske krise ligger hos personen Putin. »Putin gjorde det rigtige«, sagde LaRouche. »Putin generelt, og hans team, gør det rigtige.« Alt imens han måske ikke forstår alting, »så er alt, hvad der er af betydning, noget, som Putin er sig bevidst – eller vil blive sig bevidst.«

Ved at udmanøvrere Obama i Syrien har Putin demonstreret, at terrorisme kan besejres ved at arbejde inden for international lov og med suveræne regeringer, og afslørede herved Obamas kriminelle alliance med de britisk og saudisk sponsorerede terrorister, med det formål at opnå sin kriminelle politik med »regimeskifte«.

LaRouche pegede også på mordet på den russiske ambassadør til Tyrkiet, Andrej Karlov, kort tid efter, at Obama havde truet Putin og Rusland med »gengældelse«, som en faktor, der bør efterforskes. »Jeg mener, at advarslen om det, vi så med mordet, der fandt sted, giver et fingerpeg om det, vi skal bekymre os om«, sagde LaRouche. »Spørgsmålet er ikke, hvad Putin foretager sig, men hvad han har til hensigt at foretage sig – ved at få et kompetent skøn over, hvad han vil gøre. Det er nøglen.«    

8. dec., 2016 – Nomineringen af staten Oklahomas justitsminister, Scott Pruitt, som leder af USA’s Miljøstyrelse (EPA), har fremkaldt et ramaskrig fra de steder, hvorfra man ville forvente det. Som Trump har påpeget, så har EPA’s regler, og styrelsens håndhævelse af disse regler, der i realiteten er baseret, ikke på videnskab, men på ideologi, hærget hele sektorer af den amerikanske økonomi. Scott Pruitt har anlagt et par dusin sagsanlæg imod EPA og anført kampen, som andre delstaters justitsministre har ført, imod diktater, såsom Clean Power Plan (planen for ren energi), der »bekæmper« den angivelige globale opvarmning ved at lukke hele sektioner af økonomien ned. Pruitts olie- og gas-stat er én af dem, der er i frontlinjen.

»Det her ser virkelig ikke godt ud«, jamrede Ethan Nadelmann, en operatør for George Soros, der er adm. direktør for Drug Policy Alliance, i en pressemeddelelse om Trumps valg til regeringsposter.(Har kulfyrede kraftværker virkelig dræbt flere mennesker end de illegale narkotiske medikamenter, Nadelmann ønsker at legalisere?). »Først [Jeff] Sessions som justitsminister, så [Tom] Price i HHS (Health and Human Services), og nu endnu en gammeldags krig-mod-narko-karakter for Homeland Security (ministerium oprettet i 2002). Det ser ud, som om Donald Trump er ved at komme i omdrejninger for at genlancere den mislykkede krig mod narkotiske midler«, citeres Nadelmann i gårsdagens Business Insider. Miljøekstremisten Bill McKibben skriver i New York-avisen Daily News, mere end blot at være »talerør og marionet for den fossile brændstofindustri«, er han »en stenograf«. McKibbens anden store bekymring synes at være den umiddelbare uddøen af giraffer.

Idet han selv kommer fra en olie- og gas-stat, vil Pruitts fokus være at skaffe sig af med miljøbegrænsningerne på disse resurser og, formodentlig, også kul, eftersom Trump har fremkommet med løfter til kulminearbejdere under sin kampagne.

Hvis det lykkes for Pruitt at afskaffe Administrationens Obama-miljø-begreber, såsom Clean Power Plan, der påbyder, at fossile brændstoffer skal erstattes af fornybar energi, men ikke kernekraft, må Administrationen gøre kernekraft til hovedspørgsmålet i nationens energiplan, med fossile brændstoffer som en bro.  

Foto: Nyvalgte Donald Trump har udnævnt Scott Pruitt som ny leder af USA’s Miljøstyrelse, EPA.

Lyd:

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 7. december, 2016 – På 75-års dagen den 7. dec., 1941 – »en dag, som vil blive husket som en skændselsdag«, som FDR erklærede – breder et lignende chok sig i De forenede Stater, og i verden, med Det britiske Imperium, der står over for sin mulige, endelige død. Politisk, økonomisk og strategisk vakler Imperiet, med Olympens bjerg, der smuldrer under dets fødder.

På den politiske side har den italienske befolknings overvældende afvisning af den EU-dikterede folkeafstemning, der skulle overgive magten til Bruxelles-bureaukraterne, som handler på vegne af bankerne i City of London, føjet yderligere et slag til Brexit, Trumps valgsejr, Fillons valgsejr i Frankrig, Dutertes valgsejr i Filippinerne og den allesteds nærværende fornemmelse af, at den britiske »globalisering« af hele verden under bankierernes kontrol er ved at være forbi.

På den økonomiske side bliver det i stigende grad erkendt, at den hektiske bestræbelse for at holde de europæiske banker oven vande gennem mere kvantitativ lempelse (’pengetrykning’), mere bail-in (ekspropriering af bankindskud) og mere bail-out (statslig bankredning) – de samme, mislykkede bestræbelser, som Bush og Obama har brugt i USA – skal dække over ødelæggelsen af folks levebrød, hvor produktiv beskæftigelse og selve produktiviteten bliver lukket ned for at redde spekulanterne. Og så virker det ikke engang, for at redde bankerne!

På den strategiske side, så er krigene for »regimeskifte«, som Bush, Blair, Cameron og Obama har ført i hele Mellemøsten, og som har overgivet land efter land til bestialske terroristbander, ved at blive nedkæmpet på Syriens slagmarker. Aleppo er næsten blevet befriet fra al-Qaeda og ISIS, disse, de britiske og saudiske monarkiers skabelser. Som oberst Pat Lang (pens.) bemærkede på sin blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis:[1] »Det, der er sket i borgerkrigens heksekedel, er, at en ny magt er opstået i Levanten. En ny, syrisk, arabisk hær eksisterer nu, takket være russisk uddannelse, udstyr og rådgivning.«

Som en yderligere konsolidering af denne afvisning af britisk imperiepolitik, erklærede Donald Trump i går aftes i North Carolina med sin hidtil stærkeste formulering:

»Vi vil ophøre med at fare rundt for at vælte udenlandske regimer, som vi intet ved om; som vi ikke bør være indblandet i. Denne destruktive cyklus med intervention og kaos må omsider være slut … Vi søger harmoni og god vilje mellem verdens nationer.«

Grundlaget for denne harmoni er blevet fremlagt i detaljer i EIR’s Specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, som nu cirkulerer i hele verden på engelsk, kinesisk og arabisk. I løbet af den forgangne uge fortalte to politiske ledere fra Kina, Patrick Ho, tidligere Hong Kong-indenrigssekretær, og viceudenrigsminister Fu Ying fra Beijing, et amerikansk publikum i Washington og New York, at den nyvalgte præsident Trump har mulighed for at bringe Kina og USA sammen omkring global opbygning af nationer, ved at tilslutte sig Xi Jinpings Silkevejsprojekter, Bælt-og-Vej-programmet, og ved at tage imod det stående tilbud fra præsident Xi om samarbejde, som Obama havde afvist til fordel for militær konfrontation med både Kina og Rusland.

Trump har gjort det ekstremt klart, at han vil arbejde sammen med præsident Putin omkring bekæmpelse af terrorisme, samt inden for andre, endnu ikke afgjorte områder. I dag foretog han endnu en positiv gestus over for Beijing ved at udnævne guvernøren for Iowa, Terry Branstad, som den næste ambassadør til Kina. Branstad er en nær, personlig ven til præsident Xi Jinping, et venskab, der stammer fra Xis mange besøg til Iowa i årenes løb.

For virkelig at bringe Amerika ind i en samarbejdsrelation med Rusland og Kina, må det transatlantiske banksystems bankerot løses, helst før der indtræffer en ukontrollabel sammenbrudskrise. Dette kræver den omgående genindførelse af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov og afskrivning af boblen med værdiløse derivater, der er i færd med at drive realøkonomien ad Helvede til. I dag er aktivist-teams fra hele USA’s østkyst i Washington, hvor de giver de sædvanligvis totalt idéforladte kongresmedlemmer deres marchordrer om at tilslutte sig den nu på globalt plan gærende revolution, der er i færd med at bringe en afslutning på Det britiske Imperiums finansdiktatur gennem Glass-Steagall og statslig kredit, der, efter Hamiltons principper, dirigeres til opbygning af industri, landbrug, infrastruktur og satsning på fusionskraft og udforskning af rummet. Magten til og muligheden for at gøre dette ligger i dette øjeblik i vore hænder, et øjeblik, der ligeledes vil »huskes som en skændsel«, hvis vi mislykkes. Som i 1941, har alle patrioter i deres respektive nationer, og alle borgere i verden, muligheden for at ændre historiens gang til det bedre, ved at tilslutte sig denne historiske, internationale kamp for at skabe en civilisation, der er i overensstemmelse med alle menneskers værdighed.

Foto: SAA Tigerstyrker og civile i Aleppo, Syrien, 7. december, 2016.  

Jason Ross: Diskussionen i aften finder sted to en halv uge efter præsidentvalget i USA den 8. nov. Siden da har vi set en hvirvelvind af spekulationer over udnævnelser til regeringsposter, inkl. nogle udnævnelser til poster i Trump-administrationen. Vi har også set betydningsfulde, internationale nyheder, såsom APEC-topmødet, der fandt sted i sidste weekend; topmødet i Asien-Stillehavsområdets Økonomiske Samarbejde (APEC), der meget betydningsfuldt inkluderede den filippinske præsident Duterte og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping blandt de mange tilstedeværende ledere. På denne konference understregede Duterte igen, at Filippinerne ikke længere anser sig selv for at være en amerikansk koloni; og landet forfølger en uafhængig politik, rent økonomisk, med Kina, der således er et modtræk til at skabe konflikt i f.eks. det Sydkinesiske Hav. Præsident Xi var på rundrejse i Mellem- og Sydamerika samtidig med, at han rejste til APEC-topmødet. Så ved siden af Peru – som var værtsland for topmødet – besøgte han også Chile og Ecuador, hvor han blandt andet talte om den bi-oceaniske korridor, en plan for en jernbaneforbindelse mellem Sydamerikas to omkringliggende have, Stillehavet og Atlanterhavet, og om at etablere videnskabsbyer. Han blev hyldet af præsident Correa i Ecuador, der betragtede Xi Jinpings besøg som den mest betydningsfulde begivenhed, der nogen sinde havde fundet sted i Ecuadors historie, baseret på det potentiale, som dette tilbød denne nation.

Dette Nye Paradigme, der i øjeblikket ledes politisk og økonomisk af Rusland og Kina, kommer som et resultat af LaRouche-bevægelsens og Lyndon og Helga LaRouches årtier lange organisering; der er således nu et Nyt Paradigme, der fører en stadigt større del af verden i en meget positiv retning. Vores job i øjeblikket er ikke at få de hotteste nyheder om, hvad Trumps udnævnelser bliver, osv. Det er at forme amerikanske politik, som vi med held gjorde det med at gennemtvinge en underkendelse af Obamas veto af Loven om Juridisk Retfærdighed mod Sponsorer af Terrorisme (JASTA). Og som vi nu står klar til at gøre, med at få Kongressen – under denne overgangsperiode, ’lamme and’-perioden – til at gennemføre Glass-Steagall, det nødvendige første skridt for en økonomisk genrejsning. Glass-Steagall er den lov, som Franklin Roosevelt fik vedtaget, og som skabte 60+ år med stabil, kedelig, stabil, produktiv bankvirksomhed i USA; snarere end den form for spillevirksomhed, vi nu ser.

Lad med vise dette kort [Fig. 1] for blot at vise lidt at den succes, som vi har set med det kinesiske program.

Programmet med nationerne i Ét bælte, én vej [OBOR], der inkluderer både – der er to komponenter i Kinas projekt i denne henseende; det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, med nationerne vist i blå farve, og det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej i orange farve. Tilsammen refererer Kina til dette på kinesisk som initiativet med »Ét bælte, én vej«; på engelsk ofte blot kaldt initiativet for Bæltet og Vejen. Med hensyn til det potentiale, som dette har, er her blot nogle af tallene: 20.000 km højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer i Kina, alle bygget inden for det seneste årti – mere end i resten af verden tilsammen; et titals billioner af dollars i direkte investering i nationerne i området; en forøgelse af kontrakter om tjenesteydelser på over 33 % i løbet af blot ét år langs Bæltet og Vejen; Kinas Eksport/Importbank har udestående engagementer i flere end 1000 projekter og har for ganske nylig underskrevet aftaler om omkring 500 nye projekter i nationerne langs Bæltet og Vejen. Kina er i færd med at udbygge 150.000 stipendier, som tilbyder uddannelse til 500.000 eksperter til uddannelse i Kina; har etableret 500 Konfucius-institutter i hele verden; har initieret flere end et dusin økonomiske samarbejdszoner; frihandelsaftaler, og er i øjeblikket engageret i flere end 40 energiprojekter – inklusive omkring 20, der lige er blevet etableret i år i Bæltet og Vejens nationer.

Hvordan kan vi så blive en del af dette? I magasinet Chronicles udgave fra 21. nov. er der et forslag fra Edward Lozansky og Jim Jatrus. Lozansky er præsident for det Amerikanske Universitet i Moskva. De skrev en artikel med titlen, »The Big Three: America, Russia, and China Must Join Hands for
Security, Prosperity, and Peace« (De tre store: Amerika, Rusland og Kina må gå sammen om sikkerhed, velstand og fred). To uddrag: De indleder deres artikel, »Med Donald Trumps sejr over Hillary Clinton får vi måske aldrig at vide, hvor tæt Amerika og hele menneskeheden kom på atomkrig«. Med en beskrivelse af verdenssituationen afslutter de med et forslag: »Præsident Donald Trump kan rette tidligere amerikanske præsidenters fejl. Snarere end modstandere kan Rusland og Kina blive Amerikas vigtigste partere, og som er, er vi overbevist om, rede til at respondere positivt. Tiden er inde for Trump og Amerika til at tage initiativet til samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og Kina hen imod en tryg, fremgangsrig og fredelig fremtid. Et Trump-Putin-Xi ’Store Tre-topmøde’ bør være en prioritet for den nye, amerikanske præsidents første 100 dage.«

Jeg vil nu bede Jeff Steinberg om at fylde verdensbilledet ud og forklare vore seere, hvilke flanker, hvilke håndtag, hvilke vægtstænger vi har for at ændre USA’s politik på dette tidspunkt?

Jeffrey Steinberg (efterretningsredaktør, EIR): Det er indledningsvist meget vigtigt at indse, at vi befinder os i en periode med forandring. Vi ved visse ting om konsekvenserne af det amerikanske præsidentvalg og andre nationale valg den 8. nov. Jeg mener, at Lozansky og Jatrus gjorde en fundamental pointe meget klart: Der forelå en meget alvorlig fare, baseret på Hillary Clintons kampagneretorik, baseret på politikker, der blev stadigt mere aggressivt forfulgt af præsident Barack Obama mod slutningen af hans otte år i embedet; at vi havde kurs mod den værste krise mellem USA og Rusland, som vi nogen sinde har oplevet – måske endda værre end Cubakrisen i 1962. Så Hillary Clintons nederlag er virkelig afslutningen af præsidentskaberne Bush’ og Obamas 16 år lange tyranni. Hvor hurtigt, vi kan vende politikken omkring under det nye Trump-præsidentskab, og i hvilken retning, udnævnelserne til hans administration vil gå, er alt sammen ukendte faktorer; vi har ingen vished om dem.

Det, vi ved, er, at især i kølvandet på APEC-topmødet, der netop er afsluttet i sidste uge i Lima, Peru, og som dernæst efterfulgtes af den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings statsbesøg til Peru og dernæst til Chile, og forud for topmødet var han i Ecuador; og vi ved, at der er en enorm mulighed derude for USA, under et Trump-præsidentskab, for netop at gå med i det, der altid har ligget på bordet som en åben invitation til USA; nemlig, at USA kan tilslutte sig projektet om Verdenslandbroen. For, uden et USA er det meget vanskeligt at opfatte dette som en Verdenslandbro, hvilket er det, verden virkelig har brug for lige nu. Der har været meget indledende telefondiskussioner mellem nyvalgte præsident Trump og den russiske præsident Putin; de synes at være blevet enige om at have et personligt topmøde hurtigt efter tiltrædelsen – som finder sted den 20. januar. Det er ligeledes tanken, at præsident Trump, efter tiltrædelsen, også ret hurtigt skal mødes med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping. Jeg mener, at Lozansky-Jatrus-ideen om et trilateralt møde ville være ekstraordinært værdifuldt. Det er vigtigt at huske på, at, i 1944, var det præsident Franklin Roosevelts kurs i sine handlinger for at etablere De forenede Nationer – hvilket skete i 1945 – at inkludere både Sovjetunionen og Kina i FN’s Sikkerhedsråds fem permanente nationer. Husk på, at Roosevelt forstod, at der var imperiepolitikker, der stadig var kernen i Det britiske Imperium med Churchill, og på lignende måde med Frankrig. Så ideen med at have Rusland – dengang Sovjetunionen – og Kina i dette permanente Sikkerhedsråds kernegruppe, reflekterede den kendsgerning, at Roosevelt dengang så udsigten til denne form for et alliancesystem hen over Eurasien. Jeg mener, at der er en historisk baggrund, for netop denne form for russisk-kinesiske samarbejde, at se hen til her. I de seneste 15 år har det været en hjørnesten i Lyndon LaRouches globale politik med et USA-Rusland-Kina-Indien-samarbejde, især omkring videnskabelige programmer; især udforskning af rummet, som basis for global fred og udvikling. Så disse ideer er fremlagt.

Den 20. november sagde general Michael Flynn, kort tid efter, at han var blevet udnævnt af nyvalgte præsident Trump som national sikkerhedsrådgiver, i et interview med Fareed Zakhari på CNN, at, efter hans mening, var den eneste måde at håndtere problemerne med den jihadistiske terrortrussel i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika på længere sigt at have et globalt samarbejde omkring en Marshallplan – han brugte udtrykkeligt dette udtryk. Han sagde, hvis man ser på, hvad Europa var i stand til at præstere i kølvandet på Anden Verdenskrigs ødelæggelser, og den rolle, som Marshallplanen spillede; det var ikke det hele, men det var et vigtigt element i den økonomiske genrejsning efter krigen. Et perspektiv af denne art er virkelig den vindende strategi for at håndtere befolkningstilvæksten og spredningen af den saudisksponsorerede jihadisme i hele Mellemøsten/Nordafrika-området. Det går også ind i Sydvestasien.

Der findes altså enorme potentialer; de er i vid udstrækning foreløbigt ikke realiseret med hensyn til den forandring, der kommer med den ny administration. Men, som du sagde, Jason [Ross], så er der ingen grund til at vente til januar. Den nyvalgte præsident Trump krævede udtrykkeligt, i en tale i Charlotte, North Carolina, en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Det er i begge de to store politiske partiers valgplatform for dette års valg; både Demokraterne og Republikanerne har vedtaget det. Det var en Trump-delegeret til GOP [Grand Old Party – det Republikanske Parti] komiteen for politisk strategi, der introducerede Glass-Steagall. Der er senatorerne Elizabeth Warren, og vigtigere endnu, Bernie Sanders, som siger, at de er villige til at række over midtergangen og arbejde sammen med Donald Trump, hvis samarbejdsspørgsmålene inkluderer og virkelig begynder med Glass-Steagall. Så dette er noget, der ikke behøver at vente til januar og tiltrædelsen og den nye Kongres. Der er fremstillet lovforslag for Glass-Steagall i både Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet. Et af forslagene i Huset har en ordlyd, der er identisk med Senatsforslaget. Som vi så det med vedtagelsen af underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet, hvis lederskabet i Kongressen giver grønt lys, kan Glass-Steagall bringes til debat i begge huse og vedtages inden for få timer. Underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet tog to timer om morgenen i USA’s Senat, og to en halv time eller så om eftermiddagen i Huset. Det opnåede man på en enkelt dag i Kongressen. Så der er ingen som helst grund til, at vi ikke omgående kan gennemføre det – i bogstavelig forstand i næste uge, når Kongressen atter samles efter Thanksgiving-ferien; og den vil sidde i de næste fire uger. Der er intet til hinder for, at vi kan få Glass-Steagall tilbage som landets lov før juleferien, så vi har det på plads til den nye administration; og tiden er rent ud sagt af afgørende betydning. Vi ved ikke, i betragtning af situationen med Deutsche Bank, med Royal Bank of Scotland, med de største, amerikanske for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker, der sidder på derivater til $252 billion. Det er 30 % mere end det var på tidspunktet for krakket i 2008. Det sidder på toppen af et meget tvivlsomt kapitalgrundlag på $14 billion; i virkeligheden er det sandsynligvis meget mindre end det, for nogle af de værdipapirer, som bliver talt med som kapitalreserver, er grundlæggende set illikvide og kan ikke – selv i nødstilfælde – gøres likvide.

Så vi kunne altså vågne i morgen, eller mandag morgen, eller midt i næste uge, og finde, at hele det transatlantiske banksystem er nedsmeltet. Så Glass-Steagall er altså et presserende hastespørgsmål; og det forudsætter dernæst de andre hovedelementer i LaRouches Fire Love. Det er et kreditsystem; investering i store infrastrukturprojekter; og en genoplivning af de mest avancerede, videnskabelige programmer, inklusive en storstilet tilbagevenden til rummet og det internationale arbejde for endelig at opnå det fulde gennembrud inden for fusion. Alle disse ting er på bordet, men igen, så er der ingen garantier; intet er blot tilnærmelsesvis sikkert mht., hvad det næste, der vil ske, bliver. Vi kan ånde lidt op, fordi faren for krig med Rusland og Kina er blevet meget reduceret; og der er en masse potentiale. Der er en masse af den form for overgang som fra Jimmy Carter til Ronald Reagan i luften som et potentiale; men intet af det er endnu fuldt ud realiseret. Folk må indse, at dette er et tidspunkt med store muligheder. Det vil blive et krav fra befolkningen under det rette lederskab, der er orienteret mod de rette politikker, der virkelig kan gribe muligheden. Hvis vi venter til januar eller februar næste år, hvem ved så, hvilke slags sabotageoperationer, man vil køre?

Man kan gå ind på Craigs Liste og finde dækgrupper for George Soros, såsom MoveOn.org og blacklivesmatter.org, der tilbyder $1500 om ugen for, at folk render rundt som idioter og protesterer imod resultatet af valget. Der er en hel del usikkerhed med hensyn til, hvad der foregår, samtidig med, at der er store muligheder. Vi må sikre os, at vi tager lederskabet mht. at gribe øjeblikket.

Ovenstående er første del af det Internationale Webcast; det engelske udskrift af hele webcastet følger her:

MAKE THE MOST OF THE OPENNESS IN POLICY NOW,
TO INSURE A NEW PARADIGM FOR THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE THE INAUGURATION
LaRouche PAC International Webcast, Saturday, November 26, 2016

        JASON ROSS:  Hi there!  Today is November 25, 2016; and
you're joining us for our regular webcast here from
larouchepac.com.  My name is Jason Ross; I'll be the host today.
I'm joined in the studio by Ben Deniston, my colleague here at
LaRouche PAC; and via video by Jeff Steinberg of Executive
Intelligence Review.
        This discussion is taking place 2.5 weeks after the November
8, 2016 Presidential election in the United States.  Since then,
we've seen a whirlwind of speculation about Cabinet appointments,
including some Cabinet appointments for the Trump administration.
We've also seen some significant international news, such as the
APEC summit which occurred last weekend; the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit that included very significantly new
Philippines' President Duterte and Chinese Xi Jinping among the
many leaders who were there.  At this conference, Duterte again
emphasized that the Philippines no longer considers itself to be
a US colony; and is pursuing an independent policy economically
with China, countering the attempts to create conflict, for
example, in the South China Sea.  President Xi Jinping went on a
tour of Latin America while he was at the APEC summit. So in
addition to Peru — which hosted the event — he also visited
Chile and Ecuador; where he spoke, among other things, about the
bioceanic corridor, a plan for a rail link between the Pacific
and Atlantic sides of South America; about setting up science
cities.  He was greeted by President Correa in Ecuador, who
considered Xi Jinping's trip the most significant event to occur
in Ecuador's history; based on the potential that it offered that
nation.
        So, this New Paradigm, being led politically and
economically at present by Russia and by China, comes as a result
of decades of organizing by the LaRouche Movement, by Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche; such that there is now a New Paradigm taking an
increasingly larger portion of the world in a very positive
direction.  Our job at present isn't to get the hottest news on
what Trump's appointments will be, etc.  It is to shape US
policy; as we successfully did in forcing an override against
Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
And as we stand poised to do now with getting the Congress —
during this lame duck session — to implement Glass-Steagall, the
necessary first step for an economic recovery.  Glass-Steagall is
the law that Franklin Roosevelt had put in place that created 60+
years of stable, boring, stable productive banking in the United
States; rather than the kind of gambling that we see now.
        Let me pull up this chart [Fig. 1] just to show a bit of
this success that we've seen along the Chinese economic program.
Along the One Belt, One Road nations which includes both the —
there's two components to China's project on this; the Silk Road
economic belt, which you see the nations in blue, and the 21st
Century Maritime Silk Road in orange.  Together, China refers to
this in Chinese as the "One Belt, One Road" initiative; in
English, often just the Belt and Road initiative.  As far as the
potential that this holds, these are just some of the figures:
20,000 km of high-speed rail in China, all built within the last
decade — more than the rest of the world combined; tens of
billions of dollars of direct investment into nations of the
region; an increase in services contracts of over 33% in just one
year along the One Belt, One Road; the Export/Import Bank of
China has outstanding involvement in over 1000 projects, and just
recently has signed up about 500 new projects along the Belt and
Road nations.  China is extending 150,000 scholarships offering
training for 500,000 for professionals for training in China; has
set up 500 Confucius institutes around the world, has initiated
over a dozen economic cooperation zones; free trade agreements,
and is engaged currently in over 40 energy projects — including
about 20 that were just set up this year among One Belt, One Road
nations.
        So, how can we become a part of this?  Well, a proposal was
made in the November 21st issue of {Chronicles} magazine by
Edward Lozansky and Jim Jatrus.  Losansky is the President of the
American University in Moscow.  They wrote an article called,
"The Big Three: America, Russia, and China Must Join Hands for
Security, Prosperity, and Peace".  Two excerpts.  They open their
article, "With the defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump, we
may never know how close America and all mankind came to nuclear
war."  In describing the world situation, they end with a
proposal: "President Donald Trump can correct the mistakes of
past U.S. presidents. Rather than adversaries Russia and China
can become Americaâs essential partners and are, we are
convinced, ready to respond positively. Itâs time for Trump and
America to take the initiative for U.S-Russia-China cooperation
towards a secure, prosperous, and peaceful future.  A
Trump-Putin-Xi 'Big Three Summit' should be a priority for the
new U.S. Presidentâs first 100 days."
        So, I'd like to ask Jeff Steinberg to fill out the world
picture, and detail for our viewers what are the flanks, what are
the handles, the levers that we have for shifting US policy at
this time?

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thanks, Jason.  For starters, it's very
important to realize that we're in a period of significant flux.
There are certain things that we know about the consequences of
the US Presidential elections and other Federal elections on
November 8th.  And I think Lozansky and Jatrus made one very
fundamental point quite clearly:  That there was a very grave
danger based on the campaign rhetoric of Hillary Clinton, based
on the policies that were pursued even ever more aggressively
towards the end of his eight years in office by President Barack
Obama; that we were headed for the worst crisis between the
United States and Russia that we ever experienced — worse
perhaps even than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.  So, the
defeat of Hillary Clinton really is the end of the 16-year
tyranny of the Bush and Obama Presidencies.  How rapidly we can
turn the policies around under the new Trump Presidency, where
the Cabinet appointments are going to go, these are all unknowns;
they're not certain to us.
        So, we do know that particularly in the aftermath of the
APEC summit meeting that just concluded last week in Lima, Peru,
which was then followed by state visits by Chinese President Xi
Jinping to Peru and then to Chile afterwards; and prior to the
summit, he was in Ecuador.  We know that there's a tremendous
opportunity out there for the United States, under a Trump
Presidency, to precisely join in what has always been on the
table as an open invitation to the United States; namely, for the
United States to join in the World Land-Bridge project.  Because
without the United States, it's very difficult to conceive of
this as a World Land-Bridge; which is really what the world
requires right now.  There have been very preliminary phone
discussions between President-elect Trump and Russian President
Putin; they seem to have reached an agreement that they will have
a face-to-face summit meeting soon after the inauguration —
which is January 20th.  The idea, similarly, is for President
Trump, once he's inaugurated, to also meet quite soon with
Chinese President Xi Jinping.  I think the Lozansky-Jatrus idea
of a trilateral meeting would be extraordinarily valuable.  I
think it's important to remember that in 1944, the orientation of
President Franklin Roosevelt in the move to establish the United
Nations — which happened in 1945 — was to include both the
Soviet Union and China among the permanent five nations of the UN
Security Council.  Remember, Roosevelt understood that there were
imperial policies that were still at the core of the British
Empire with Churchill, and similarly with France.  So, the idea
of having Russia — the Soviet Union at the time — and China in
this permanent Security Council core grouping, reflected the fact
that Roosevelt at that time saw the prospect of that kind of an
alliance system across Eurasia.  So, I think that's there's an
historical basis to look to here for exactly this kind of
Russia-China cooperation.  For the last 15 years, a cornerstone
of Lyndon LaRouche's of global policy has been a
US-Russia-China-India cooperation, particularly on scientific
programs; especially space exploration, as the basis for global
peace and development.  So, those ideas are out there.
        On November 20th, soon after he was named by President-elect
Trump to be the National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn,
in an interview with Fareed Zakhari on CNN, said that in his
view, the only way to deal with the long-term problem of the
jihadist, terrorist threat in the Middle East and North Africa,
was for there to be a global cooperation on a Marshall Plan — he
used that term explicitly.  He said, if you look at what Europe
was able to accomplish in the aftermath of the devastation of
World War II, and the role that the Marshall Plan played; it was
not the whole thing, but it was an important element of the
postwar recovery.  That kind of perspective is really the winning
strategy for dealing with the population growth and this spread
of Saudi-sponsored jihadism throughout the Middle East-North
Africa region.  It extends into Southeast Asia as well.
        So, there are great potentialities; they are largely as yet
unrealized in terms of the change coming with the new
administration.  But I think, Jason, as you correctly said, there
is no reason to wait for January.  President-elect Trump, in a
major campaign speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, explicitly
called for reinstating Glass-Steagall.  It's in the platforms of
both major political parties from this year's elections; the
Democrats and the Republicans both adopted it.  It was a Trump
delegate to the policy committee of the GOP who introduced the
Glass-Steagall.  You've got Senators Elizabeth Warren, and more
importantly, Senator Bernie Sanders, saying that they're prepared
to reach across the aisle and work with Donald Trump if the
issues for collaboration include and really start with
Glass-Steagall.  So, this is something that does not have to wait
for January and the inauguration and the new Congress.  There are
Glass-Steagall bills in both the House and the Senate.  One of
the House bills has the identical language as the Senate bill.
As we saw with the JASTA veto override vote, if the Congressional
leadership gives the green lights, then Glass-Steagall can be
brought to the floor of both houses and can be debated and voted
within a matter of hours.  The override of JASTA took two hours
in the morning for the US Senate, and two and a half or so hours
in the afternoon for the House.  It was accomplished in one
legislative day.  So, there's no reason whatsoever that we can't
move immediately — literally next week when Congress is back in
session after Thanksgiving; and they're there for three weeks.
There's no reason that we should not have Glass-Steagall back as
the law of the land before the Christmas recess.  So that we hit
the ground running with the new administration; and frankly, time
is of the essence.  We don't know, given the situation with
Deutsche Bank, with Royal Bank of Scotland, the largest US
too-big-to-fail banks are sitting on $252 trillion in
derivatives.  That's 30% more than it was at the time of the 2008
crash.  That's on top of a very questionable capital base of $14
trillion; the reality is that it's probably much less than that,
because some of the assets that are allowed to be counted as the
capital reserves, are basically illiquid and can't be — even on
an emergency basis — made liquid.
        So, we could wake up tomorrow morning, or Monday morning, or
the middle of next week, and find that the entire trans-Atlantic
banking system has blown out.  So, Glass-Steagall is an urgent,
immediate issue; and it then begs the other three key elements of
LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws.  Which is a credit system;
investment in major infrastructure projects; and a revival of the
most advanced scientific programs, including a major return to
space and the work internationally to finally achieve the full
breakthrough on fusion.  All of these things are on the table,
but again, there are no guarantees, there's nothing that's even
remotely certain about what's going to come next.  We can breathe
a little easier because danger of war with Russia, with China is
greatly reduced; and there's a lot of potentiality.  There's a
lot of the kind of transition from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan
in the air as a potential; but none of it is fully realized yet.
So, people are going to have to realize this is a moment of great
opportunity.  It's going to be an outpouring of the population
under the right kind of leadership, directed at the right
policies, that can really seize the opportunity.  If we wait
until January of February of next year, who knows what kind of
sabotage operations are going to be run?
        You can go on Craig's List and find George Soros front
groups, like MoveOn.org and blacklivesmatter.org, offering $1500
a week for people to run around like idiots, protesting against
the outcome of the election. There's a great deal of uncertainty,
in terms of what's going on, at the same time that there's great
opportunity. We've got to make sure that we take the lead in
seizing the moment.

ROSS: Great! Thanks! In terms of the long-term outlook of where
we're going to go, what our policy should be, a major aspect of
this goes beyond legislation that affects us only here on Earth.
A major component, in fact the fourth component of the Four Laws
of Mr. LaRouche, the last one being the fusion driver crash
program, is connected with our existence beyond the planet, also
out in space. Ben wrote an article that's going to be in the
upcoming issue of the Hamiltonian about what a U.S. space
policy ought to be, and about the really long-term goals that we
have to have, and why this is important and essential. So, could
you tell us about that, Ben?

        BENJAMIN DENISTON: Gladly! As viewers are aware, this has
been an ongoing subject of discussion. Mr. LaRouche, as Jason is
saying, has put a major, major focus on, as a critical part of
the needed recovery program and the future of mankind. In this
article we tried to elevate people's thinking about space,
especially in the context of so many years and administrations
and decades of just zero-growth policies.
        One thing that's being discussed now, which is interesting
and useful, is how much NASA has been hijacked for this global
warming crap. A lot of NASA's budget has been redirected to
"Earth sciences." Not all Earth sciences are bad. There's a lot
of interesting science to learn about the Earth. But Earth
sciences is often a front to push this fraud of some man-made
global warming crisis. So, there's some discussion about NASA
being redirected away from wasting their time on this phony,
phony, fake crisis, which is not something we need to be
concerned about, and redirecting back to exploration. Surprise,
surprise. The Moon has come back now as a central subject of the
discussion. Anybody who had any sense would realize that once
Obama was out, this crazy asteroid mission [The Asteroid Impact
and Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission] would likely be tossed
aside. Anybody who is serious would recognize that the Moon is
the next place to get back to.
        As Jeff was referencing, there's a lot of discussion, a lot
of openness. From our work and discussions with Mr. LaRouche, I
think it's critical to really raise the level of discussion to
the right basis. We can have exciting missions, we can have
inspiring missions, but the question to ask is: are we going to
have a program where the investments are going to be the basis
for creating a whole new level of activity, that will allows us
to do orders of magnitude more than we were able to do prior to
that investment? Is this going to create what Mr. LaRouche had
once defined as a "physical-economic platform?" Is this going to
create an entirely new platform of activity, of potential — of
infrastructure, of energy-flux density of technologies — which
comes together to support a qualitatively new level of potential
activity for mankind?
        That is the issue we want to put on the table right now.
This goes directly to the vision of Krafft Ehricke, the early
space pioneer who worked very closely with Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche in the '80s, who was one of the leading space
visionaries, who had outlined in great detail the initial basis
of mankind expanding to really becoming a Solar System species.
I'm going to get back to his work in a minute. Mr. LaRouche's
concept of the "platform" is really critical. He introduced this,
I think it was around the year 2010, 2009, something like that.
He was coming up against a real lack of understanding of the
significance of what "infrastructure" really means, in its true
scientific sense. Unfortunately, this has become somewhat of a
buzzword that a lot of people throw out there. "We need to
rebuild our infrastructure" has become a kind of a hot
campaign-trail word to use to get some support.
        The real understanding of what qualitative revolutions in
infrastructure systems mean for mankind's continual creative
progress is not connected to the way most people use that term.
Mr. LaRouche defined the very profound and critical assessment of
looking at the development of human civilization in these stages
of platforms. He said, go back to thousands of years ago, when
the dominant cultures were trans-oceanic maritime cultures. What
you began to see, with the development of inland waterways,
inland river systems — he had put a big point on what
Charlemagne was doing during his reign in central Europe in
developing these canal systems and river systems — was a
qualitative revolution above what had existed prior, with these
trans-oceanic civilizations: the development of these inland
waterways. That defined a new platform of activity that supported
a qualitative leap in what civilization was able to accomplish.
        The next leap came with the development of rail systems,
railroads, especially trans-continental railroads, typified by
what Lincoln had spearheaded with the trans-continental railroad
across America. With these rail systems, with the new
technologies of steam engines powering these rail systems, the
higher energy-flux density of coal-powered steam engines, this
enabled mankind to begin to develop the interior regions of the
continent, in completely new ways, and defined a totally new
relationship of mankind, of civilization, to the environment
around him. It defined a qualitative increase in mankind's
"potential relative population density," as LaRouche had
developed that metric for understanding the science of economic
growth. It made things that were at one point incredibly
expensive or challenging or risky, become just day-to-day regular
activities.
        I think back to the early phases of these frontier
explorations of the American Continent. You go back to the Lewis
and Clark Expeditions, where to travel from the east coast across
the entire mainland of the continent to the west coast required
someone like the leading skilled frontiersmen, and a very
dangerous, very challenging mission, which was a very brave
undertaking for a handful of people to actually be able to
accomplish that. Some decades later, with the rail system, with
the infrastructure of this railroad platform, any family could do
this. With your young children, you could hop on the rail line
and get across the country. Any entrepreneur could come out and
take advantage of the development of new territories that were
completely inaccessible before. It was a complete transformation
in our most fundamental ability to exist on the planet in these
different territories.
        Now what does this have to do with space? This is how we
should be thinking about space exploration, space
development–things that we view today as incredibly expensive,
difficult, dangerous missions. We should be thinking now what
kind of investments can we make to ensure that those then become
regular, day-to-day even, activities that we can support very
easily. What will it take to create a Solar System
physical-economic platform that will enable mankind to do much
more, much easier, than we can today? That's the metric we want
to set. That's the measuring rod we want to utilize, to determine
what kind of space program, what kind of policy we need today.
        In breaking this down, this might not include everything,
but in some of our work in the Basement with our discussions on
this subject, I think we can really, very usefully look at three
categories of activity — three categories of infrastructure and
technologies — which define the basis, you could say the
pillars, of a Solar System platform, of an ability to
qualitatively expand mankind's ability to access the Solar System
in completely new ways, to make things we currently view as
singular flagship missions, [into] just regular, easy activities
that we can do, orders of magnitude more of than we can now.

What we want to look at are these three categories of activity:

(1) Access to space. What's our ability to get from Earth's
surface up into Earth orbit? Initial basic access to space.

(2) Travelling in space. Getting around the Solar System. Getting
from one planetary body to the next.

(3) Developing resources. Developing the capabilities to utilize
the resources available to us throughout the Solar System, not
having to take everything with us everywhere we go, but be able
to develop the wealth that's available out there; to utilize it
on site and transport it around, even bringing stuff back to
Earth that we can't necessarily get from Earth.

        If you look at these three pillars, these three categories
together, and if you make qualitative breakthroughs in each of
these together, this really comes together to define a new
platform of activity, a new standard that will enable the kind of
leap that will transition us from viewing space as a Lewis and
Clark style expedition, to a trans-continental railroad style
relationship to the Solar System.
        I just want to take a couple minutes and go through just
some sense of what areas we can see breakthroughs in each of
these categories. Go to the first slide we have displayed. [Fig.
1] It has been said that getting from Earth's surface to low
Earth orbit, is half-way to anywhere in the Solar System. In a
certain sense that's very true. If you have a sense of the
scales, that might sound very, very strange, because, just in
terms of distance, low Earth orbit [begins] about 160 km, about
100 miles, up above your head. If you want to travel to the Moon,
you're talking about hundreds of thousands of miles. If you want
to travel to another planet, you're talking about millions of
miles.
        It's a little funny to think that the first 100 miles,
compared to hundreds of thousands or millions, is actually half
of the trip. But if you look at the energy requirements and what
it takes to actually start from just being on the Earth's surface
and getting into orbit, that is the case. It is a tremendous
amount of energy requirement to get from Earth's surface up into
Earth orbit.
        The graphic here displays this, in terms of travel from
Earth's surface to different planetary bodies, measured in the
standard terms used for Solar System travel, which is your change
in speed. To get into Earth orbit requires not just going up 100
miles, but actually changing your speed, from your current
velocity sitting here on the Earth, to something that will allow
you to stay in orbit. If you want to change orbits, or travel
around, you can measure that, in terms of changes in velocity.
So that happens to be the metric here; but you can see the lowest
dark blue bar on each of these graphics shows that literally far
more than half of the requirement is just getting from Earth's
surface to Earth orbit.

        ROSS:  So, this is half of the speed that you're getting;
this doesn't mean half of the energy, or half of the fuel, or
anything like that.

        DENISTON:  Yeah.  Once you start to include that, it would
be even more energy requirements; because you've got to lift your
fuel that you're going to use for the different travels into
orbit with you.  It definitely gets a little more detailed if you
want to get into it, but this is literally the change in speed
requirements to get into Earth orbit and then to leave Earth
orbit is very significant.
        So, there's improvements being made in rocket systems to get
up more efficiently, but there are new technologies that are just
sitting there on the horizon; they've been sitting there for
decades, frankly, that would dramatically lower the cost, lower
the requirements, and the point is, dramatically increase the
accessibility of space to mankind.  One technology that has been
discussed for a long time is space planes.  Here in the graphic
you can see a relatively recent article covering studies in China
on interest in China to develop what some people call
single-stage-to-orbit space planes.  So, you can get on a plane
on a runway — it's probably going to be a little bit longer than
your standard runway for airplane travel — and you can ride a
single space plane from the runway all the way up into Earth
orbit.  A lot of this depends upon much more advanced engine
designs that can utilize the oxygen in the atmosphere at higher
speeds and at higher altitudes to continue to provide thrust.
But these things could dramatically lower the cost, the energy
requirements of getting people and payloads up into Earth orbit;
far more than a lot of the discussion about these reusable
rockets and some of the developments going on in improving rocket
systems to get from Earth's surface into Earth orbit.

        ROSS:  This is a technology that was in LaRouche's "Woman on
Mars" video from the 1980s, right?  It talked about beginning
with an airplane, and then turning into a rocket.  The big
benefit being that you can use the oxygen in the atmosphere
instead of carrying it with you, is that right?  Is that what
makes this more effective?

        DENISTON:  Yeah, absolutely.  These rocket systems have to
carry the oxygen as part of the rocket to combust to provide the
thrust.  These are more innovative engine designs —
air-breathing engines that can use the oxygen in the atmosphere.
As you said, this has been researched in the United States with
different scramjet designs.  Yeah, Mr. LaRouche featured some of
this, which he had developed I think in some close discussion
with some Italian colleagues at the time in his collaboration
with the Fusion Energy Foundation; and had made it a major part
of his "Woman on Mars" mission.
        But this is being developed; this is live.  Again, you're
seeing clear interest in China; there's interest in the United
States; there's a company in the United Kingdom that's developing
very interesting engine designs that can utilize these
capabilities.  If you want to take it a step further, another
thing that's been discussed is using vacuum tube maglev
technologies to launch from Earth orbit into space.  This might
be a little more frontier and not quite as around the corner as
these space planes; but this is the kind of stuff that we should
be thinking about.  Again, the point is, completely
revolutionizing mankind's access to low-Earth orbit and then to
the Solar System.  So, this is the first major hurdle.  If you
get some solid infrastructure developments that can enable
mankind to overcome this hurdle more easily, you're creating the
basis for a much broader expansion of mankind's activity.
        The next pillar, the next category is travel in space.  And
again, this is an issue that Mr. LaRouche has been campaigning on
for decades.  Space travel requires nuclear reactions; chemical
fuel just doesn't have the energy density to provide quick and
efficient access to the Solar System.  We can get to the Moon;
that's OK.  It probably would be nice to get there a little bit
quicker, but that's our next door neighbor in terms of the Solar
System.  If you want to get to Mars, you want to get around to
other places in the Solar System, you've got to get to nuclear
reactions.  The heart of this is the fact that the energy
density, the energy per mass of nuclear reactions is, on average,
on the order of a million times greater than the energy per mass
in chemical reactions; even as broad categories, setting aside
the particular fuel you use in either case.
        A million times is just a big number, but for one quick
comparison, you take the fuel used for the Space Shuttle launch
— those two solid rocket boosters on either side, the large tank
in the middle filled with liquid fuel.  You take the weight of
all that fuel together, some of the most advanced chemical
reactions we have for fuel for space launch; how much weight of
nuclear fuel would it take to contain the same amount of energy?
You're talking about 10 pounds!  One suitcase full of nuclear
fuel contains the same amount of energy as all three fuel tanks
of the Space Shuttle.  To be fair, you couldn't necessarily use
that fuel the same way to launch the Space Shuttle; you have to
have systems that can actually combust it and get thrust out of
it.  It's not just the energy content as the only issue, but that
is the defining characteristic that makes nuclear reactions key
to getting around the Solar System; enabling things like
travelling at constant acceleration.  Instead of just initially
firing your thruster and basically floating on an orbit to get to
different planetary bodies — which is what's often proposed for
getting people to Mars; which would take on the order of six,
seven, eight months to do.  If you had nuclear reactions —
especially fusion reactions — you can be accelerating for half
the trip, and decelerating the second half of the trip; you can
cut that time down to weeks or even days.
        We were all excited that New Horizons got to Pluto.
Unfortunately, it didn't have the fuel in it and the engines to
slow down when it got there; which is too bad, because it spent
ten years getting there, and even just passing by in the course
of a couple of weeks, found amazing things.  Imagine if it
actually got to stop and stay?  If you had nuclear reactions,
that the type of stuff you could be doing.  If you had
one-gravity acceleration, so you're constantly accelerating,
providing the thrust that creates the equivalent of one Earth
gravity for the crew on the space ship, it would literally take
16 days to get to Pluto.  Compared to New Horizons taking ten
years to get there; that's when the orbits are closest, but maybe
a few more days in sub-optimal conditions.
        You're talking about a complete revolution in our ability to
efficiently get around the Solar System; travel to different
planetary bodies; visit multiple locations.  If you want to send
people to Mars, this is the way to do it.  If you want to send
people out to other places, this is the way to do it.  Even
robotic missions; you want to get around and do way more
exploration.  There's so much we don't know about all these
planets, about their moons; there's just so much to figure out.
These are the kinds of systems that are going to create vast
improvements in our ability to do it.
        And again, the third category is developing the resources in
space; developing the ability to utilize what's available to us
on the Moon, on Mars, on different asteroids.  This is something
we don't really do at all, yet.  So, you have to bring basically
everything with you through that very costly energy-intensive
first hurdle of getting from Earth's surface up into Earth orbit,
through travelling the vast distances of space.  This is just
this very early pioneer style mode of activity.  Whereas, if
we're going to be serious about this, we need to develop the
capabilities to utilize the resources that are there; and
eventually look to serious industrialization and development of
advanced systems out in space, on-site at different planetary
bodies.  One critical driver to this whole thing that we've put a
major focus on is the development of helium-3 from the Moon.
Helium-3 being an absolutely unique, excellent fusion fuel; which
is basically absent on Earth, but relatively abundant all over
the lunar surface, and could be an excellent fuel for fusion
propulsion in space and also to provide electricity energy back
here on Earth.  There's been years of serious study and designs
and investigations of how to go to the Moon, develop the systems
to process the regala[ph], extract the helium-3; and initiate
real industrial-style processes; developments on the lunar
surface.  That's just one example.  You want to get oxygen,
hydrogen, metals; asteroids are also potentially very useful
places to develop the resources.  So, as a third category, the
general idea of developing advanced capabilities to utilize and
create what we need in different regions of the Solar System.
        If you put this together and look at these things
synergistically as integrated technologies, infrastructure
systems, levels of energy flux density; as a whole they define
for mankind a completely different relationship to the Solar
System.  The question is, are we making investments that are
bringing us to that level?  Can we say that the investments we're
going to make in this next administration are going to be taking
mankind in that direction, to be able to support these
qualitatively higher levels of activity to the point where we can
honestly look back in a couple of generations and see the space
activity going on now as equivalent to Lewis and Clark style
explorations of the West; and have mankind have the capabilities
to regularly visit many planetary bodies and do all we want
around the Solar System?  That's the vision that we need.
        We were talking about this with Mr. LaRouche earlier today,
and he again said, "Your starting point is Krafft Ehricke."  And
Krafft Ehricke's industrialization of the Moon really I think is
the critical driver program that can get a lot of this going.  As
I said, we have helium-3 on the Moon; that puts fusion directly
right there on the table.  You're talking about developing
industrial capabilities and mining capabilities on the Moon.  If
you're serious about doing this, you want to increase our access
to space from the Earth's surface.  So, it is excellent that
we're seeing a lot of discussion about the Moon coming on the
table again; but I think the issue is, are we going to pursue
this Krafft Ehricke vision for a real industrial development?
Although he might have used different terms in discussing it, he
had exactly the same conception that Mr. LaRouche has:  That this
is the basis for mankind's much broader expanse.  Really the
essential nature of the type of qualitative changes that mankind
goes through in his natural growth and development as a very
unique species on this Earth and hopefully tomorrow in the Solar
System.
        As Jason mentioned, some of this is discussed in an article
that's going to be released in the next issue of the
Hamiltonian.  This is an ongoing subject of discussion, but
with the openness now, I really think it's critical we set the
level of discussion on that basis.

        ROSS:  Mmhmm; that's aiming pretty high, that's good.  I
think that's a really apt description that you got about
comparing Lewis and Clark.  It used to be a really difficult
thing to cross the continent; now it isn't.  Or think about the
Silk Road.  The ancient Silk Road.  If you're trying the develop
that region of the planet with camel caravans, and you contrast
that with what China is able to do now with building rail
networks and helping build them and road networks in these
neighboring countries; you totally transform the relationship to
that area.  The old development of human settlements along
coasts, along oceans or along rivers; and then by the chemical
revolution, by the ability to have steam power — also canals
earlier, but still connected to water; but with steam power, it
made it possible to open up the interior of the continents.  And
with the potential for nuclear power, then the Solar System
becomes something that's accessible to us in a meaningful or more
regular way than an exotic, years-long, life-threatening trip.
        The other aspect, which you talked about is, if you look at
what's going on with the New Paradigm in the world; what China's
doing, with the way things are being reshaped politically also
around Russia.  And then you look at the scientific advancements
that are being made, where China's got a very top-line in the
world super-conducting tokamak for fusion research.  The major
breakthroughs in terms of lunar exploration — that's China right
now; China's going to be landing on the far side of the Moon;
China had the first soft landing on the Moon in decades.  This is
really a potential.  With their far side of the Moon landing,
China will be able to take the first photographs of our universe
in the very low radio range; it's never been done before.  We'll
have access to a whole new sense of sight about the universe
around us.
        So, I think it's very exciting.  It's definitely much more
thrilling than most of the discussion that takes place about this
policy or that policy, when you think big like that.

DENISTON:  Mr. LaRouche's platform concept is so key.  People
just don't have the idea of this type of qualitative leaps that
are natural for mankind.  People are so accustomed at this point
to just slow, incremental progress if there's any progress at
all.  It's going to be a fight to get people to think on this
level again.

        ROSS:  Yes!  So much of what is considered to be progressive
or useful is only nudging people toward being better savers or
something; compared to the kinds of huge changes that are going
to be needed.  I think that's a very good image that we've given
people.  Let's end it with that.  I think the thing to take from
this also is that we have got a lot that we need to do; a lot of
policies to put into place; and a wide open opportunity to make
it happen right now.  Including, as Jeff was emphasizing,
Glass-Steagall is absolutely doable during this session of
Congress; even before the inauguration of the next President and
the next Congress in January.  This is something we can do right
now, next week, in this period.
        The ability to understand this concept of the platforms, of
the history of economic development of the United States, a real
major aspect of economic science, comes through studying
Alexander Hamilton.  So, if you have not been working through
Alexander Hamilton's reports, I urge you to get in touch with —
if you're near one of our offices, one of our locations, to join
us for these readings.  Get a copy of these reports yourself.
The book, Alexander Hamilton's Vision contains all four of the
reports, along with Mr. LaRouche's Four New Laws to Save the USA
Now.  And you don't have to get into a fistfight at a Walmart
parking lot to pick it up, either.
        Let's end it with that.  Please sign up through our website
if you haven't already, to find out how to get involved with us.
Get our daily email, join us via the action center; let's be in
touch, and let's make this happen right now.  There is nothing to
wait for; the situation is open.  So, thank you for joining us;
thank you to Ben and Jeff.  Thank you for all the work that you
have done and that you will do in the period immediately ahead.

 

               

                  

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. november, 2016; International Webcast – Det står nu helt klart, at hele det tidligere regeringssystem, det gamle system, brat og endegyldigt har nået slutningen. Men spørgsmålet lyder stadig: Hvad skal erstatte det? Og dette er langt fra konkret eller afklaret på nuværende tidspunkt. Det lederskab, som LaRouchePAC har ydet, og fortsat yder, udgør den afgørende faktor i dette spørgsmål – både på den nationale og den internationale scene. Det er meget tydeligt, at dynamikken nu er skiftet over mod det, Xi Jinping har anført med den Nye Silkevej og med samarbejdet med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin omkring skabelsen af en ny, strategisk og økonomisk, international orden; og det er bestemmende for verdensbegivenhederne i øjeblikket, og som går langt ud over noget, der finder sted på den hjemlige front, internt i USA. Spørgsmålet er, hvordan responderer vi til det?

LaRouchePAC fortsætter med at lede; og, som vi diskuterede i mandags, så var dette en meget vigtig uge. Kongressen samledes igen – selv om det kun var for nogle få dage; men, på stedet dér, for at byde medlemmerne af USA’s Kongres velkommen, så snart de vendte tilbage til Washington, var nogle af vore førende aktivister fra Larouche Political Action Committee (LPAC). Vi havde en dag med aktioner på stedet ved Capitol Hill onsdag; og vi mødte ganske afgjort en totalt rystet og langt mere åben situation, end vi har set i de seneste måske 16 år i Washington, D.C. Både det Republikanske lederskab og absolut det Demokratiske lederskab har fået alvorlige tæsk; og de mest mentalt sunde aspekter i begge partier er ved at indse, at tiden er inde til at forlige sig med det. Hvor skal de se hen for lederskab? Til LaRouche Political Action Committee.

Vi vil nu afspille et kort uddrag af en diskussion, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche anførte. Dette er bemærkninger, som hun gav til aktivisterne som en slags marchordre, før de tog til Washington. Hun giver en meget klar gennemgang af præcis den situation, vi er i, og det ansvar, vi har. Efter dette korte klip fortsætter vi diskussionen med nogle meget mere uddybende synspunkter om det, vi nu har været i stand til at opnå, og hvilke udfordringer, vi har foran os.

(For en dansk oversættelse af hele Helgas indslag, se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=16093)

     Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast November 18, 2016

 

OUR ROLE MUST BE TO SHAPE THE INSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE VERY HIGHEST LEVEL.

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening.  It's November 18, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're joining us for our weekly
webcast from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the studio by

Benjamin Deniston, and via video by members of our Policy
Committee:  Diane Sare, joining us from New York City; and Kesha
Rogers, joining us from Houston, Texas.
        We had the opportunity just now to have a discussion with
both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, and I think Mr. LaRouche's point
is very clear.  It is decisively determined that the entire
reigning former system, the old system, has abruptly and
decisively come to an end.  But the question still remains:  What
will replace it?  And that is far from concrete or finalized at
this point.  The leadership that the LaRouche PAC has delivered
and continues to deliver, is the deciding factor in that — both
nationally and on the international stage.  It's very clear that
the dynamic is now shifted towards what Xi Jinping has led in
China with the New Silk Road and in collaboration with Russian
President Vladimir Putin in creating a new strategic and economic
international order; and that is what is determining world events
right now, far beyond anything that's happening domestically from
within the borders of the United States.  The question is, how do
we respond to that?
        The LaRouche PAC continues to lead; and as we discussed on
Monday with the Policy Committee, this was a very important week.
Congress came back into session — albeit for just a couple of
days; but there to greet the members of the United States
Congress as soon as they returned to Washington were some of the
leading activists of the LaRouche Political Action Committee.  We
had a day of action on the ground on Capitol Hill on Wednesday;
and we definitely met a completely shaken up and much more open
situation than we have faced in perhaps the last 16 years in
Washington, DC.  Both the Republican leadership and absolutely
the Democratic leadership have received a severe drubbing; and
the most sane aspects of both parties are realizing that now is
the time to come to terms with that.  Where else can they turn
for leadership?  The LaRouche Political Action Committee.
        So, what we're going to do right now is play a short excerpt
from a discussion that was led by Helga Zepp-LaRouche.  These are
remarks that she delivered to those activists as sort of marching
orders before they went to Washington, DC.  I think she gives a
very clear overview of exactly the situation we find ourselves
in, and the responsibilities that we have.  Coming out of that
short audio clip, we will continue the discussion with some much
more elaborated views of what we have now been able to
accomplish, and what the challenges still are ahead of us.  So,
let me play that clip for you right now:

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE :  OK.  So, first of
all, I want to say hello to you.  Obviously, this is a very
important intervention because the election results in the United
States, which many people did not anticipate, is really part of a
global process.  It's not something which is accountable in all
the explanations given by the US media; for the most part, the
cover-up or some phony explanation like it was the FBI who cost
Hillary the election and so forth and so on.  What really is
going on strategically is that the masses of the population of
the trans-Atlantic sector in particular — also in some other
parts of the world, but in Europe and the United States in
particular — have really had it with an establishment which has
consistently acted against their interests.  People in those
states which are not represented by the anti-establishment, they
know that; because for them, the working and living conditions in
the last decades one can say, but in particular in the last 15
years, have become worse and worse.  People have to work more
jobs; they still can't make ends meet.  They have many cases
where their sons and sometimes even daughters have gone to Iraq
for five times in a row, to come home to be completely broken.
So, people have experienced that life is just getting worse for
them; and they do not have any hope in the Washington-New York
establishment.  You had the same phenomenon leading to the Brexit
vote in Great Britain in June; which also was not just the
refugees and most of the obvious issues — even though they did
play a certain catalyzing role; but it was the same fundamental
sense of injustice.  That there is simply no more government
which takes care of the common good.  Whatever explanations they
now come up with, this will not go away until the situation is
remedied, and good government is being re-established in the
United States, in Europe, and in other parts of the world.
        One immediate next point where the same kind of resentment
probably will show is with the referendum in Italy where on the
4th of December — that is, in 2.5 weeks from now — they will
have a referendum about a change in the constitution which as the
sentiment now goes, will be also a vote against the Renzi
government.  Even so, he promised he would resign; now, he
doesn't want to resign.  But in any case, this type of a process
will continue until a remedy has been put in.
        Now, obviously, the situation is that the Trump victory is
an open question.  It's not yet clear what this Presidency will
become; but as Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized emphatically almost
every day since the vote, this is not a local US affair.  This is
a global issue; it's a global international question because one
major reason why Trump won the election is because especially in
the last period, he had emphasized that Hillary Clinton would
mean World War III because of her policy concerning Syria.  She
demanded the no-fly zone and was proposing a head-on
confrontation with Russia.  That was absolutely to the point,
because we were on an absolutely very dangerous road to a
confrontation with Russia and with China.
        Trump in the election campaign had said repeatedly that he
would have a different attitude towards Russia; and he said
something more kinetic[?] things against China.  But since he has
been elected, he has been on the phone with Putin and Xi Jinping;
and in both cases, said that he would work to improve the
relations between the United States and Russia or respectively
with China.  Now that is obviously extremely important; and the
other extremely important question is will he carry through with
his promise on Glass-Steagall?  Especially in his speech in
Charlotte, he had reiterated that he would immediately implement
Glass-Steagall.  Obviously this is the key, because only if one
stops and terminates the casino economy which is really the cause
for the war, can the situation be brought in shape.  Obviously,
all the progressives — Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren; even
Pelosi said that they would already cooperate with Trump if he
would go for this infrastructure job creation Glass-Steagall
economic program.
        So, we should give the benefit of the doubt that he really
means it; but we should also be aware that naturally, the entire
Wall Street crowd, the neo-cons in the Republican Party will do
everything possible to not have that.  So therefore, we have to
have this intervention to really educate the Congress and the
Senate on what is really at stake.  The world is now really
looking, holding their breath; will there be a change in American
policy for the better?  Which hopefully it will; but it requires
these measures:  Glass-Steagall as an absolute precondition
without which nothing else will work.  But that is not enough,
because you are not just talking about banking reform; you are
talking about a completely new paradigm in the economic system.
That has been defined by the Four Laws of Lyn, which everybody
should really make sure that they completely understand when you
are doing this kind of lobbying work.  Lyn has been stressing in
the last couple of days, that the key thing is to increase the
productivity of the labor force; and because of neo-liberal
policies of monetarist policies of the last one can really say
decades, this productivity has gone down in the trans-Atlantic
sector below the break-even point.  This is why we need a
national bank in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton; we need a
credit policy; we need an international credit system, a new
Bretton Woods system.  And you obviously need a "win-win"
cooperation of all nations building the New Silk Road.  Also, in
the United States, building the Silk Road to become a World
Land-Bridge.
        Now, extremely important is the fourth of the Four Laws,
which basically says that we cannot get an increase in the
productivity of the economy unless you go for a crash program of
fusion power, and you go for a crash program of international
cooperation for space research.  Only if you do these kinds of
avant-garde leaps in the productivity — like fusion technology
brings you in a completely economic platform with the fusion
torch.  You will have energy security for the whole planet; you
will have raw materials security because you can use any waste
and differentiate out the different isotopes and reconstitute new
raw materials by putting the isotopes together in the way
required.  So, it's a gigantic technological leap; and the same
thing goes for space technology.  It will have exactly the same
impact as during the Apollo program when every investment in
space technology, in rockets and other new materials, brought 14
cents back from each cent of investment.  Everything from
computer chips to Teflon cooking ware to all kinds of benefits
occurred as a byproduct from space research.  To get the world
economy out of this present condition — especially in the
trans-Atlantic sector — you need that kind of reorientation
towards the scientific and technological progress, increases in
energy flux density.  All of this Green ideology which is really
no development ideology has to be replaced; and the world has to
go back in a direction where the real physical laws of the
physical universe are the criteria for truth, and not some
ideology."
        OGDEN:  Now, Helga LaRouche also delivered an equally
inspiring, but much more extensive speech at a very important
conference this week that occurred in Peru.  This was the 23rd
National Congress of the Association of Economists of Peru, that
was held in conjunction with the APEC meeting which is occurring
over this weekend in Lima, Peru.  The title of the conference was
"The Peru-Brazil Bi-Oceanic Train; the Impact on the Economy of
the Amazon Region and the Country".  So, this is Peru-Brazil
transcontinental railroad.  Helga LaRouche's presentation was the
keynote address; and she delivered it at the opening session.  It
was titled, "The New Silk Road Concept; Facing the Collapse of
the World Financial System".  This APEC summit which will be
occurring this weekend, will be hosting world leaders including
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.  There has been a major surge in
interest and engagement between China and these countries of
South America, around the idea of expanding the New Silk Road
into South America.  That would also obviously have to include
North America.  This is the vision that Helga LaRouche has been
emphasizing, and what she laid out in a very inspiring way in
this speech in Peru; the idea of the New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge.  The organizers of that conference — this
national congress of economists, the economists' association in
Peru — drafted their own copy of a 60-page pamphlet that they
distributed to all the participants of this conference, that was
based on excerpts from this report by {EIR} — "The New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge".  It also included a printing of
Lyndon LaRouche's Four New Laws concept.  So, this is obviously a
very significant event; and the fact that it's happening in
conjunction with the APEC summit at this moment in history, is
very important.  We hope to make the proceedings of that
conference available to viewers of this website.
        But what I can say is, we have now set the agenda.  What's
happening now is that the world is being forced to respond to the
agenda that has been set over decades — but really in the last
few months — by the LaRouche Movement internationally.  You can
see this by the flurry of coverage of Glass-Steagall inside the
United States, and the fact that there's open discussion
including from the new leadership of the Democratic Party:
Warren, Sanders, Keith Ellison, and others.  Now is the time to
put Glass-Steagall on the table and get out in front of this.
But the other element of this is the discussion of so-called
"infrastructure".  Now infrastructure can mean a lot of different
things, and I'm sure that people watched the victory speech by
President-elect Trump where he talked about building rail,
building bridges, building airports, and so forth.
        The latest development in that discussion is an article that
is featured on the front page of the {New York Times} today,
called "Trump-size Idea for a New President; Build Something
Inspiring".  Good headline, and the article starts off pretty
inspiringly; it says the only way that you're going to be able to
unify a bitterly divided America, is by building great
infrastructure projects.  Not just painting rusty bridges, or
laying a few miles of asphalt, but "Build something
awe-inspiring.  Something Americans can be proud of.  Something
that will repay its investment many times over for generations to
come.  Build the modern-day equivalent of the Golden Gate Bridge,
the Hoover Dam, the Lincoln Tunnel " All of which were built by
Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal administration.  Then the
article does also say, "Can anybody remember anything that came
out of Obama's $800 billion  [stimulus package]?  I don't think
so."  So, this article usefully cites what Franklin Roosevelt did
with the PWA, the WPA: 700 miles of airport runways; 650,000
miles or rail; 78,000 bridges; 125,000 military and civilian
buildings, [including] 40,000 schools.  This is massive.  The
article also usefully says the idea that any infrastructure
project today could pay for itself through user fees is a
ridiculous prospect.  But the alternative that this article poses
is just as bad; saying, the way to do it is for government to
borrow most of the money from investors.
        So, I think this demonstrates that we have a lot of work to
do with putting the full concept of Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws
on the table.  Now, this article cites a few useful
infrastructure projects: a new rail tunnel under the Hudson
River; California high-speed rail; a Northeast mag-lev corridor;
a Miami sea wall; so forth and so on.  But if you look at the
vision that's presented in this pamphlet — "The United States
Joins the New Silk Road: a Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic
Renaissance" — with the Bering Strait tunnel rail project to
connect Eurasia with the North and South American mega-continent.
If you look at the amount of high-speed rail, if you look at the
water management programs; and most of all, if you look at what
China has been able to accomplish in just the last few years,
you'll see that everything that is cited in this article
absolutely pales in comparison.
        And, there are some much deeper scientific points that have
got to be addressed.  1. The understanding of what Alexander
Hamilton actually did; and 2. What Lyndon LaRouche's science of
economics defines as real productivity from the standpoint of
increases in energy flux density.  So, I think that sets up the
discussion that we can have here right now.  Ben, Diane, Kesha,
and I think we should maybe expand from there.

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think it's very important that Mr.
LaRouche, increasingly in the last couple of months, has said
over and over again, "Productivity; productivity; productivity."
We have to start thinking about not just providing jobs, not just
providing needed infrastructure projects.  I think it's worth
making a distinction between on the one side things that are just
needed to maintain what we have.  We have a massive deficit just
to maintain the standard — I think the appropriate term is
"platform" as Mr. LaRouche had introduced a couple of years back
— about how to think about infrastructure and the real
development of a national territory in a scientific way.  You
have a certain platform of activity, a standard of activity level
that maintains a specific level of existence for your society;
directly connected to the potential relative population density
of your society.  We should always be looking to push to higher
and higher platforms; higher levels of activity.  Our current
platform is degraded; much of the infrastructure we live upon was
built largely under Franklin Roosevelt and a few spurts of
activity following him on that.  So on the hand, yeah, we need to
rebuild some of these things.  Our existing dam systems,
transport systems, even soft infrastructure like health care
systems are in need of repair.  But we also need to push to a
higher level; we need to go to a new platform which has higher
degrees of productivity per capita.  Higher degrees of ability to
support a larger population in new area, new territories of the
country; increase the productivity of existing territories, and
that begins to create real growth.  You're not going to get real
growth just by rebuilding what you have; although you need to do
that, because we've been letting this decay for decades now.
        But you also need to create real economic value, real
economic growth.  And that goes to this issue of, are you
increasing the productive powers of your labor force?  Are you
increasing the ability of your productive sector to produce the
physical goods needed to support society more efficiently and at
higher qualities with less physical input per capita, you could
say?  Can you measure those kinds of steps of growth?  Are you
taking that metric into account?  That's critical right now; and
it's worth recognizing that we've been living in a
post-industrial policy for many years now.  This whole idea of
the services economy, that somehow we can support ourselves by
creating jobs in services; where we take turns washing each
other's laundry.  I make you a cup of coffee; you make me a
hamburger.  That doesn't actually create qualitative changes in
the ability of society to sustain more people at higher living
standards.  You're just trading service work back and forth.
        So in all of this, we need to have a serious re-focussing on
what are the essential principles of human economic growth?  And
that's why Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws in totality is so crucial.
That's why I thought it was very good in Mrs. LaRouche's
orientation into our deployment into DC, she made a very clear
point on Mr. LaRouche's fourth law — this fusion driver program.
These are the kinds of things that you might employ a relatively
small part of the population even in that specific endeavor; but
you're pushing the frontiers of engineering capabilities,
scientific capabilities.  That actually has the most important
radiating effect on the entirety of the economy, the entirety of
the productive capabilities of the labor force.
        You absolutely need this science driver, this
high-technology, high capital-intensity driver program to really
push the whole program forward.  The depth of the crisis that
we've gone into just makes it that much more important that we
have that element up there, front and center.  Since Mr. LaRouche
put out this Four Laws document, he has also obviously been
increasingly focussed on the role of space in that focus, in that
goal.  That is another absolutely critical element of this.  It
was not an incomprehensible or miraculous thing that John F
Kennedy's Apollo program had such a massive spin-off effect in
terms of payback to the US economy from the investments that were
made.  The studies not that long after the project finished, were
already showing a 14-1 payback in terms of the totality of
increases of productivity of industries that were not part of the
space program; but acquired technologies.  Precision engineering
capabilities; high-precision control systems for production;
various things that were created out of necessity to make this
super-advanced Moon mission work.  But that increased the ability
of mankind generally to be more productive in his production
capabilities.  That was then able to be applied throughout the
economy generally.
        So, those are the kinds of things that we absolutely need
right now; not just repairing our existing degraded
infrastructure.  We're going to have to do that, sure; but how do
you create the growth where you can afford to do that, and afford
to make completely new investments?  Part of this infrastructure
discussion should be opening up new territories of the country.
A major part of this pamphlet that we put out, and a huge part of
Mrs. LaRouche's focus, has been new cities.  You've got huge
territories in the United States that are not developed.  Let's
develop the nation; let's expand new territories; let's create
huge areas of new growth.  That's the kind of stuff that's going
to drive the whole process forward.  We're in a real need for
some precise, clear, authoritative leadership on these issues,
because these things are not understood.  We're not just going
into this in a vacuum; we have a completely broken down system;
not just in the financial sector, but in the physical economy,
too.  So we need clear, precise, immediate action.  We don't have
years for somebody to figure this thing out over time; people's
lives are on the line right now in terms of what's needed to turn
the US economy around.

        DIANE SARE:  Well, I'd like to just put this in a context;
because we're not having a discussion here in the abstract.  And
I want to go back to what Mr. LaRouche did in the 1970s with the
creation of the Fusion Energy Foundation, and his role in being
brought into a team to create a Presidency.  I want to be very
clear with the people watching this that what we are doing is not
an academic discussion of nice things that we, sitting in a
little corner, want to do.  Mr. LaRouche — as you heard from
what Ben laid out — had a very clear conception of the necessity
of fusion energy at that time.  Also, people remember the Jimmy
Carter Presidency; small is beautiful.  I think we were talking
about global cooling back then, and now it's global warming.
[One sentence paraphrase because of bad audio] What we needed to
do, in collaboration with Edward Teller, was to take the Mutually
Assured Destruction doctrine off the table.  The only deterrent
to a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union was who
could blow up the world more times over.  What happened was, in
the process of this, Ronald Reagan as a candidate and then as
President, was recruited to this idea; and I think we've been
told there a number of things which Mr. LaRouche was working on
with the Reagan administration.  Not the least of which was the
SDI, which the Soviets rejected and Reagan announced, which led
in a not-so-indirect way to the Berlin Wall coming down.  Also,
there was discussion of a meeting between President Reagan and
Indira Gandhi, former prime minister of India who had been leader
of the Non-Aligned Movement.  Reagan, as people recall, was shot
in '82; Indira Gandhi was assassinated; Mr. LaRouche was put in
prison.  I'm not saying that to say that we're worried about it;
there's all kinds of questions of security and safety.  But my
point is that LaRouche personally has played a major, important
role in shaping the institution of the Presidency; and his
incarceration was timed for when we had earlier another such
great opportunity, which was when the Soviet system collapsed
economically as he warned it would.  He was in prison, and his
wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche put on the table with him the Productive
Triangle and so on.  We know what happened; that was sabotaged by
a series of wars.  The Balkans; the first Iraq War; we later had
9/11 and so on.
        What we are doing today is to shape the American [nation] in
participation with what is a New Paradigm; which LaRouche and his
wife personally have been very much involved in creating.  Two
years ago, Mr. LaRouche announced that we should move the center
of our American operations to New York City; which was done.  In
the last three or four months, we have begun circulation of a
newspaper appropriately titled {The Hamiltonian}.  I'll just say
I found it ironic that the {New York Times} today has these
headlines about infrastructure.  They also have articles about
how school children in Estonia and Latvia were terrified that
Hillary Clinton was going to drag them into the middle ground of
a war between NATO and Russia.  It's very interesting.
        The big title on {The Hamiltonian} this week is "We Are
Facing a New Epoch for Mankind"; the subtitle is "The New York
Times Has Become Irrelevant".  So, they may be scrambling to make
themselves relevant.  But what you also see, is we have printed
now, four weeks in a row, Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws.  They have no
excuse to be so idiotic on their proposals; both for how you fund
this, and how they're thinking about it, which is all domestic.
The world now, what Mrs. LaRouche described in her speech in
Peru, was that Xi Jinping made his announcement of this in
September of 2013.  In those three years, he travelled to 37
nations; he made bilateral agreements with 56 nations; 39 new
cargo routes have been opened.  These are major international
transportation corridors; 98 airports.  The magnitude of this
completely boggles the mind.  It really is in keeping with what
Hamilton would have envisioned; what you saw with Henry Carey, or
John Quincy Adams in terms of their role in the United States.
And I would say geographically, if you could step away, if you
could get on a space ship and look at the Earth from a distance;
or just take out a globe and look at what the United States is,
where we are between the Atlantic and the Pacific.  What North
America is, and South America now getting involved, we have a
great opportunity before us to play an absolutely strategic role
in this.  Our intent is to bring this about, which is why it's so
crucial that everybody watching this, makes it a point to master
the principles in Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws.  Particularly the
fourth principle, and also particularly the principle of credit;
which is in a sense tied to the increase of productivity.  We're
not going to fund so-called infrastructure by tolls; we're not
going to build a new bridge, a tunnel under the Hudson and charge
people a toll and that's going to pay for it.  No, if your
population is able to produce orders of magnitude more than it is
currently producing, that is a net increase in the wealth of the
nation.  It has nothing to do with tolls, or tickets for public
transportation; which are all sort of a form of tax farming and
looting.
        I do want to underscore:  1. The role of Lyndon LaRouche in
shaping the Presidency; 2. That this is going to occur from
Manhattan; the entire transition seems to be being organized from
Trump Towers on Fifth Avenue in New York City.  It is incumbent
on all of us to raise this to the appropriate level of discussion
and to not tolerate anything smaller.

        KESHA ROGERS:  Just to follow up on that, another important
aspect of the fight waged by Mr. LaRouche and his wife Helga,
going back to the 1970s around the fight that you just mentioned,
Diane, of the Fusion Energy Foundation, was the fight against
this apparatus of a zero-growth or no-growth culture.  He was
very instrumental with Mrs. LaRouche and also their collaboration
with space pioneer Krafft Ehricke — who we've mentioned a lot —
on taking on this degeneracy of the attack on population
reduction that was being promoted and continues to be promoted to
this day.  Many people may remember that there was a book put out
in the 1970s by two men, Dennis Meadows and Jay Forrester.  Jay
Forrester just died recently at 98 years old.  He was
instrumental in putting out the computer models which indicated
that there was a certain relationship between the limited
resources on Earth and the production of food to how many people
you can sustain on Earth and so forth.  This is something that
Mr. LaRouche has taken directly in terms of this is an attack on
the human identity, an attack on the real productivity based on
the creative potential of the human mind and LaRouche's model has
been brought up on the increasing of the energy flux density of
your economy per capita, and per land area.
        I think it's really important right now to look at the fact
that Mr. LaRouche sees this fight as a complete shift in the
global direction of mankind; unifying mankind on a level that
nations have never been unified on before.  I thought it was
important that yesterday, we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche
— Ben, myself, and others from the leadership team; and one
thing that he brought up was the integration of the space program
and the development of space research, space science, and the
exploration of space to Classical music — which we're really
defining in the development of our Manhattan Project, which is
really shaping our organization across the country and
internationally.  You have seen a culture which is completely
degenerated under the Bush-Obama Presidencies.  You take the
inspiration, the culture which shaped the identity of the fight
and the vision that led President John F Kennedy to implement the
space program in the way he did.  The fact that he brought in
people like Pablo Casals into the White House; that this
classical identity and classical culture was very instrumental
throughout the space program, by people such as space pioneer
[Werner] von Braun and various others working with him.  Some of
these scientists who came with von Braun, like Krafft Ehricke and
others, from Germany; who helped to shape the US space program.
It's interesting; you compare that to what you've seen under
Bush.  Who did he bring into the White House during his
inauguration?  I think it was Ozzy Osbourne; rock music, heavy
metal.  Then you had Obama bringing in Beyoncé, not to mention
the other very degenerate cultural figures that he has brought
in.  So, I think what Mr. LaRouche is saying around this is
extremely important.
        I think it's also important to look at the space program and
the integration of the classical culture as the expression of a
higher identity of what it means to be human, and the inspiration
and optimism that's been missing from the population.  There's a
few more things we can say on this; I think it's also important
to recognize the importance internationally of what China is
doing.  We can say more on this later, but the fact that when you
talk about inspiration and optimism, we have now the Shenzhou 11
space crew, the crew in China who just docked 33 days ago to the
Tiangong 2, the space lab for China.  They're doing experiments
that are quite phenomenal; but what they're really expressing —
they're going to continue doing these experiments in space.  One
of the things we saw back in 2013, when you had the astronauts
docking the first space lab for China, videoing this and beaming
it back to Earth; and 60 million children watching it.  They're
going to do something similar for this space experiment.  This is
something that we have to go back to right now; the space program
is not just some abstract thing on the side for gurus who like
it.  We have to make it part of the culture; we have to make it
something that inspires and uplifts the population again, but is
instrumental in the development of the increases of the
productivity of society and increases in the platform.  So that
means that the population has to come to a higher level of
understanding of their identity; and the way to do that is really
an integration of culture, as Mr. LaRouche has made clear.

        OGDEN:  One thing you brought up, and I thought it was good
to go back to; the conjunction of Kennedy's space program, the
kind of inspiration and culture needed.  This was something very
conscious to the Kennedy administration; not only did they bring
Pablo Casals to the White House, but this was part of a broader
discussion between John F Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, and Pierre
Salinger, who was the Press Secretary.  But before he became
Kennedy's Press Secretary, had been a child prodigy; had been a
concert pianist, a composer.  He had discussions with Jackie
Kennedy which he records in his book, where Jackie Kennedy said
the role of the White House should be to set a tone for the arts
which will encourage great culture, classical culture around the
country.  And we should exhibit the finest of culture, of art; we
should set the standard which everybody else can then rise to
that level.
        It is good that you brought up, Kesha, in conjunction has
happened politically, where New York City has definitely become
the center of gravity of the political universe of the United
States.  It's not just Trump; Clinton was also New York City.  It
was a strategic decision to center a very active organization in
New York; but that entire process has also happened in parallel
with what Diane has been leading there with this revival of
Classical music and culture.  That's very important, even from
the standpoint of what is our idea of man; and the dignity of
human beings.  Yes, granted, there were dark tones during this
Presidential campaign which is not acceptable.  But the idea of
the dignity of man, and the creativity of the entire human
species is what is embodied in the greatest of Classical music.
It's one thing to point actually, Diane; that first Messiah
concert which launched the New York City renaissance project,
happened in the context of this racial tension that was heating
up in New York at that time.  So, this still is a very important
aspect of addressing that.

        SARE:  I just wanted to add one quick thing on that note;
which is a musical question actually, if you think about a
symphony orchestra or a chorus and the role that individuals play
as part of that body; where the whole is definitely greater than
the sum of its parts.  Were we to launch a transformation of
society along the lines of what Mrs. LaRouche outlined in Peru;
that is, the US to become integrated in part of the Belt and Road
program, then I think we would quickly discover that we actually
don't have enough people in this country.  So that all the things
that people are afraid about, about who's going to be excluded,
who's going to be deported, etc.; you will find yourself looking
at your fellow human beings with new eyes because of the creative
potential of each individual which will be necessary to transform
the nation and the world in the immediate future.

        OGDEN:  Ben was just referencing some of Mr. LaRouche's
early writings on economics which really get to the question of
how do you measure productivity.  This is not just raw labor
power; this is not just the number of jobs.  But it is the
question of generation upon generation, can you produce more than
is consumed?  But can you do it in a way where the power of the
human species actually is transformed almost as a species
characteristic, step by step? I've found it very inspiring that
during those opening remarks that we played by Helga, she went
back to the discussion of what we used to call the isotope
economy.  What power can mankind wield if we penetrate not just
to the molecular level, but to the very atomic level?  Fission
power is breaking apart the atom; fusion is an entirely different
matter, where you actually have the ability to create new
elements.  You have the ability to create new isotopes of any
given elements, which have very differing characteristics.  It's
the promise of Promethean fire, which mankind has been working
towards over millennia; but we have not yet achieved.  This is an
inspiring subject, but the ability of mankind to wield power at
the very basic level of the fabric of matter; that's an entirely
new power.

        DENISTON:  Yeah, and it's a huge subject that could be
probably taken up in much more detail.  It really goes to the
question of what is a resource?  What do we consider as a
resource; and how that continually changes as mankind develops.
Once you go to this level of an isotope conception of resources,
we don't use up isotopes.  When you use petroleum or wood,
anything you use — unless you're actually doing fission and
fusion, when the total amount of matter you're working with is
very small — you're not actually destroying the elements
themselves.  You might be acting on a state of organization
that's been created.  We might be looking for certain states of
organization to utilize the properties of that as a resource at a
certain point.  But I think this goes right to the issue of the
isotope economy, the intimate connection with energy flux density
where we could begin to create those states of organization
ourselves; or work with lower states of quality of concentrations
of ores and various things.  Where things that were not
economical before to do, or not even possible to do before; if
you get a higher energy flux density, a higher energy throughput,
you can begin to manage in a completely new way.  Separating the
quality of resource elements that we want; organizing them in new
ways.
        Helga mentioned this very exciting prospect that's been
talked about to some degree for years of this fusion torch idea.
That you could take stuff that now is just trash, trash is
fundamentally everything we use; that's why it's our trash.  It
was something that we were using that was useful to us.  Now, we
might have degraded it in some way and put it in a landfill; but
the fundamental constituents of what made it useful are still
there.  So, it's not inconceivable to think of mankind
progressing to a point where we could reprocess even these
landfills.  That might be a little ways away; there will be some
steps along the way to get there.  But those are the kinds of
complete transformations in what mankind can do to recreate the
cycles of productivity that support, again, larger populations at
higher living standards; and really going in the opposite
direction than we've been going in for decades.
        Right now, a family needs to work three or four jobs just to
not get by month-to-month, and not be able to afford health care,
not be able to afford education.  We need a society where one job
can sustain a significantly sized family and provide these kinds
of benefits — higher education, health care, and have free time
for arts, for recreation, for developing the cultural mental
powers of your family and yourself.  How you're going to get to
that point is going at these issues we're talking about here, of
actually increasing the productivity of the labor force as a
whole; the productive powers of the labor force as a whole.
Pushing these kinds of science driver, technology driver programs,
that make these kinds of breakthroughs.
        Mr. LaRouche's point on this as a new focus, that he's put on
this in the recent period, is really critical.  We got to raise
this discussion to not just jobs, but productivity.  What's your
ability to produce things?  If we're serious about turning the
economy around.  It's kind of been referenced here and there, but
we have allies in doing that.  It's not just going to be
completely on our own shoulders.  We have to decide to do it, but
China has said, "Hey, United States!  If you want to quit this
geopolitical, 19th Century crazy game and get to some serious
discussion about creating a future for mankind, that's what we're
doing.  So, if you want to work with us, we'd be happy to
cooperate with you in a serious, honest investment and
development for our nations."  Many other nations are rallying
around China in their effort to do that; so that's there as a
critical support point, if the United States makes this shift.
These are the critical issues that we've got to put on the table
and fight out.
        And again, Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws, as he said, is a
central organizing document around that whole perspective.

        ROGERS:  Yeah, it's also important to note that as Mr.
LaRouche said, in the calling for the implementation and
enactment of the Four Laws that he's put on the table as an
urgent necessity, Glass-Steagall being the first and urgently
needed measure, is not an option or a compromise with the Wall
Street bankers.  He indicated that it has to be the Franklin
Roosevelt; and it can't be a watered-down Dodd-Frank compromise
or anything of that nature.  There's only one way you're going to
wipe out this casino economy, Wall Street speculation; and I
think that goes the same for the measures needed with the
development of the types of density and increase in energy source
and fusion economy as Mr. LaRouche is calling for.  There's a lot
of compromise out there about that, too.  "Fusion is a long way
away; it's never going to happen.  The politicians aren't going
to let it happen."  All of this stuff.
        I attended a space conference this week; and one of the
things that was being promoted in terms of deep space exploration
was solar-electric power.  "Yes, we agree; nuclear, increase in
fusion sources is most important, but it's not practical.  So,
we're going to go with this."  Or, "We're going to push this,
because it's probably something we can get through Congress."
That's the most insane thing you can think of.  When they talked
about to carry cargo into space would be 2-3 years, is that real
productivity?  How are you going to advance mankind's exploration
into space and the ability to actually go out to a Moon mission
as a base?  And a Mars mission?  Also, just increasing what Ben
was just discussing in terms of our ability to increase our
resources here on Earth.  The mining of Helium-3 on the Moon and
various other resources, that we've talked about.
        Once again, the point was, a lot of people want to
compromise on these things.  There cannot be compromise because
there is a global shift underway; and that global shift is
requiring an increase in the highest levels of scientific
development that has to be implemented immediately.  This is why
Mr. LaRouche's fourth law in terms of fusion driver program, is
something that — just like Glass-Steagall — cannot be
compromised on; and is absolutely fundamental for pushing forth
the breakthroughs which are necessary.

        OGDEN:  Well, that was Helga LaRouche's point during the
opening segment that we played today; that it is incumbent on all
the activists, all the viewers of this broadcast, to master the
contents of Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws document.  This might seem
like a short document, but it's a very dense document; and a lot
of the subjects that Ben has brought up here today in terms of
the definition of economic productivity and what the nature of
mankind is.  Kesha, what you were saying; there really are no
limits to growth.  This is not some kind of thing, where when we
reach our carrying capacity, that will be it.  It's mankind
transforming its own species; transforming the universe, and
transforming our relationship to the universe.  That's what's
addressed in this policy document by Lyndon LaRouche.  You have
to set the bar that high; it cannot be any lower than that level
from which you're going to effect the kind of revolution in
policy that's necessary for the entire planet at this time.
        So, we have a lot of work to do.  The Congress was only in
session for a day and a half this week.  But what that means, is
that they are back in their districts; and I'm telling you, it's
not going to be like business as usual.  This is not what the
conditions were before this election.  It's all the more
important to think from the standpoint of what Diane was
mentioning in the beginning of the show:  Our role is — and has
always been — to shape the institution of government of the
United States from the very highest level.  This is not coming in
from the outside; this is not a voice calling in the darkness.
This is working with the leadership of the nations of the planet
and creating the dynamic that you now see taking over.  This has
been decades in the making; but I can guarantee you, Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche have played a role that has been central to this
reality now coming into being.  I'm talking about the New Silk
Road; I'm talking about this trilateral relationship between
Russia, China, and India, creating a new dynamic on the Eurasian
continent.  Everything that's happening in South America right
now is something that Lyndon LaRouche was personally involved in
over decades; and now South America coming into the New Silk Road
and joining this new World Land-Bridge is something that is very
real.
        Nothing is determined; but our role is to continue that
fight inside the United States, and to make this a reality —
"The United States {Joins} the New Silk Road".  We put it in the
present tense for a reason.
        So, I'd invite Diane, Kesha, if there's anything concluding
that you'd like to say before we close out the show?

        SARE:  I think one great benefit of launching this recovery
and increasing the productivity is all the states which just
voted to legalize marijuana, will have second thoughts about
that.

        DENISTON:  We want high productivity, and it doesn't mean
that.

        OGDEN:  You'll turn out like Gary Johnson and have an
"Aleppo moment".
OK.  We'll take that as a concluding point here.  Please stay
tuned.  We will make the full speech that Helga delivered in Peru
available.  The audio at least, or maybe the video.  There was
also a very productive dialogue that occurred with the
participants of that meeting with Helga, following her keynote
speech.  So, that's an important thing to stay tuned for.  Also,
we will be producing a feature video — about 10 or 15 minutes in
length — on the content of the Four New Laws.  That fleshes out
some of the Hamiltonian aspect of that; and it's an educational
tool to teach yourself and to teach everybody else real
economics.  So stay tuned for that; that will be coming to the
website soon.
        Thank you for watching; please subscribe to our YouTube
channel and our daily email updates.  All of the information is
available in the description of this video available below the
video in the YouTube player.  Thank you and we'll talk to you
soon.  Stay tuned.

4. november, 2016 – Hillarys præsidentkampagne er et intetsigende falsum. Hun satsede sin kampagne på Obamas sataniske arv, først og fremmest ved sin direkte afvisning af Glass-Steagall, især efter, at hun blev udfordret af LaRouche-aktivist Daniel Burke under en tale om sin økonomiske politik ved New School i New York City i juli måned, 2015, hvor hun var for fej til blot så meget som at tale om spørgsmålet.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

15. august 2016 (Leder) – Vil USA genoplive videnskabelig kreativitet og økonomisk produktivitet for på lang sigt at samarbejde fredeligt med Kinas fremskridt?

Vil Europa beslutte at opgive det, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche kalder »selvmordspagten« med Obama og en NATO-ledelse, der planlægger krige med både Rusland og Kina? Hvornår vil Europa i stedet gå med i Eurasiens Nye Silkevej med store infrastrukturprojekter – for ikke at tale om udforskning af rummet og udvikling af fusionskraft?

Dette er de virkelige spørgsmål, som borgere bør engagere sig i – og ikke de katastrofer, der i USA p.t. stiller op til præsidentvalget.

Meddelelsen i dag om, at tyske fusionsforskere går sammen med et statsligt, russisk laboratorium om udvikling af et nyt »polariseret deuterium«-brændstof til fusionskraft viser f. eks. den kreative retning for Europas bedste kapaciteter. Resultatet kan overhale det nylige gennembrud i Tysklands fusionsprogram – men disse resultater er allerede langt overgået af Kinas resultater. Kina gør teknologisk innovation og vækst til temaet for G20-mødet, som det vil være formand for 4. – 5. september i Hangzhou. Det samme gælder for Putins Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok 2. – 3. september.

De eurasiske nationer rykker sammen i en proces, der kan vinde freden så vel som udvikling; og det er lederskabsinitiativer, taget af Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin, der i vid udstrækning har gjort denne proces mulig.

Det har placeret USA foran et valg – og det er ikke et valg til præsident mellem to Dick Cheney-imitatorer.

Den 12. august forudsagde IMF, at Kinas årlige økonomiske vækst ville falde til 6 % frem til 2020. Hvis dette skulle vise sig at være sandt, så kunne USA – dersom det blev ledet af et revolutionerende nyt præsidentskab, der udsteder statskredit til ny infrastruktur, rumforskning og fusionsteknologier – håbe på til den tid at nå op på siden af Kinas vækst!

Amerikanske regeringsfolk og folk fra Federal Reserve (centralbanken) har langt om længe for nylig indrømmet, at de er bekymret over den amerikanske økonomis meget lave produktivitet, såvel som over økonomiens meget lave vækst. Økonomien under Obama har vist en hidtil uhørt lav vækst i produktiviteten, uanset, hvordan man måler den.

En almindelig måde at måle »produktivitet« på er simpelt hen at dividere BNP med præsterede arbejdstimer. Målt således har væksten i arbejdskraftens produktivitet aldrig nået en årlig rate på blot 1 %, siden Obama i sit første år i embedet underskrev sin »stimuleringslov«. I de seneste 12 måneder har USA’s økonomiske vækst udgjort sølle 1,2 %.

Men reelle forøgelser af arbejdskraftens produktivitet kommer fra videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, og fra uddannelse. Den rapport, som blev udgivet af Statskontoret for Forskning i Økonomi (NBER) over den meget store vækst i produktiviteten under Franklin Roosevelts præsidentskab, siger: »Dette skyldtes en meget stærk vækst i generering og distribuering af elektricitetskraft, transport, kommunikation, civilingeniørers og strukturingeniørers arbejde inden for broer, tunneller, dæmninger, hovedveje, jernbaner og systemer til transmission; samt privat forskning og udvikling.« Udfordringerne i al dette moderne infrastrukturbyggeri frembragte teknologiske fremskridt inden for et stort antal industrier, og forskning og udvikling blev stærkt forøget.

Økonomer rangerer 1930’erne, ’40’erne og ’60’ernes Apolloprojekt som toppunkterne for reel vækst i produktivitet i USA’s historie – med en forbedring i produktiviteten på næsten 3 % om året.

Ifølge San Francisco Federal Reserve og NBER var der under George W. Bush’ otte år en stigning i denne vækst på 1,0 % om året; og under Obamas snart otte år, 0,75 %.

Tiden er inde til et nyt præsidentskab, og til at indhente Kina.   

Foto: De kinesisk producerede højhastighedstog afventer afgang fra jernbanestationen i Hankow, 19. april 2016.

.

15. august 2016 (Leder) – »Putin er allerede den fungerende præsident for et nyt univers«, hævdede Lyndon LaRouche i sin ugentlige diskussion med Manhattan-projektet d. 13. august. »Putin har opbygget en meget respektabel organisation, som nu optager en stor del af hele planeten! … Putins indflydelsessfære er ikke kun Rusland; det er andre dele af hele det asiatiske område.«

LaRouche uddybede det med, at Putin, der arbejder i alliance med Kina, Indien og andre nationer, er i færd med at opbygge et alternativ til det rådnende transatlantiske system i form af en global fremgangsmåde efter Hamiltons økonomiske principper. »Man er ved at få noget, der er lig Alexander Hamilton, for Rusland; og ikke kun for Rusland, men for Asien! For hele Asien, praktisk talt. Det er en temmelig stor post.«

De næste 60 dage er fuld af farer, og også muligheder. Vi stirrer nu direkte ned i kanonløbet på en global finanskrise, understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i en diskussion med medarbejdere i dag, en krise, der meget vel kunne komme over os i løbet af september-oktober. Inden for samme tidsrum kommer der en række internationale konferencer – der kulminerer med det 8. BRIKS-topmøde i Indien i midten af oktober – som kan udgøre rammerne for en implementering af det påkrævede, politiske skifte, der er udtænkt af LaRouche, såfremt der mobiliseres tilstrækkelig international politisk vilje for at skabe dette revolutionerende Nye Paradigme.

Kina fortsætter med at udfolde den rigtige fremgangsmåde: »Tiden er inde til at uddanne videnskabelige og teknologiske hjerner,« udtalte Li Zhimin, direktør for Udviklingscenter for Videnskab og Teknologi ved Uddannelsesministeriet, i forbindelse med annonceringen af udgivelsen af Statsrådets plan om dramatisk at forøge proportionen af statsborgere i Kina med videnskabelige færdigheder ved år 2020.

Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping har ligeledes gjort det klart, at hans ven og strategiske allierede, den russiske præsident Putin, vil være æresgæst nummer ét ved det kommende G20-topmøde i Kina d. 4.-5. september – til det Britiske Imperiums og dets stikirenddreng Barack Obamas store rædsel. Kineserne er i færd med, i tæt samarbejde med både Rusland såvel som Indien, at koordinere strategien for G20-mødet og det efterfølgende BRIKS-topmøde i Indien d. 15.-16. oktober. Deres erklærede politik er at imødegå »de udfordringer, som den globale økonomi i øjeblikket står overfor« ved »at sikre en succesfuld organisering af G20- og BRIKS-topmøderne.«

Denne succes vil blive målt på, at man omgående begraver det nuværende dødbringende og bankerotte finanssystem og erstatter det med et system efter Hamiltons principper, der bygger på LaRouches design, som det specificeres i hans Fire Love. 

Det reelle spørgsmål, som USA og verden står overfor i dag, er en omskabelse af det amerikanske præsidentskab omkring denne politik – og ikke den galskab, der finder sted i den amerikanske valgkampagne. LaRouche udtalte:

Vores præsident er Satans stedfortræder. De ledende kandidater er frygteligt korrupte; så I vil bekymre jer om, hvilken kandidat, I skal vælge? Når I ved, at, i hovedsagen, alle de kandidater, der er på tale, er eksemplarer på ondskaben! At de, på den ene eller anden vis, forkaster deres ansvar som menneskelige væsener for denne proces. Så vi må komme ind til årsagen til problemet … og sørge for at fjerne denne årsag. 

 

 

 

Det afgørende spørgsmål i dette præsidentvalg er, vil det amerikanske folk tolerere kandidater, der ønsker, at USA skal være på linje med et allerede dødt system? Eller, vil vi følge en anden kurs, hvor USA kommer på linje med dette nye, fremtidsorienterede alternativ? Rent historisk betragtet har Amerika altid befundet sig på denne fremtidsorienterings side; i det mindste, med udgangspunkt i USA’s grundlæggende principper – ideerne i Hamiltons tradition er i realiteten det, der ligger til grund for denne eurasiske udvikling. Vi må vinde kampen om at transformere USA tilbage til det, som det repræsenterede rent historisk, som byen, der ligger på et bjerg.

Uddrag af LPAC fredags-webcast, 12. august 2016. Se hele webcastet, med engelsk udskrift, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14144

Matthew Ogden: En ting, jeg gerne vil sige i sammenhæng med den foreståede FN Generalforsamling; der foregår allerede en krig imod alt det, som BRIKS repræsenterer. Hvis man tænker ét eller to år tilbage i tiden, så blev aftalen i Fortaleza, Brasilien, indgået i sammenhæng med denne krig, som [dav. præsident] Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner førte i Argentina imod gribbefondene. Disse nationer kom sammen i solidaritet med Argentina og sagde, vi vil ikke tillade, at I dræber det argentinske folk for at få pengene til gribbefondene. Siden dette tidspunkt har vi set en samling omkring Putins, Xi Jinpings og Modis lederskab i BRIKS-strukturen; dette er det nye, fremvoksende paradigme. I den mellemliggende periode har der fundet en samlet indsats sted for at bryde BRIKS op; og lige nu befinder vi os midt i et sådant angreb. Vi så, hvad der skete med Cristina Kirchner i Argentina; nu sker det samme med Dilma Rousseff i Brasilien. Netop i denne uge har et flertal i det brasilianske parlament vedtaget at indlede afhøringer af Rousseff; hvilket vil sige, en rigsretssag mod Brasiliens præsident. Der har været en vis respons mod dette kup internt i USA; og dette er faktisk emnet for det spørgsmål fra institutionelt hold, vi har fået til i aften.

Jeg ved, at hr. LaRouche havde nogle detaljerede bemærkninger om dette. Jeg læser nu spørgsmålet op, og så kan Jeff måske træde ind og sige lidt om det. Spørgsmålet lyder:

»Hr. LaRouche: Kongresmedlem John Conyers, demokrat fra Michigan; Marcy Kaptur, demokrat fra Ohio; Keith Ellison, demokrat fra Minnesota, samt flere en 30 andre fra Repræsentanternes Hus sendte i denne uge et brev til udenrigsminister John Kerry, hvor de opfordrede ham til at afholde sig fra handlinger, der kunne fortolkes som støtte til Brasiliens midlertidige regering. Og til i stedet at »udtrykke sin stærke bekymring mht. rigsretssagen og angrebet på den brasilianske præsident Dilma Rousseff«; og til at »kræve beskyttelse af det forfatningsmæssige demokrati og regering ved lov i Brasilien«. Brevet er det første brev fra kongresmedlemmer, som udtrykker bekymring over Brasiliens demokrati, i mere end to årtier. Hvilke handlinger bør USA’s regering, efter Deres mening, gribe til, for at fremme retfærdighed og beskytte demokratiske institutioner i Brasilien på nuværende tidspunkt?«

Jeffrey Steinberg: Det første, han understregede, var, at vi ikke har med en »brasiliansk situation« at gøre, på samme måde, som vi heller ikke har med en »syrisk situation« at gøre.

Vi befinder os midt i en betydningsfuld, global, strategisk omorganisering. Som du sagde, så havde man, ved BRIKS-landenes møde i Fortaleza for to år siden, lanceringen af den Nye Udviklingsbank, efterfulgt af Kinas lancering af den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB). Der er tydeligvis et politisk initiativ centreret omkring de store, eurasiske magter, men som også omfatter Brasilien og Sydamerika, Sydafrika og Afrika, med det formål at reorganisere verden omkring en radikalt anden fremgangsmåde; en fremgangsmåde, der er orienteret mod fremtiden, centreret omkring store projekter for økonomisk udvikling, der er ægte win-win-projekter. Der er intet geopolitisk nulsumsspil. Og så har vi et dødt system, som er det britiske imperiesystem, og som i de sidste 15 år er blevet repræsenteret gennem den kendsgerning, at briterne har haft kontrollen over det amerikanske præsidentskab; først under George W. Bush, og dernæst under Barack Obama.

Så det første, USA bør gøre, er at opgive sin egen, direkte rolle i promoveringen af dette kup. Dette er ikke noget, der finder sted, fordi en flok personer internt i Brasilien har besluttet at angribe Dilma Rousseff. Der er hedgefondenes internationale apparat; der er Adam Smith Institutes netværker i Storbritannien; der er Chicago Skolens apparat her i USA; de er alle virkemidler i dette fremstød – ikke for at skade Brasilien – men for at ødelægge Brasilien, fordi det er en del af denne nye BRIKS-organisering. Jeg forsikrer jer for, at, hvis USA offentligt gik ud – hvis Kerry offentligt fremkom med en erklæring, der sagde, at USA mener, at dette er et statskup, der ikke nødvendigvis anvender skydevåben, men som anvender handlinger fra købt-og betalte, korrupte regeringspersoner for at vælte en lovligt valgt regering, der forsøger at bringe Sydamerika på linje med dette nye paradigme for udvikling, centreret omkring Eurasien; så ville det her forsvinde. De brasilianske senatorer, der har stemt for det her, er absolut skamløse; de personer, der står bag dette kup, er alle sammen selv underkastet en lovlig undersøgelse for kriminelle handlinger, for massivt økonomiske bedrageri. Hvis man undersøger det brasilianske element af skandalen omkring Panama-papirerne[1], vil man finde disse topregeringsfolk – formanden for parlamentet, præsidenten for Senatet, den aktuelle præsident (idet Dilma Rousseff er suspenderet, -red.), den aktuelle udenrigsminister; alle de personer, der har allieret sig imod Dilma, er selv en del af det mest korrupte apparat. Men de er beskyttet, fordi de er en del af det Britiske Imperium og Obamaregeringens beskyttelsesapparat; og deres mål er at forsøge at ødelægge BRIKS.

Så dette er et globalt spil; dette er ikke en brasiliansk historie. Det er ikke noget, der er snævert forbundet med begivenheder i Sydamerika, eller med korruption, eller sådan noget. Dette er en langt større, værre og farligere ting; og det er en del af det overordnede billede. Vil verden gå i retning af at forsvare et system, der allerede er dødt? Fremtrædende økonomer beskrev i denne uge Deutsche Bank som »dead bank walking« (amr. udtryk, ’dead man walking’: når den dødsdømte går den sidste, korte strækning fra sin celle til henrettelsesstedet, –red.); og det er en passende beskrivelse. Så det er et spørgsmål, om et dødt, Britisk Imperium, der i det store og hele har kontrolleret det amerikanske præsidentskab i de sidste 15 – 16 år, grundlæggende set vil bringe resten af verden til fald med sig – for det vil aldrig kunne overleve. Eller, om det skal kastes bort, besejres og erstattes af et nyt system, der allerede er godt på vej.

Det afgørende spørgsmål i dette præsidentvalg er, vil det amerikanske folk tolerere kandidater, der ønsker, at USA skal være på linje med et allerede dødt system? Eller, vil vi følge en anden kurs, hvor USA kommer på linje med dette nye, fremtidsorienterede alternativ? Rent historisk betragtet har Amerika altid befundet sig på denne fremtidsorienterings side; i det mindste, med udgangspunkt i USA’s grundlæggende principper – ideerne i Hamiltons tradition er i realiteten det, der ligger til grund for denne eurasiske udvikling. Vi må vinde kampen om at transformere USA tilbage til det, som det repræsenterede rent historisk, som byen, der ligger på et bjerg.[2]

Matthew Ogden: Jeg mener, at det er signifikant, at de kongresmedlemmer, der underskrev dette brev, overlapper kernegruppen af ledere omkring Glass-Steagall.

Steinberg: Det er rigtigt.

Ogden: En anden ting, du netop nævnte: Hvad er ’ideerne efter Hamiltons tradition’? Det, der er kernen i det sammenhængende, forenende princip i disse, hr. LaRouches Fire Nye Love, er den idé, som han udtrykker mod slutningen af dokumentet: At der ikke findes nogen målestok for økonomi inden for pengenes domæne; penge er ikke repræsentant for værdi, når vi taler om økonomi. Det er beredvilligheden til at afvise monetarisme, der gør den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) og den Nye Udviklingsbank – til banker af en totalt anden art. Det er ikke blot en anden version af IMF/Verdensbanksystemet. Der er en helligelse til at forøge produktiviteten hos massive mængder af planetens befolkning; milliarder af mennesker vil blive berørt af den Nye Silkevej, af disse udviklingsprojekter, der har været vedtaget i 40, 50 og 60 år. Nu bliver de faktisk bygget, takket være de investeringer, der kommer fra BRIKS-banken (Ny Udviklingsbank) og fra Kina (AIIB), osv. Men det er udtryk for en opfattelse af økonomi, som jeg mener, har været det enestående bidrag, som hr. LaRouche har ydet til verdenshistorien i løbet af de seneste 40-50 år; og som er hans enestående opfattelse af, hvad den sande målestok for økonomi virkelig er. Det er en konstant forøgelse af akkumuleringen af menneskehedens evne til at indsætte nye, fysiske principper, som mennesket har opdaget, for at forøge vores magt i og over Universet.

Jeg mener, at Albert Einsteins eksempel på to specifikke måder er meget vigtigt med hensyn til dette.

For det første, blot i form af en analogi: Albert Einsteins opfattelse af, at man ikke kan have en målestok, der kommer internt fra et system; men at der må være en målestok, der er ekstern, og som er et princip. Lige som absolut tid og absolut rum ikke eksisterede for Einstein, så er dette den form for opfattelse, for forståelse, som man må anvende på fysisk økonomi.

Og for det andet: Måske mere end nogen anden person er Albert Einstein paradigmatisk for den form for menneskelig, kreative tænkning, der gør det muligt for menneskeheden at gøre fremskridt; der, som Helen Keller så smukt beskrev, bringer os op fra jorden, som dyr, der kryber på vores bug og reagerer på omstændighederne omkring os, og til at blive Universets medskaber.

Jeg syntes, at du forklarede dette på en meget smuk måde i slutningen af din artikel i denne uges udgave af The Hamiltonian[3] (pilotudgaven), Michael [Steger]; du måtte gerne sige lidt mere om dette spørgsmål.

Michael Steger: Jeg synes, du netop har sagt det meget fint. Hvad der måske kunne være af værdi at komme tilbage til, mht. den kreative personligheds rolle, som Keisha (Rogers) talte om under mandags-showet; Einstein indså også, at det er individets enestående rolle at udforme og skabe grundlæggende set de nye love, som samfundet dernæst vedtager. At opdagelsen af disse højere principper, eller naturlig lov, dernæst gør det muligt for det samme samfund at gøre fremskridt. Vi ser i dag, at mange mennesker er på ferie; alt for mange mennesker, mener jeg, ser Olympiade. Jeg mener, at den virkelige doping-skandale er at finde internt i Det Hvide Hus. Men det, som Putin har gjort med sin diplomatiske indsats, er, at vi nu ser på den mulige løsning af den syriske krise i Aleppo. Der finder en form for proces sted, der kan løse disse ting i de kommende måneder.

Og så har man i september måned præsidenterne for Sydkorea, Japan og Kina, der vil møde Putin i Vladivostok. Så drager de sammen til G20-topmødet i Kina – hvor Putin vil være æresgæst – med de 20 største nationer; med Brasilien, Argentina, Mexico, Tyrkiet, nationer fra Afrika, fra hele Asien og Europa, der deltager. Dernæst vil mange af disse statsoverhoveder komme til New York City på samme tid som vore koncerter; men de kommer til FN’s Generalforsamling. Og så vil mange af disse statschefer fra BRIKS mødes i Indien i begyndelsen af oktober.

På dette tidspunkt, som Jeff sagde tidligere på ugen, kunne hele dette finanssystem – Deutsche Bank og de øvrige storbanker – hurtigt gå i opløsning, bryde sammen. Bankerotten kan blive en opsprætning af banksystemet, som grundlæggende set kommer i den nære fremtid. Så har vi præsidentvalget. Selv om Donald Trump er nok så meget en nar, så har han vist sig at være i stand til at slå en masse af de andre, inkompetente politikere i debatter; og jeg mener, at det bør bekymre Hillary Clinton en hel del, at hendes historie sammen med Obama er en absolut og alvorlig svaghed. En Akilleshæl pga. det nuværende klima i den politiske situation, som vi konfronteres med i dette land. Så vi befinder os altså virkelig på et bemærkelsesværdigt tidspunkt. Og så kollapset af det transatlantiske system; en konsolideret indsats, der er ved at udspille sig, i Eurasien under Putins lederskab, og så denne egenskab med kreativt geni, som du henviser til mht. Einsteins eksempel. Det er i realiteten den indflydelse, som Lyndon LaRouche har haft på planeten; og det er virkelig, hvad nu må få indflydelse på det præsidentielle system i USA. Lyn må blive en del af udformningen af den præsidentielle politik, nu. Det er vi grundlæggende set; men det må blive det amerikanske folks forpligtelse, og ikke at blive indfanget af alt muligt andet, for vi har i dag en særdeles sjælden mulighed.

[1] Panamapapirerne er 11,5 millioner lækkede dokumenter, der afslører finansiel information og advokat-klientinformation for mere end 214.488 offshore-enheder. De lækkede dokumenter blev udfærdiget af en Panama-advokatfirma og udbyder af tjenester for selskaber, Mossack Fonseca; nogle af dem går tilbage til 1970’erne. De lækkede dokumenter fortæller, hvordan rige personer og offentlige (regerings-) personer er i stand til at holde personlig, finansiel information privat. Alt imens offshore forretningsenheder ofte ikke er ulovlige, så fandt reportere, at nogle af Mossack Fonseca facadeselskaber blev brugt til ulovlige formål, inklusive bedrageri, kleptokrati, skatteunddragelse og omgåelse af internationale sanktioner.    

"I stedet for at krybe ved jorden som et dyr, svinger menneskets ånd sig op til højere regioner. Og fra dette nye udsigtspunkt ser det på det umulige med forstærket mod og drømmer om endnu mere vidunderlige initiativer."  – Helen Keller ved et besøg i Empire State Building.

Engelsk udskrift. 

"Instead of crouching close to Earth like a beast, the spirit of man soars to higher regions.  And from this new point of vantage, he looks upon the impossible with fortified courage, and dreams yet more magnificent enterprises."

Helen Keller, upon visiting the Empire State Building.

Creating the New Presdency: The Launch of the Hamiltonian
International LaRouche PAC Webcast August 12, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! My name is Matthew Ogden. You're joining us for our weekly broadcast here on Friday evening for the LaRouche PAC webcast. It's August 12th, 2016. I'm joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review; and via video, by Diane Sare and Michael Steger, both
members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.
        In the past week, as you heard in our discussion on Monday, here, LaRouche PAC has initiated a very significant escalation in terms of our intervention into crafting the new Presidency. This is vectored around the publication of a new LaRouche PAC publication, The Hamiltonian, which is a broadsheet which is
being distributed en masse in Manhattan, in the streets of New York City. Ten thousand copies of this have been printed and they are currently, as we speak, being distributed around New York. This is intended to be an escalation, one, right into the heart of the two nominal Presidential campaigns, both of which are headquartered in New York City; and number two, this has the express purpose of breaking open the controlled propaganda environment that the American people are being subjected to each and every day, and rather, providing a leadership voice for the sane and responsible citizens of this republic to rally around.
        As Mr. LaRouche stated a couple of weeks ago, "I am not running for President, but I am certainly intending to affect the shaping of the government of the United States in the coming period." This initiative around the publication of The
Hamiltonian is certainly intended to do just that — to affect the shaping of the government of the United States in the coming period.
        Joining us tonight we have Diane Sare and Michael Steger, both of whom authored articles in the new copy of The Hamiltonian. Diane Sare is, obviously, responsible for coordinating the distribution and deployment of this broadsheet,
and Michael Steger authored one of the main articles, which was titled "The New Presidency: It Begins with LaRouche's Four Laws." Jeffrey Steinberg authored the other of those main articles, this one called "Hillary is Obama's stooge for War and Wall Street."
        I want to ask Jeff to begin the discussion, with some of the content of what you wrote in that article, to kind of frame what we're going to discuss, and then we can have Michael and Diane join the discussion after that.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG: Well, I think it's essential to discuss the content of that article from the standpoint of another {major} development that has taken place this week, namely, a series of meetings involving Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and now, today, Armenia. These represent major political interventions and initiatives by Russian President Putin. The most significant, clearly, was the meeting midweek in St. Petersburg between President Putin and President Erdogan of Turkey, in which Turkey has very clearly realigned itself with Russia on the issue of finally bringing an end to the five-and-a-half year Syria war.
        But, more broadly, Turkey is now positioning itself to be part of the whole Eurasian development framework which has been led by Putin and, of course, also by China's President, Xi Jinping. India's Prime Minister Modi is playing a major role in
this, and now we even see the Japanese Prime Minister Abe seeking to bring himself into this arrangement.
        The meeting that Putin had in Baku, just a day prior to his meeting with Erdogan, involved the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Iran. They resolved to rapidly accelerate the completion of the North-South Economic and Transportation Corridor, which is actually a new dimension, an added element within the overall
Chinese-initiated One Belt One Road program — what Lyndon and Helga LaRouche called for the last 20 years, the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
        The fact of the matter is, that this is the new emerging reality, that is dominating the global policy options. Anyone in their right mind will understand that the trans-Atlantic system is dead, and that this new system, which Putin has played a major
strategic role in engineering, in conjunction with China, is the future; it's the future of Eurasia, it's the future of Europe, it's really the future of the world as a whole. The big
policy issue for the United States in this Presidential election, is will the U.S. continue as it's been under Obama, and George Bush before that, to be a pawn of the British Empire — in which case the U.S. will pursue a policy of war, against Russia,
against China, and against the larger developments associated with the BRICS New Development Bank, the Chinese One Belt One Road policy, the AIIB, and all of that.
        The article that appears prominently in the first edition of The Hamiltonian warns about the fact that since the very day that she finalized her nomination by the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton has been sending out clear signals, through a
number of well-known leading policy surrogate voices, that she's aligned with the war party. That's the party of Bush, it's the party of Obama. Hillary, of course, in her position inside the Obama administration, made herself a pawn of that whole process,
as we saw in Libya, as we saw in the Benghazi cover-up, as we've seen in this horrific five-and-a-half year Syria war.
        Basically, since that time, since just a little over a week ago, you've had Leon Panetta, who was CIA Director and Defense Secretary under Obama — close, close ally, strong endorser of Hillary — coming out, basically calling for a major military
escalation to "regime change" the Assad government in Syria.
Michele Flournoy, who is widely believed to be Hillary's choice as Secretary of Defense, if she's elected, has come out with a series of reports. The institute that she [co-]founded and [serves on the Board of Directors], which is called the Center
for a New American Security, is the kind of follow-on to the PNAC, the Project for a New American Century. In fact, the same person who authored PNAC's plan for unipolar American world empire, Robert Kegan, was the principle author of the Center for a New American Security's study, drafted for either the Clinton or Trump campaigns just a few months back. It's all the same thing. It's empire, it's war, it's confrontation with Russia and China.

        OGDEN: Not to mention, Kegan's wife is Victoria Nuland.

        STEINBERG: Exactly, who is one of the people on the short list for Secretary of State, or some other very high position, if Hillary is elected.  The problem is that you can't avoid the fact that an intervention around steering the United States in a sane
policy direction, demands that you put enormous pressure on both candidates; that they're going to have to abandon the policy direction — in this case, Hillary's clear embrace of the neo-con unipolar world agenda — and change drastically. Otherwise,
before or after the November elections, we're facing an immediate, urgent, prospect of war with Russia, war with China; and that war would go thermonuclear and very quickly become a war of extinction for mankind.

OGDEN: The other aspect of the broadsheet was an article by Michael Steger. I think this goes hand-in-hand with what you were saying, Jeff; also from the standpoint of what I think we'll get into with the institutional question. The other reality, besides
the proximity of war, is the fact that we are right on the verge of a total meltdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system. The numbers are clear, with the situation of Deutsche Bank, the counter-party exposure of every single major bank in the world;
the fact that you have now unprecedented calls for the nationalization of Deutsche Bank coming from inside of Germany, which has never happened before; the initiative that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have taken around Deutsche Bank, per se; but also the entire Four Laws — Glass-Steagall, where you've seen a resurgence of mobilization around this from inside the United States, layers that had been dormant for quite a while; and then the entire rest of the LaRouche program.
        I think, as you said, Michael, this is the beginning; this is how you craft a new Presidency. Maybe you can say a little bit more about the other subject of the broadsheet.

MICHAEL STEGER: Sure! I think it's worth stating, as Jeff laid out, in terms of the international picture, that over these last 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, which I think is pertinent to the discussion here today as well — every major political institution, whether it be a political party, a branch of government, or a grass-roots organization, has largely been discredited by the inability to either stand up to the Bush and Obama regimes, or to not be bought out and compromised by them; besides what our organization has largely done.
        That creates a real political vacuum in the United States. As we've seen with both of these candidates, they're despised by a majority of their parties, and an increasing majority of the American people. And so when you look at the new Presidency, the way Lyn's laid it out — he laid this out, this paper, "The Four New Laws to Save the United States Now," this was two years ago. The perspective was clear from Lyn's vantage point, that we're at a point where there is no institution in the United States — political body, think tank — that has any clue at all of how to
deal with the current unfolding crisis. On one side, there's the immediate war danger, and the political breakdown of the European Union, NATO trans-Atlantic system. At the same time, there's the breakdown of the financial system. But they're not separate. They are the same fundamental system that is now facing a kind of moral bankruptcy, a collapse of any real value to human society.
        That doesn't mean that those nations don't. Clearly, nations like Germany, Italy, the United States have a real role to play in the overall development perspectives. But you have to see things in the context of this breakdown. What Lyn put forward, we've see it, we've seen the resurgence of Glass-Steagall. Both parties' platforms now have it. There's a clear recognition, broadly, among the American people, for what would seem an arcane banking regulation policy. But, as many people have grown to recognize, it's really the major tool to dismantle this Wall Street apparatus, this kind of criminal financial fraud that's been perpetrated, recklessly, without any real control, for the last 15 years, and really much longer.
        The question, that Lyn raised, was what is a competent government at this point, especially in the United States – a real, competent form of policy? And there has to be a commitment towards the future of mankind, long term. He said this repeatedly
in the recent period. We cannot base these steps we're going to take, on the past. We have to base our solution on the future. This is where you see what Jeff laid out — what Russia, under Putin, and China are now doing, is consolidating a very bright
future for the majority of mankind, with the collaboration of nations which have huge geo-strategic past problems, but recognize now the economic question of collaboration between China and India, India and Pakistan, Iran with other nations in
the Caucuses, with Russia.
        This kind of collaboration and integration of Eurasia is really a remarkable question. And in that, you have a driving policy led by China regarding space exploration and fusion research. China is one of the world leaders today in fusion
research capabilities, as is South Korea. You have a capability there for the United States to orient, around the Four Laws, which is (1) Glass-Steagall. The second is a National Banking system. That means you have a banking system which now has the
capability regulated by the office of the Treasury under a kind of Greenback-like Lincoln policy. The Third Law is that we define what a federal credit system is for. It's not just a federal credit system. You don't just allow the federal government now to just print credit. We define it from a physical-economic standpoint of the future, what is necessary for mankind's long-term survival. And that's where the collaboration of nations like Russia, China, and India become so essential, because these questions of space exploration and fusion power really define that. And that really is the Fourth Law, which is collaboration with these nations, around this kind of scientific advancement of mankind.
        From our perspective, and I think what should be an increasing perspective of the American people, who tend to find themselves distraught by this Presidential election, is not to cower in fear, or hide somewhere in a hole, waiting for it to all
end; but to recognize there's a political vacuum, where our leadership is essential, and that these policies are the immediate steps that any President has to take.  If not, we're
not going to regain or reconstitute a Constitutional American Presidency.  But they're actually going to secure the physical livelihood of the United States for the generations to come; and that really is the intervention that has to be made on the new
Presidency.  There will be a series of articles.  Kesha Rogers' second article was released in EIR magazine yesterday; and there will be a follow-up article next week by Dave Christie, and there will be more to come.

        OGDEN:  Well, absolutely filling that political vacuum is what The Hamiltonian is serving to do; and I think it's already having a radiating effect.  Diane, if you want to just jump in and discuss a little bit of the effect in New York.

SARE:  Well, first I'll just start by saying that Manhattan is the political center of the United States; and it's certainly the political center of these two campaigns.  Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are based in this area.  And I will also say the
population is clearly anguished.  We talked last week about Hillary's campaign, as Jeff just said, is providing cover for Obama to run his war and provocation policy.  And I think the weakness that we're filling in, which I experienced a bit on the call last night, is that Americans have been so bereft of a future, or thinking of a future, that they're not able to think strategically.  So, many people had questions about "Why is Putin working with Erdogan; isn't Erdogan horrible?  Didn't he do these horrible things?"  Well, he did do horrible things, but there is a strategic shift where it's become very clear that the interest of Turkey is tied up in the new BRICS dynamic.  That a New Paradigm has been created; and in a sense, that's what we are
creating here.
        I actually was sent something from one of our collaborators on the West Coast, which I think is really delightful in terms of an approach to how to think properly.  It's comments from Helen Keller when she got an opportunity to go up in the Empire State Building and "look" out at Manhattan.  I think everyone knows —
hopefully — that Helen Keller was both blind and deaf; but her insights into these matters are more striking and more profound. In fact, she speculates that she and her friend who was blind, had a much better view of Manhattan from the top of the Empire State Building than the people who had two good eyes.  Her description is somewhat delightful; she says that "It was a thrilling experience to be whizzed in a lift a quarter of a mile heavenward, and to see New York spread out like a marvelous
tapestry beneath us.  There was the Hudson, more like the flash of a sword blade than a noble river; the little island of Manhattan, set like a jewel in its nest of rainbow waters, stared up into my face.  And the Solar System circled about my head. Why, I thought, the Sun and the stars are suburbs of New York and I never knew it."  I think that makes her a New Yorker for sure. She said, "I have this sort of wild desire to invest in a bit of real estate on one of the planets.  All sense of depression and hard times vanished; I felt like being frivolous with the stars." Then, she talks about the construction of the Empire State Building as being poetical.  She says, "From everyone except my blind friend, I had received an impression of sordid materialism.
The piling up of one steel honeycomb upon another with no real purpose but to satisfy the American craving for the superlative in everything.  Well, I see in the Empire Building something else — passionate skill, arduous and fearless idealism.  The tallest building is a victory of imagination.  Instead of crouching close
to Earth like a beast, the spirit of man soars to higher regions. And from this new point of vantage, he looks upon the impossible with fortified courage, and dreams yet more magnificent enterprises."
        This reminds me so much of what President Kennedy about why we go to the Moon; or Krafft Ehricke's sense of the extraterrestrial imperative for mankind.  It's our job here — particularly in Manhattan, where I think people may be most
susceptible to it; because in Manhattan we are blessed with an extraordinarily diverse population from all over the world.  It's not simply that you have the headquarters of the United Nations; but if you think of what the population is in Queens and Brooklyn and New Jersey where I am and the surrounding areas, the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island had something to do with this many years ago.  You have a population which actually is in touch with the rest of the world.  So, there are people in this area that have a sense that the whole world is not going to Hell; that in some places, having a pothole that could swallow up a double-decker bus is actually considered a sign of poverty, and you're supposed to repair it and do something about it – as opposed to what people have begun to take for granted here.  So, the idea is to rekindle a spark of a certain quality of American identity which is a love of the future; a love of the potential for what mankind can contribute to the future.  Which I think Helen Keller expresses so magnificently in that piece.
        I would just say — Mike alluded to this — the question of September 11th; one person who was on the call last night said her uncle had just passed away two days ago.  He was someone who had worked there and suffered from various kinds of lung disease and finally died.  The death toll from these attacks has not ended; and it's not only people in New York who were first responders.  It's people who were killed in these wars which I think we're going to take up a bit more; these wars that were
totally unjustified, that were based on lies and cover-ups from the Bush administration through the Obama administration.  If we can address that, at this 15 years, that we end this period of injustice and of criminal wars of aggression, I think you could see a real shift.  It's as if the American people have had a heavy manhole cover on top of their brains and on top of their identities, and they haven't even allowed themselves to think of what the potential is.  In those circumstances, I think all bets are off, even in terms of this ridiculous scenario that we're calling a Presidential election.  There's nothing to say that these two mentally unstable characters going for Presidential candidates, have to be the candidates by the time we get to November.  Or, as Jeff was saying, [it] would be caused to shift by a shift in the population.  So, it's a very, very rich moment; and it's just urgent that everybody who hears what we are saying and what the LaRouche Movement is doing, who gets our literature, moves to circulate it and mobilize as many people as you can.

        OGDEN:  I think both you, Diane and Michael, stated about how you have to understand, how did we get to this point from looking at the last 15 years?  We never would have had a situation like this in terms of two Presidential candidates such as what we have, if the injustices of Obama administration had not gone on unpunished; if the crimes of the Bush and Cheney administration had not gone unpunished.  If Bush and Cheney had been impeached, I guarantee you, we would not be at the point,
where we are right now.  I think this is a question which has been re-opened in a very dramatic way, with the victory that we've won in the last month; which was the declassification of the 28 pages.  Just this week — Jeff, I know you have a little bit of insight into this — but Larry Wilkerson, who was the former chief of staff of Colin Powell, gave a series of interviews in which he said effectively, that what Cheney did was not only convincing Colin Powell to put the lies about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda into his testimony; which were obvious lies, but they were the pretext for the war against Iraq.  But also, Cheney played the central role in making the decision to keep anything having to do with the role of Saudi Arabia in funding and financing 9/11 out of the public eye.
        So, Jeff, I know you were saying yesterday, this actually opens up Cheney to criminal prosecution, if the implications of that are followed through.

        STEINBERG:  I think that there's another dimension as well to this, and I'll say something about the Cheney issue in just a moment.  Who would have imagined that President Obama would be boxed into such a corner that he would have to release the 28 pages?  I can tell you that since he lied to the 9/11 families for 7.5 years, and was very much under the sway of John Brennan who adamantly opposed the release of those 28 pages because of his own extremely close relationship with the Saudis; it's a very important object lesson that Obama was forced to do it.  It took a continuing battle; LaRouche Political Action Committee is widely known on Capitol Hill and around the country to have played a pivotal role.  Senator Bob Graham, the 9/11 Families — the leading activists — both the survivors of 9/11 and those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks, did not give up; they persisted.  This was a fight for 15 years.  I think there's a very important lesson to be drawn in the context of what we're
discussing about a critical policy moment, when neither party has been able to produce a Presidential candidate who's worth anything.  We've got to make sure that the fight over these issues is continuously put forward, continuously escalated.
We've forced the issue of the 28 pages.  I think that the July 6th press conference by Walter Jones, Steven Lynch, and Thomas Massie along with members of the 9/11 Families and Survivors was crucial; because they came out and said what we had been urging to be said.  These 28 pages must come out; it's in the vital interest of the American people and the world that they come out. They made clear that they will be made public; and they invoked the Mike Gravel heroic action of releasing the Pentagon Papers, which altered the whole course of the Vietnam War during Nixon.
        So, I think there's a very important lesson to be drawn: Persistently leading a fight; the commitment of the American people to the kind of change that they clearly demanded in the way that the primary votes happened.  The majority of voters were
voting for a revolutionary change in policy, not for a candidate. You had Bernie Sanders voters who abandoned him the instant he endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.  Trump was always seen as a kind of a loud mouth voice for something different.  People want that change; they've got to be organized around a policy
agenda.  LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws define that better than anything else in terms of the economic crisis and how to address insolvency.
        Now you do have Colonel Wilkerson, who was with Colin Powell throughout the four years that Powell was Secretary of State; was with him in the preparation of that UN disastrous testimony leading to the vote for the Iraq War.  He has basically said that he is an eyewitness to severe crimes; fraudulent representations of vital intelligence and covering up the role of the Saudis in order to launch an illegal war against Iraq.  We see the consequences of that right now.  There are many options on the table.
        Just in terms of follow-up on the 28 pages:  You have the JASTA bill that should come up and be voted almost unanimously out of the House of Representatives, so Obama can't veto it, the very first days that Congress comes back in September.  There should be a series of public forums walking people through the
content of the 28 pages.  There are probably millions of documents that are still suppressed, that are still classified; that lead to other leads that we don't even yet imagine.  We know the British, we know the Saudis in principle were the architects
on behalf of Bush and Cheney; but there's a great deal of work to be done on that issue.  We're coming up in early September on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks; LPAC and the Schiller Institute have a series of major events taking place in New York, including three memorial concerts — performances of Mozart's Requiem — all over the New York area around that critical weekend.  So, I think that we've got to maintain a commitment to maintaining and building and escalating on the momentum.  If there's a lesson to be learned from the 28 pages, it's that
Glass-Steagall comes next; and it comes right away.

OGDEN:  Right; absolutely.  I thought one point you made which was just remarkable in the interview yesterday that you conducted with Virginia State Senator Dick Black, you said what Cheney did after 9/11 would be as if Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor said "We're not going to attack the Japanese; we're going to blame the
Chinese for Pearl Harbor."  It was so outrageous to say the Saudis didn't do it; it was Iraq, it was Saddam Hussein.  I think, when that sinks in for the American people, you're going to see even more of a response.  The fact that this has broken open in
the last few weeks with the victory around the 28 pages; and as you said, 28 pages means the next victory comes next — Glass-Steagall.
        But one thing that's the subject of this The Hamiltonian broadsheet this week, is the petition that Diane wrote and is now being circulated en masse in Manhattan. 

Point one is complete; but points two, three, and four still have to go.  We need to
open a Chilcot Commission-type of investigation into Bush, Cheney, the entire rest of that apparatus — Obama included. What was Obama's interest in keeping these covered up for 7.5 years?  The key, I think — and it ties into the discussion from
earlier — is you need to accept the offer that was made one year ago at the United Nations General Assembly by Russian President Vladimir Putin for an alliance of the type that we had in World War II to defeat fascism.  An alliance with Russia, with China, with other interested parties in the world, to defeat what this terrorist apparatus actually represents.  So, I think as we're on the verge of the opening of this year's UN General Assembly meeting, and also the series of concerts that Jeff mentioned, this petition needs to continue to have a widespread and radiating impact.
        Diane, maybe you want to say a little bit more about that.

        SARE:  I can just say that it's being circulated by our activists here in the streets; and they're reporting getting a very intense response to it — more intense than anything that we've circulated recently.  I think it's important, when the vote on JASTA was first in the press a couple of months ago, before the release of the 28 pages, there was finally an appropriate, fearless anger, or righteous indignation of people saying, "How dare you tell us not to pursue the Saudis? That's outrageous!  We don't care if they're going to sell their Treasury bonds; we are
going to demand justice in this case."  I think it's really important that we keep that sense alive; which is what the petition will do.  I would also say, just because you mentioned the United Nations here; it happened that we got not only the release of The Hamiltonian this past week, but we received off the press the proceedings of this extraordinary Berlin conference that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche convened at the end of June.  Which had an incredible array of speakers, including Ambassador Chas
Freeman, including a woman from the Presidency of Assad in Syria, and many others; retired military from France, Germany, NATO, etc.  The thing taken as a whole, unfortunately there's not a way to put that incredible concert at the end of the program into a printed report; but nonetheless, we are also getting this out to each of the governments represented by their UN missions in this period going into the General Assembly in September.  So we are in a position to shape that discussion and to perhaps augment the kinds of things that surely are already being discussed; as we
see in the latest meeting, that Putin and Xi Jinping and others have been holding.

        OGDEN:  One thing I want to say in the context of the upcoming UN General Assembly; there is a war that is already happening against everything that the BRICS represents.  If you think back one year, two years, the Fortaleza Agreement was made
in the context really of this war that Cristina Fernando de Kirchner was leading in Argentina against the vulture funds. These nations came together in solidarity with Argentina and said we will not allow you to kill the Argentine people to get the
money for the vulture funds.  Since that time, you've had a coalescing around the leadership of Putin and Xi Jinping and Modi of the BRICS structure; this is the emerging New Paradigm.  Over the course of that time, you have had a concerted deployment to break the BRICS apart; and we're in the middle of one of those
major attacks right now.  We saw what happened to Cristina Kirchner in Argentina; now the same thing is happening to Dilma Rousseff in Brazil.  Just this week, you had the vote by the majority of the Brazilian Senate to open indictment hearings
against Rousseff; which means impeachment against the President of Brazil.  You do have the eruption of a certain response against that coup from inside the United States; and it's actually the subject of our institutional question we got for this week.
        I know Mr. LaRouche had some detailed remarks to say about
that.  I want to read this question, and then maybe Jeff, you can fill in a little bit about that.  It says: 

"Mr. LaRouche: US Representative John Conyers, Democrat from Michigan; Marcy
Kaptur, Democrat from Ohio; Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota; and more than 30 other members from the House of Representatives, sent a letter this week to Secretary of State John Kerry; urging him to refrain from gestures that could be
interpreted as supportive of Brazil's interim government.  And to instead "express strong concern regarding the impeachment process a targeting of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff; and to "call for the protection of constitutional democracy and the rule of law in Brazil."  The letter is the first Congressional letter expressing
concern over Brazil's democracy in over two decades.  In your view, with the impending impeachment trial, what actions should the United States government take to promote fairness and protect democratic institutions in Brazil at this time?" 

So, I know Lyn had some things to say about this.

        STEINBERG:  The first thing he emphasized is that you're not dealing with a "Brazil situation" in the same way that you're not dealing with a "Syria situation". 

We're in the midst of a major, global, strategic re-alignment.  As you said, at the Fortaleza meeting two years ago of the BRICS countries, you had the launching of the New Development Bank; followed by the launching of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank by China.  Clearly, there is a move centered among the major Eurasian powers, but also including Brazil and South America, South Africa, and
Africa, to re-align the world around a completely different approach; an approach that's oriented towards the future, that's centered on great projects of economic development that are truly win-win projects.  There's no geopolitical, zero-sum game.  And you've got a dead system, which is the British Empire system, which has been represented for the last 15 years by the fact that the British have controlled the US Presidency; under first George W Bush, and then after that, under Barack Obama.
        So, the first thing, the United States should do, is abandon its own direct role in promoting this coup.  This is not something that occurs because a bunch of figures inside Brazil have decided to go after Dilma Rousseff.  You've got the international apparatus of hedge funds; you've got the Adam Smith Institute networks in Britain; you've got the Chicago School apparatus here in the United States; that are all instrumental in this drive — not to damage Brazil — but to destroy Brazil because it's part of this BRICS new alignment.  I guarantee that if the United States were to publicly come out — if Kerry were to make a statement and say that the United States believes that this is a coup d'état; not necessarily using guns, but using actions by bought-and-paid-for corrupt officials to overthrow a legitimately elected government that is attempting to align South America with this new paradigm of development centered around Eurasia; this thing would go away.  The votes in the Senate are
absolutely shameless; the people who are behind this coup are themselves all legitimately under criminal investigation for massive financial fraud.  If you want to look at the Brazil element of the Panama Papers scandal, then you're going to find
the top officials — the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the current President, the current Foreign Minister; all of the people who have been aligned against Dilma, are part of the most corrupt apparatus.  But they're protected because
they're part of the British Empire and the Obama administration protected apparatus; and their objective is to try to destroy the BRICS.
        So, this is a global play; this is not a Brazil story.  It's not something that is narrowly associated with events in South America, or corruption, or anything like that.  This is a much bigger, worse, and far more dangerous thing; and it's part of the
general picture.  Is the world going to go in the direction of defending a system that's already dead?  Major economists this week described Deutsche Bank as a "dead bank walking"; and it's an apt description.  So, it's the question of whether a dead British Empire, largely controlling the US Presidency for the last 15-16 years, is going to basically bring the rest of the world down with it — because it can never survive.  Or, whether or not it's going to be cast aside and defeated and replaced by a new system that's already well underway.        

The critical question in this Presidential election is, will the American people tolerate candidates that want to align the United States with an already dead system?  Or, are we going to go in the direction of aligning the United States with this new
future-oriented alternative?  Historically, America has always been on the side of this future orientation; at least from its founding principles — the Hamiltonian ideas are really, what's underlying this Eurasian development.  So, we've got to win the fight to transform the United States back into what it historically represented as the city on the hill.

OGDEN:  I do think it's significant that the members of Congress who signed this letter, directly overlaps with the core group of the leadership around Glass-Steagall.

        STEINBERG:  That's right.

        OGDEN:  One more thing you just brought up:  What is the Hamiltonian idea?  What's at the core as the coherent unifying principle of this Four New Laws of Mr. LaRouche is the idea, that he expresses at the end of that document.  That there are no measuring rods for economics, which can be found within the domain of money; money is not a representative of value when it comes to economics.  It's the willingness to reject monetarism, which is what is making the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank — these are completely different species.  This is not just a different version of the IMF/World Bank system. You have a dedication to increasing the productivity of massive amounts of the population of the planet; billions of people will be affected by the New Silk Road, by these development projects which have been on the books for 40-50-60 years.  They are now actually being built, because of the investments, that are coming from the BRICS bank and China and so forth.  But it's an understanding of economics which I think has been the unique contribution that Mr. LaRouche has given to world history over the last 40-50 years; which is his unique understanding of what the true measuring rod of economics really is.  You have the constantly increasing of the accumulation of the ability of mankind to deploy new physical principles that have been discovered by man to increase our power over the Universe.
        In two very specific ways, I think the example of Albert Einstein is very important in this sense. Number one, just in the form of an analogy: The understanding of Albert Einstein, that you cannot have a measuring rod from inside of a system; but that there needs to be a measuring rod, which is external, which is a
principle.  Just as absolute time and absolute space did not exist for Albert Einstein, this is the kind of understanding that you need to bring to physical economics. And number two: Albert Einstein, perhaps more than anybody else, is paradigmatic of the
type of human creative thinking, which allows mankind to advance itself; which, as Helen Keller so beautifully described, brings us up from the ground like beasts crawling on our bellies and reacting to the circumstances around us, to becoming co-creators of this Universe.
        So, Michael, I thought you elaborated that in a very beautiful way at the end of your item in this week's Hamiltonian; and I wouldn't mind, if you had a little bit more
to say on that subject.

        STEGER:  I think you've said it well right now.  What I think is worth maybe coming back to, given the role of the creative personality, Kesha raised this on the show on Monday. Einstein also recognized that it is the unique role of the individual to shape and create essentially the new laws by which society then agrees to.  That, the discovery of those higher principles or natural law, then allows society itself to advance. Really, what you see today, many people are on vacation; too many
people, I think, are watching the Olympics.  I think the real doping scandal is inside the White House.  But what Putin has done with this diplomatic effort, is, that we are looking at the possible resolution of the Syrian crisis in Aleppo.  There is a kind of
process taking place that can resolve these things in the coming months.
        But then you have, in the course of just September, you have the Presidents of South Korea, Japan and China meeting Putin in Vladivostok.  Then they will all be going together down to the G-20 summit in China — where Putin will be the guest of honor — with the 20 largest nations; with Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Turkey, nations from Africa, all over Asia and Europe participating.  Then you have many of those heads of state coming to New York City right around the time of our concerts; but for
the UN General Assembly.  Of course, then many of those heads of state from the BRICS will be meeting in India in early October.
        Then, at this point in time, as Jeff said earlier this week, this whole financial system – Deutsche Bank, and the rest of the larger banks – can be rapidly unfolding, unravelling.  The bankruptcy can be disembowelment of the banking system,

essentially coming up in the near period.  Then, the Presidential elections come.  As much of a buffoon as Donald Trump is, he's shown himself the ability to slay a lot of other incapable politicians in debates; and I think, Hillary Clinton should be fairly
concerned, that her record with Obama is an absolute and very severe weakness.  An Achilles heel, because of the current climate in the political situation we face in the country.  So we are really at a remarkable [point].  Then, a collapse of the
trans-Atlantic system; an unfolding, consolidated effort in Eurasia led by Putin, and this quality of creative genius, that you're referencing from Einstein.  This is really, what Lyn has brought to bear on the planet; and it's really, what must be brought to bear in the Presidential system now in the United States.  Lyn must be part of shaping Presidential policy now.  We essentially are; but that's got to be the commitment of the American people, and not getting caught up in anything else, because it's a very rare opportunity today.

        OGDEN:  Wonderful.  So, as I said at the beginning of the program, this week has really marked a significant escalation in terms of the LaRouche PAC intervention into New York City in particular and the United States in general, with the publication of The Hamiltonian Volume I, no. 1. There are still several thousand copies of the original printing, which are available and need to be distributed.  I know during the regular Saturday afternoon Manhattan dialogue, which takes place every week in downtown Manhattan, there will be copies available to you, if you are able to help distribute them, and you're able to attend that meeting.  If you've been to the meeting before, and maybe you haven't been going regularly; you should go tomorrow.  If you've never been before, please contact Diane; the contact information
for the New Jersey office is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  We really do have a limited opening or time, but a very rich potential, a very rich opportunity to completely transform the dialogue in the United States.  In very much the same way
that Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers were used to create the United States in the first place around the ratification of the US Constitution and to raise the level of intelligence of the American citizenry, the new broadsheet — The Hamiltonian —
can really be used in very much the same fashion.  I would implore everybody, who's watching this, to become involved in helping to distribute this; and make this something, which is widely available to the thinking portion of the American people.
        I'd like to thank both Diane and Michael for joining me here tonight; and thank you to Jeff.  And I'd like to thank all of you for tuning in.  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.
 

Denne systemiske krise kræver ikke blot en række politiske beslutninger, men et Nyt Præsidentskab, der er baseret på et borgersamfund, som er helliget en højere bestemmelse … til skabelsen af en ny nation, af et nyt USA, og af en verden, der hidtil ikke har eksisteret – en verden, der nu som aldrig før er mulig, og en verden, der nu ligger i vore hænder. Vil det blive virkeliggjort, eller vil vi fejle? 

Af Michael Steger, medlem af LaRouche Politiske Aktions-komite (LPAC).

Denne artikel er den første i en række skrifter, som præsenteres af LaRouchePAC Nationale Politiske Komite, i direkte samarbejde med Lyndon LaRouche, som en del af hans kampagne for skabelse af et Nyt Præsidentskab i løbet af de kommende 100 dage.

2. august 2016 – Verden har ændret sig i løbet af de seneste fem uger. Begivenhederne, sammen med bevidste interventioner, især fra Vladimir Putins side, har skabt en ny, global dynamik og transformeret potentialet for reel og total sejr i den umiddelbart forestående periode. Sejren vil i første omgang afhænge af vedtagelsen af LaRouches »Fire Nye Love«, en politik, han fremsatte i juni 2014 med sit skrift, »Fire Nye Love til USA’s omgående redning!«[1]; men et succesfuldt udfald på længere sigt kræver mere end simpelt hen at vedtage den nødvendige politik, selv en politik så presserende nødvendig som Glass-Steagall og statslig kredit til videnskabelige fremskridt.

Som LaRouche siger i »Fire Nye Love«: 

»Uden et præsidentskab, der er tilpasset til at fjerne og dumpe de værste virkninger, vi i øjeblikket lider under, og som er de virkninger, der blev skabt af Bush-Cheney- og Obama-præsidentskaberne, ville De Forenede Stater snart være færdig, begyndende med den amerikanske befolknings massedød under Obamaregeringens nylige og nu optrappede, praktiserede politik.«

Og senere:

»Et kædereaktionslignende kollaps med denne virkning accelererer allerede med en indvirkning på pengesystemerne i dette områdes nationer. Den nuværende accelerering af en ’Bail-in’-politik i hele det transatlantiske område, sådan, som det nu er i gang, betyder, at massedød pludselig vil ramme befolkningerne i alle nationerne i det transatlantiske område: enten direkte, eller i kraft af ’overløbseffekt’.«

Denne systemiske krise kræver ikke blot en række politiske beslutninger, men et Nyt Præsidentskab, der er baseret på et borgersamfund, som er helliget en højere bestemmelse, der går ud over elementær valgpolitik; en bestemmelse lig den, som Benjamin Franklin, George Washington og Alexander Hamilton var besjælet af. Det kræver en forpligtelse til skabelsen af en ny nation, af et nyt USA, og af en verden, der hidtil ikke har eksisteret – en verden, der nu som aldrig før er mulig, og en verden, der nu ligger i vore hænder. Vil det blive virkeliggjort, eller vil vi fejle?

De fem uger

Tag nu de hurtige udviklinger i løbet af de seneste fem uger i betragtning: Den britiske afstemning til fordel for at forlade den Europæiske Union (Brexit) den 24. juni, som pludselig, for åbent tæppe, afslørede den rådne kerne i det transatlantiske system. Dette oprør blandt de britiske vælgere var en direkte optakt til Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin, med Helga Zepp-LaRouche som vært, den selvsamme weekend, en begivenhed, der udelukkende havde fokus på fuldbyrdelsen af det nye verdenssystem, der nu er i færd med at blive virkeliggjort i hele Eurasien, og som er inspireret af Lyndon LaRouches ideer.

I løbet af de følgende dage væltede det frem med successive oprør. NATO-topmødet i Warszawa, der håbede at gøre Rusland til målskive for en storkrig, afslørede i stedet blot voksende uenighed blandt de europæiske nationer. Japan afviste enhver yderligere forpligtelse over for britisk finansielt vanvid og nærmede sig faktisk Rusland og Kina i stedet; det samme gjorde Filippinerne, idet de ignorerede Obamas kommando om konflikt i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Terroristangreb, hvis grobund og udklækningssted har været de igangværende, ulovlige krige, ført af USA og briterne, i Irak, Libyen, Syrien og Yemen, har ramt byer i Frankrig og Tyskland på ugentlig, hvis ikke daglig, basis, uden nogen udsigt til at stoppe under den nuværende politik. Underliggende hele dette politiske oprør finder vi den igangværende panik over bankkollapset i Italien, Tyskland og London, som truer med at virkeliggøre den pludselige udslettelse af den transatlantiske verdens nationer, som Lyndon LaRouche i 2014 advarede om.

I sammenhæng med dette politiske og kulturelle sammenbrud i det transatlantiske område har der været en sand fremstormende bølge af LaRouche-organisationens politik og initiativer. Chilcot-undersøgelsesrapporten blev omsider udgivet i London, efter syv lange års undersøgelse; den erklærede, at Dronningens krig i Irak – en krig, der blev gennemtrumfet af Tony Blair og George W. Bush – var ulovlig og et direkte anslag imod De Forende Nationer og international lov, hvilket udgør forbrydelser i lighed med nazisternes. I USA blev de »28 sider« af Den Fælles Kongres-undersøgelsesrapport om 11. september efter 14 år udgivet. De afslørede det bedrageri, som både Bush- og Obamaregeringen havde begået, med deres overlagte mørklægning af, at det var briterne og deres allierede saudierne, der dirigerede angrebene den 11. september, og de afslørede ligeledes disses efterfølgende fremstød for verdenskrig gennem en kriminel, geopolitisk plan.

Glass/Steagall-loven, indbegrebet af dødstødet mod Wall Streets og City of Londons kriminelle bedrageri, fandt dernæst vej ind i både det Republikanske og Demokratiske Partis valgplatforme, ikke som følge af narre-kandidaternes klovneoptræden, men som følge af den, i det brede flertal af den amerikanske befolkning, dybt rodfæstede erkendelse af, at de seneste femten års politik i USA, med massedød til følge, indiskutabelt er knyttet til Wall Streets politik. Og nu, blot fem uger senere, med en beslutningsproces, der ligesom vokser og har mere i vente, truer kupforsøget i Tyrkiet og de deraf følgende ændringer i politikken med at gøre en ende på de seneste to århundreders geopolitiske forsøg på at kontrollere Asien, med et Tyrkiet, der nu nærmer sig til både Putins Rusland og Kinas politik for den Nye Silkevej, og vender sig bort fra den transatlantiske verdens forpligtelse til verdenskrig.

Dernæst kommer nyheden om omringningen af Aleppo, igen udført af russiske styrker sammen med syriske styrker, og som indikerer en mulig snarlig afslutning på ikke alene den syriske konflikt, som fra det britisk-støttede Obamaregimes side var planlagt til at være optakten til atomkrig mod Rusland og Kina, men som nu, hvor krisen næsten er løst, er et forvarsel om afslutningen af selve den britiske, geopolitiske æra.

Vladimir Putin og Kinas Nye Silkevej står til at vinde; Obama og briterne står til at tabe.

Men der er mere endnu, og mere er måske i vente, at begynde med Helga Zepp-LaRouches deltagelse i det internationale T20-topmøde i Beijing i slutningen af juli måned; en indledende drøftelse blandt ledende personer til det kommende G20-topmøde for statsledere i september. FN’s Generalforsamling vil ligeledes mødes i september, blot et år efter Vladimir Putins opfordring til at skabe en ny alliance af magter mod terrorisme, og begge disse begivenheder vil blive internationale fora af afgørende betydning for opbygning af det nye paradigme, inspireret af LaRouche.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche for nylig sagde, »Erinyernes frygtelige dans er blevet udløst!«, og man kan næsten høre de panikslagne hyl og skrig i magtens korridorer på Wall Street og i London, endda fra selve den gale Dronning.

De Fire Love

Den 8. juni 2014 udstedte Lyndon LaRouche en erklæring med titlen »De Fire Nye Love til USA’s omgående redning! Ikke en valgmulighed, men en uopsættelig nødvendighed.« I denne erklæring definerer hr. LaRouche en løsning på den nuværende, globale og generelle sammenbrudskrise, men han definerer mere end det. Han fremlægger en økonomisk og videnskabelig politik, der er i overensstemmelse med den menneskelige arts faktiske, skabende natur, og en politik, der, hvis den bliver vedtaget, vil udløse en renæssance i menneskeligt fremskridt for det kommende århundrede, og længere endnu.

Der findes intet, der kan erstatte læsning, og gen-læsning, at hele hr. LaRouches erklæring, men vi vil her præsentere en kortfattet, forkortet synopsis af de umiddelbare skridt, der skal tages, for at tage den igangværende generelle sammenbrudskrise i det transatlantiske område under behandling. Dette er udgangspunktet for et succesfuldt, Nyt Præsidentskab:

1. Den omgående genindførelse af Glass/ Steagall-loven, uden ændringer, som blev sat i kraft af præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt, som princip for handling.
2. En tilbagevenden til et Nationalbanksystem, der styres fra oven (fra regeringen), og som er defineret som sådan. Præcedens herfor skal tages fra det bank- og kreditsystem, som Alexander Hamilton etablerede, såvel som også fra Abraham Lincolns udstedelse af en statslig valuta (»greenbacks«), under præsidentiel myndighed.
3. Udstedelsen af ny statskredit til skabelse af et højproduktivt, generelt forløb med forbedret beskæftigelse, med den ledsagende plan om at øge den fysisk-økonomiske produktivitet, samt forbedre levestandarden for personer og husstande i USA. En forøgelse af den produktive beskæftigelse, sådan, som man præsterede det under Franklin Roosevelt, må reflektere en forøgelse af den reelle produktivitet, der er i overensstemmelse med en forøgelse af energi-gennemstrømnings-tætheden[2] i nationens økonomiske praksis.
4. Vedtagelsen af et »’Forceret program’ for fusionsenergi som drivkraft«. Ægte økonomiske principper er funderet på den afgørende forskel mellem mennesket og alle andre lavere livsformer. Et forceret program for fusionsenergi, som i dag omfatter en tilbagevenden til Krafft Ehrickes vision for USA’s rumprogram, er en forpligtelse over for menneskehedens fremtid.

Det dybereliggende spørgsmål

Det er imidlertid kun en tænkning af samme høje kvalitet som tænkningen hos en skabende forsker, såsom Einstein eller dirigenten Wilhelm Furtwängler, der vil besidde de nødvendige evner til at fatte de seneste internationale udviklingers underliggende årsagsskabende magt, såvel som også den nødvendige kvalitet af respons, der findes i selve essensen af LaRouches Fire Nye Love. Denne videnskabelige evne kan bedst udtrykkes som ens egen forpligtelse over for den menneskelige arts grænseløse fremtid.

Ikke reduktionismens fremtid i rum og tid, eller endda rum-tid, men snarere en fremtid, der ledes af musikalsk geni, som i tilhørernes intellekt, eller sind, søger at skabe de nødvendige og netop tilstrækkelige intellektuelle evner, der tilnærmer sig menneskehedens ubegrænsede fremtid, og således udfolder en klarhed i resolut handling, som en handling tilbage til den nuværende krise fra den levende fremtid. Shakespeares Hamlet giver os et relevant, negativt bevis for sådanne evner i det menneskelige intellekt. Ethvert redeligt menneske må stille sig selv det spørgsmål, ikke, »Hvem skal jeg stemme på«, men snarere, »Vil min eksistens være af en sådan art, at jeg bliver en aktør, der udvirker noget, på historiens scene?« Som Lyndon LaRouche erklærede den 31. juli 2016: »Jeg stiller ikke op som præsident, men jeg har sandelig til hensigt at indvirke på dannelsen af USA’s regering i den kommende periode.«

Overvej nu det følgende aspekt af hans tankegang i det afsluttende afsnit af denne rapport fra juni 2014:

»For eksempel: ’tid’ og ’rum’ eksisterer i realiteten ikke som metriske principper i Solsystemet; deres eneste acceptable anvendelse til kommunikationsformål er grundlæggende set nominel antagelse. Eftersom kompetent videnskab i dag kun kan udtrykkes mht. den unikke, menneskelige karakteristiks rolle inden for de kendte aspekter af Universet, er det menneskelige princip det eneste, sande princip, som vi kender og kan udøve. Begreberne om rum og tid er blot nyttige forestillinger.«

Og senere:

»Mennesket er menneskehedens eneste, sande målestok for vort Solsystems historie og det, som det indbefatter. Det er det samme som, at den menneskelige arts mest ærefulde mening og uendelige præstation, nu i det nære rum i vort Solsystem, stiler opad for at kunne beherske Solen og dens Solsystem, som (faktisk unikt) blev opdaget af Johannes Kepler.«

Faren ligger således ikke i det, som synes at være de kaotiske begivenheder i verden, sådan, som den almene »manden på gaden« opfatter den krise, der udspiller sig, men derimod i den utilstrækkelige forpligtelse over for menneskehedens opadstigende natur, som det fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Nye Love. For, på et sådant tidspunkt, hvor LaRouches ideer nu er mere indflydelsesrige inden for den menneskelige arts mere udbredte kultur, og alt imens de modsatrettede usande forestillinger, med imperiale Zeus-diktater for befolkningsreduktion, krig og økonomisk bedrageri, står over for deres farefulde sammenbrud, så udgør selveste det menneskelige intellekts natur i sig selv den højere, kompositionsmæssige modalitet, gennem hvilken vi udøver handling over for universet som helhed, med revolutionerende virkning.

Det, som er presserende nødvendigt, er den uundværlige, skabende forhånds-handling for at skabe en hel dynamik, snarere end gentagelser af de fiaskoer, som stammer fra Newtons systemiske bedrageri med aktion-reaktion – et bedrageri, der er fremherskende i den nuværende, transatlantiske verdens politiske og finansielle klasses neurotiske tilskyndelser, og et bedrageri, som Einstein på så fremragende vis afslørede. En sådan forhånds-handling, som LaRouches Fire Love fordrer, udgør selve fundamentet for de indledende skridt, gennem hvilke vi eliminerer dette fejlslagne systems unødvendige byrder og gæld.

Men mon man kan høre det nye tema, måske, som om det kom fra den forventede indtrængen af en himmelstræbende sektion af træblæsere i det højeste toneleje, højt over orkestret? For en sådan forventningens tilstand er ligesom en gave, der overraskende overbringes af en for længst afdød, kær ven fra det, som endnu er den ikke-afgjorte fremtid, som dernæst gives på vegne af vores nutids passage, for blot at blive vores fremtids mest fundamentale nutid.

Dantes Guddommelige Komedie og Brunelleschis skabelse af den italienske renæssance stod ikke tilbage i denne henseende.

Og sådan må det Nye Præsidentskab, og dets borgersamfund, blive.

9. august 2016 – LaRouche Politiske Aktions-komite (LPAC) har den store glæde at annoncere udgivelsen af vores nye avis i stort format, The Hamiltonian, med base i Manhattan, New York City! De første 10.000 eksemplarer af The Hamiltonian kom på gaden i Manhattan i dag, med Jeffrey Steinbergs isnende indlæg om Obama-Hillary-terrorarven, der er i færd med at marchere hele planeten lige ind i Tredje Verdenskrig. Denne hovedartikel følges af vores appel om at afsløre det anglo-saudiske terrorapparat og omsider stille dem, der udførte terror-ugerningen den 11. september, 2001, for retten. 

Ligeledes i dette pilotnummer af The Hamiltonian finder vi medlem af LPAC Michael Stegers artikel, »Det nye præsidentskab: Det begynder med LaRouches ’Fire Love’«, den første i en række artikler fra LPAC i direkte samarbejde med Lyndon LaRouche, som en del af hans kampagne for skabelsen af et Nyt Præsidentskab i løbet af de kommende 100 dage. (Se dansk: ’Fire Nye Love til USA’s omgående redning’) 

Nedenfor genoptrykker vi Jeffrey Steinbergs artikel:

Præsidentvalg i USA: Lyndon LaRouche: 

Hillary Clinton er Obamas medhjælper, for krige og for Wall Street

Af Jeffrey Steinberg, EIR-efterretningsredaktør

6. august 2016 (Leder) – Inden for 24 timer efter Hillary Clintons formelle nominering som det Demokratiske Partis kandidat til præsidentvalget 2016, kom nogle af Clintons top-kampagnerådgivere for udenrigspolitik og national sikkerhed ud med angreb, der fik blodet til at fryse, mod Rusland og mod den syriske præsident Bashar Assad.

Selv under det Demokratiske Konvent sagde den tidligere CIA-direktør og forsvarsminister under Barack Obama, Leon Panetta, den 27. juli til konventet, at nøglen til at afslutte krigen i Syrien er at vælte præsident Assad. To dage senere sagde Jeremy Bash, Panettas tidligere stabschef i CIA og Pentagon, og nu toprådgiver til Clinton, til Daily Telegraph, at én af Clintons første handlinger som præsident ville blive at beordre en gennemgribende revision af politikken for Syrien, med målet om at afsætte Assad med magt som førsteprioritet. Han fremførte, at der ikke er nogen udsigt til at nedkæmpe Islamisk Stat og Jabhat al Nusra uden at fjerne Assad.

Michelle Flournoy, der anses for at være Hillary Clintons første valg til at blive forsvarsminister, sagde til Defense One, at en ny regering må skabe en »bombnings-forbudszone« i det nordlige Syrien, med det formål at skabe et sikkert opholdssted for oprørskæmpere og uddanne og bevæbne dem til at vælte Assad, såvel som også til at bekæmpe ISIS og Nusra. Hun talte for anvendelse af stand-off-våben (våben, der kan lanceres på en sådan afstand, at personellet kan nå at komme uden for rækkevidde af gengældelsesbeskydning, -red.) mod den syriske hær, som en yderligere eskalering af den krig for regimeskift, som præsident Obama og (daværende) udenrigsminister Clinton lancerede i begyndelsen af 2011.

Flournoy er adm. dir. for Center for Ny Amerikansk Sikkerhed (CNAS), en tænketank, der domineres af Clinton-rådgivere og andre neokonservative. Flournoys interview med Defense One var en kondenseret version af en rapport, som CNAS netop er fremkommet med fra en ISIS-undersøgelsesgruppe, der omfattede en samling krigshøge og neokonservative, som alle er en del af Clintons stald: Ryan Crocker, Kimberley Kagan, Joseph Lieberman, gen. David Petraeus, Kenneth Pollack, Andrew Tabler og Frances Townsend.

I maj måned udgav CNAS et udkast til global konfrontation, ved navn »Udvidelse af amerikansk magt: Strategier til at udvide amerikansk engagement i en kompetitiv verdensorden«, der som medforfatter havde Robert Kagan, en ledende neokonservativ, der udarbejdede en lignende undersøgelse for den tiltrædende Bush-Cheney-regering i 2000, kaldet »Projekt for et Nyt Amerikansk Århundrede« (PNAC). Begge disse dokumenter promoverer en unipolær verden baseret på en permanent udvidelse af USA’s militære magt. Rapporten fra PNAC blev i vid udstrækning set som den spilleplan, som Bush og Cheney brugte til at lancere et årti med permanente krige i Afghanistan og Irak, en spilleplan, der af Obama og Clinton blev udvidet ind i Syrien og Libyen.

I kølvandet på Panettas, Bush’ og Flournoys heftige udfald konkluderede mange skarpe iagttagere, at angrebene på Syrien, Rusland og Kina, som var omfattet af de kombinerede bemærkninger, ikke kunne have været udstedt uden forudgående godkendelse af Hillary Clinton selv.

Kort sagt, så har Hillary Clinton erklæret sig selv som kandidaten for »kontinuitet« af den næsten to årtier lange permanente krigsførelse, der blev lanceret af Bush og Obama. Disse krige har nu ført verden til randen af atomkrig med Rusland og Kina, en krig, der vil udslette menneskeheden.

Om noget, så var Hillary Clinton, mens hun var udenrigsminister, en af Obamaregeringens mest skingre fortalere for krig og atter krig. Clinton var og er en stærk promoter for behovet for at vælte Assad-regeringen i Damaskus, om nødvendigt gennem direkte amerikansk militær involvering. Kravet om at skabe en flyveforbudszone over syrisk territorium er en åbenlys overtrædelse af alle principper for national suverænitet, og hendes rolle i lanceringen af den katastrofale krig i Libyen – som bredt er blevet beskrevet som den afgørende stemme i fremstødet for et hurtigt regimeskifte – har skabt en permanent krise, der har ført til massedød og socialt kaos, i hele det afrikanske kontinent.

Det var Hillary Clinton, sammen med Susan Rice og Samantha Power, der promoverede den voldelige afsættelse af Libyens leder Gaddafi, på trods af, at dette betød en alliance med hardcore al-Qaeda- og relaterede jihadist-terrorgrupper. Afsættelsen og mordet på Gaddafi forvandlede Libyen til et ingenmandsland, der ikke kunne regeres, og som styredes af krigsførende kliker bestående af tungt bevæbnede militser, mange domineret af al-Qaeda i det islamiske Magreb (AQIM), og følgelig af Islamisk Stat.

De våben, der blev »befriet« fra libyske regeringsdepoter, har båret ved til krige i hele det afrikanske kontinent, og store mængder af disse »frigivne våben« blev smuglet ind i Syrien, gennem amerikanske, britiske, saudiarabiske, qatarske og tyrkiske kanaler, og ind i hænderne på jihadisterne, der har forvandlet Syrien og Irak til et Helvede på Jord. Millioner af flygtninge fra de nordafrikanske, syriske, irakiske og afghanske konflikter, der alle er blevet støttet af Obama og Clinton, er strømmet ind i Vesteuropa i desperat flugt for deres liv og har skabt den største flygtningekrise i hele efterkrigstidens periode.

Disse handlinger, der blev udført under Clintons fire år som udenrigsminister under Barack Obama, førte direkte til begivenhederne den 11. september 2012, hvor jihadister fra Ansar al-Sharia gennemførte et stærkt bevæbnet angreb på USA’s diplomatiske kompleks i Benghazi, Libyen, der resulterede i mordet på USA’s ambassadør Christopher Stevens og tre andre amerikanske embedsmænd.

Som det tydeligt fremgår af dokumenter i Udenrigsministeriet, så havde ambassadør Stevens og andre amerikanske diplomater i Libyen tigget om yderligere sikkerhedspersonel. Udenrigsministeriet have sammensat en oversigt over angreb på udenlandske diplomater og endda det Internationale Røde Kors, men faktisk blev sikkerheden barberet ned i stedet for forøget. Alt imens Patrick Kennedy fra udenrigsministeriet angiveligt skulle have ansvaret for sikkerhedsarrangementer ved USA’s diplomatiske mission i Libyen, så lå ansvaret til syvende og sidst hos udenrigsministeren – Hillary Clinton.

Mens angrebet i Benghazi 11. september 2012 var i gang, gjorde live-rapporter fra Benghazi og fra ambassaden i Tripoli det klart, at angrebet på missionen var overlagt, velplanlagt, tungt bevæbnet og dødbringende. En vurdering fra forsvarets efterretningsdepartement, som blev udgivet internt i regeringen få dage efter angrebet, forklarede i detaljer, hvordan angrebet var blevet udført.

Alligevel valgte præsident Obama og udenrigsminister Clinton, der var mere optaget af det forestående præsidentvalg i november 2012, at lyve for det amerikanske folk og hævdede, at angrebet i Benghazi var en »spontan« protest imod en lidet kendt video, der bagvaskede profeten Mohammed – en lodret løgn.

Denne løgn, der blev flikket sammen under en telefonsamtale sent om aftenen af præsident Obama og udenrigsminister Clinton, og som første gang blev udgivet til offentligheden i en pressemeddelelse i Clintons navn, blev opretholdt i dagevis. Om søndagen efter angrebet deltog den nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver Susan Rice i en stribe interview-shows for at faldbyde løgnen om »spontan protest løbet af sporet«, som først blev udstedt af Clinton.

Hillary Clinton prioriterede Barack Obamas genvalg frem for sandheden og frem for USA’s vitale, nationale sikkerhedsinteresser. Hun beregnede, at, hvis hun havde fortalt sandheden og taget sin afsked fra regeringen, ville Obama have tabt genvalget, hun ville have fået skylden, og hendes egne fremtidige perspektiver for at blive det Demokratiske Partis nominelle kandidat til præsident ville være slut.

Lyndon LaRouche fremlagde sagen imod Hillary Clinton og Barack Obama ved en historisk pressekonference i National Press Club i Washington, D.C., i ugerne, der fulgte tragedien i Benghazi. LaRouche identificerede Clinton som en medhjælper, en håndlanger, til Obama, og som et ledende medlem af krigspartiet, der har givet USA og verden en evindelig krig af den længste varighed, har skabt betingelserne for opkomsten af Islamisk Stat, og har drevet USA’s økonomi bankerot.

Ikke alene præsiderede Hillary Clinton over opkomsten af ISIS og den totale destabilisering af hele Mellemøsten/Nordafrika. Sammen med sin betroede allierede i Udenrigsministeriet, Victoria Nuland[1], skabte hun en total konfrontation med Rusland, som, på afgørende tidspunkter, gjorde hende til de rene nazisters sengekammerat.

Clinton forfremmede Nuland, hustru til den neokonservative ideolog Robert Kagan, til topposter i Udenrigsministeriet, fra talsmand for udenrigsminister Clinton og Udenrigsministeriet, til viceudenrigsminister for europæiske og eurasiske anliggender, en stilling, ud fra hvilken Nuland præsiderede over den »farvede revolution« og den voldelige afsættelse af Janukovitj-regeringen i Ukraine med hjælp fra organisationen af Bandera-nazister, der kæmpede side om side med Hitlers hære under Anden Verdenskrig og skabte flere generationer af erklærede neo-nazister, såsom det ukrainske Sektor Højre og Azov-brigaderne.

På et afgørende tidspunkt under afsættelsen af Janukovitj pralede Nuland over for et publikum ved National Press Club i Washington med, at USA havde brugt $5 mia. på kampagnen for »demokrati« i Ukraine, siden Sovjetunionens opløsning.

Dette statskup i Kiev i 2013-14 markerede en dramatisk optrapning af Obamaregeringens allerede igangværende provokationer imod den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, handlinger, der nu omfatter deployeringen af NATO-styrker på Ruslands grænser for første gang, siden nazi-invasionen af Sovjetunionen under Anden Verdenskrig.

Det var Obama og Clinton, der, som to alen ud af ét stykke, ødelagde relationen mellem USA og Rusland, og som nu har sat verden på en farlig kurs mod generel krig, og endda en potentiel atomar udslettelseskrig.

Dette er den sande arv af Obama-Clinton.

Hillary Clinton afskyr den kendsgerning, at dette er hendes sande generalieblad, og at Lyndon LaRouche frygtløst har gjort denne sandhed tilgængelig for det amerikanske folk, og for verden.

 

9. august 2016 (Leder) – Topmødet i dag, i Skt. Petersborg, Rusland, mellem den russiske præsident Putin og den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan, indikerede aftaler om handel og konstruktion af gensidig infrastruktur; om gasledningen »Turkish Stream« for russisk gas; og, af afgørende betydning, om bekæmpelse af terrorisme i Syrien. Her »har Rusland en særdeles fundamental rolle«, sagde den tyrkiske præsident; og om nødvendigt kunne et Rusland og et Tyrkiet, hvis de arbejdede sammen, alene løse krigsspørgsmålet, ifølge Erdogans erklærede synspunkt.

Tyrkiets politik er tydeligvis ændret; Tyrkiet kan spille en afgørende rolle i opbygningen af den nord-sydgående handel og økonomiske korridor fra Indien til Europa, som er i færd med at blive udviklet af Indien, Iran, Rusland, Kina og centralasiatiske lande.

Men der er meget mere end det, der er ændret. Putin har skabt historie. Den umiddelbare reaktion fra EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, var, at denne udvikling – i hælene på Putins topmøde med Adsjerbadjan og Iran i går – skaber en betydningsfuld forandring i hele den politiske geometri i området. Det svækker på afgørende vis både Obamas og krigskandidat Hillary Clintons positioner.

»En ny, eurasisk gruppering er nu ved at gå frem, og uanset, hvilken indsats, Obama og NATO måtte sætte ind for at standse det, vil det være for lidt, og for sent«, var LaRouches kommentar.

En blok af eurasiske nationer, der er langt større, vil være motiveret af Kinas »Nye Silkevej«, med dens politik for kredit og opbygning af infrastruktur. Dette økonomiske program kan forlænges til en Marshallplan for hele Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, der hidtil blot har været udsat for ødelæggelse gennem de krige, som Bush, Obama og Clinton har ført.

Tyskland vil komme under et enormt pres for at ændre den af kansler Merkel og finansminister Schäuble førte politik, som beviseligt er en fiasko. Vesteuropa har i realiteten ikke noget valg, nu, da Putin har ændret geometrien i Sydvestasien, sådan, som LaRouche, tilbage den 30. september sidste år, da det russiske militær først kom til stede i Syrien, forudsagde, at han ville.

Obama må stå til regnskab for det amerikanske folk. Han støtter en bogstavelig talt 100 % ’s al-Qaeda-terroriststyrke i det nordlige Syrien, som den »foretrukne platform« for at erstatte Assad-regeringen; han har myrdet Libyens præsident, og dernæst støttet en i hast omdøbt al-Qaeda-afdeling i Libyen, som deltog i mordet på amerikanere i angrebet på ambassaden i Benghazi; han støtter Saudi-Arabien i bombningen og ødelæggelsen af Yemen, efter saudiernes involvering i angrebene i USA den 11. september, 2001, som dræbte 3.000 amerikanere, var blevet afsløret.

Denne krigspolitik for regimeskifte er det, som endelig kan blive fejet til side af det, som Putins diplomati og handlinger er i færd med at afstedkomme. En Hillary Clinton-krigspræsident in spe kan ikke tolereres i yderligere fire år med Obamas miskrediterede krigspolitik, ganske uanset, hvor mange Cheney- og neokonservativ-galninge, der støtter hende.

Kendsgerningen er, at intet er fastlagt på forhånd i det amerikanske præsidentvalg; de to hovedkandidater er en katastrofe i deres egne partiers vælgeres øjne. Wall Street/London-finanssystemet og de transatlantiske landes nationale økonomier er ved at krakke, og det rette svar på dette er ikke at fremprovokere en krig med Rusland og/eller Kina.

Vi har brug for et »nyt præsidentskab«, der forpligter sig til et nyt paradigme. Dette nye præsidentskab må genoprette produktivitet og produktiv beskæftigelse i den amerikanske økonomi, og det må samarbejde med Kina og Rusland om videnskabeligt fremskridt, om rummet, og om freden.

Baggrundsanalyse, fra Lyndon LaRouche:

Lyndon LaRouche: Putin skaber atter historie.

I dag sagde Lyndon LaRouche, »Historiens gang er blevet ændret!« af de aftaler, der er indgået, og de aftaler, der vil komme som en følge af Putin-Erdogan-topmødet. Tyrkiet kan spile en afgørende rolle i denne nord-sydgående korridor, og mødet mellem Putin og Erdogan vil fremme dette mere dybtgående samarbejde.

Det, jeg så som en mulighed, er nu blevet virkeliggjort. En ny, eurasisk gruppering går nu frem, og uanset, hvilken indsats Obama og NATO måtte sætte ind for at standse det, så vil det være for lidt, og for sent«, sagde han.

LaRouche sagde, at der nu er åbnet udsigt til, at man kan knuse hele det tjetjenske terrorapparat, der i juni måned udførte selvmordsangrebet i Istanbul Lufthavn, og som har erklæret jihad-krig mod Rusland og præsident Putin. Det åbner op for, at hele det eurasiske kontinent kan blive en blok for økonomisk udvikling og sikkerhed. Dette er et alvorlig slag mod præsident Barack Obama og hans britiske støtter. Og det betyder, at Tyskland nu må ændre sin politik, på dramatisk vis.  

Foto: Den russiske præsident Putin byder den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan velkommen i Katarinapaladset i Skt. Petersborg, til topmødet den 9. aug.

22. oktober 2015 – En revolution finder sted i dette land. Det kan læses ud af de markante ændringer under de successive ugentlige lørdagsdialoger på Manhattan med Lyndon LaRouche, der i realiteten er spydhovedet for det hele, og som LaRouche indledte for kun et år siden, da han begyndte Manhattan-processen. Mødet sidste lørdag 17. oktober fremviste en hidtil uset intellektuel dynamik hos stort set alle talerne på Manhattan-mødet. De første, indledende rapporter fra onsdagens Aktionsdag i Washington D.C. viser, at vælgere og aktivister fra hele Østkysten tilslutter sig LaRouchePAC-delegationer til Kongressen i stadig større antal, og at vælgere, der bliver hjemme, udøver større pres end nogen sinde – pr. telefon – for at kræve Obamas fjernelse fra embedet og for at kræve, at den amerikanske regering lukker Wall Street ned.

Hvad vigtigere er: de fleste af de aktivister, der kom til Washington, deltog aktivt i uddannelsen af deres kongresmedlemmer – OG gjorde det effektivt.

En faktor, der har givet denne revolution et vigtigt skub fremad, har været den svindelagtige, såkaldte demokratiske »debat« den 13. okt., sammen med LaRouches omgående fordømmelse af samme – hvilket faktisk gik forud for selve debatten. Som LaRouche, i en erklæring den 20. okt., bemærkede, så blev han nærmest helt på en nat, da han omgående fordømte denne såkaldte debat som en stinkende farce og en svindel. Hele denne proces – den såkaldte debat og LaRouches omgående og dødeligt præcise svar – udløste en form for selv-realisation blandt mange amerikanere, der pludselig forstod, at det stadigt dalende niveau af intellekt og moralitet, der demonstreres af den »praktiske« manden-på-gaden og hans nyheds- og underholdningsmedier, ikke førte nogen vegne hen, undtagen til døden. Og at den radikalt modsatte standard, der længe er blevet forfægtet af LaRouche, i virkeligeden er deres eneste redning – hvilket det også er.

Under forløbet af Hillary Clintons høring i dag for Husets Benghazi-komite var flere af spørgsmålene en nøjagtig gentagelse af det, LaRouche har sagt. Hun blev afsløret i, at hun udmærket forstod og skrev, at angrebet på den diplomatiske mission i Benghazi var en terrormission af al-Qaeda, alt imens hun samtidig fastholdt den løgn, at missionen var udtryk for en protest mod en video. »Jeg tror, De kendte sandheden«, sagde kongresmedlem Jordan fra Ohio.

Hun blev konfronteret med den kendsgerning, at en amerikansk embedsmand mødtes med en lokal al-Qaeda-leder (fra Ansar el-Sharia, der angiveligt skulle yde sikkerhed til den amerikanske mission) kort tid før angrebet.

Det nærmeste, nogen kom til at konfrontere Hillary direkte med den kendsgerning, at hun gik med på Obamas ordre om at lyve, som det dokumenteres af Ed Klein i bogen Blood Feud og bekræftes og uddybes af LaRouche, var et kvindeligt kongresmedlem, der spurgte Hillary, om hun havde talt med Obama aftenen for angrebet. Hillary bekræftede, at det havde hun, men nægtede at besvare det følgende spørgsmål: »Hvad sagde han til Dem?«

Dette bekræfter, hvad LaRouche har sagt – dette ville fremme den revolution, der er i gang i USA.

I mellemtiden, som LaRouche også har sagt, så arbejder de medlemmer af Barack Obamas regering, der i realiteten er de ledende regeringsmedlemmer, uden om ham og ignorerer ham faktisk, for at forhindre den krig, som Obama har forsøgt at lancere. Udenrigsminister Kerry skal mødes fredag med den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov, samt den tyrkiske og saudiske udenrigsminister. I dag talte præsident Putin til Valdai Debatgruppen i Sotji, Rusland, hvor han sad på podiet sammen med fhv. amerikansk ambassadør til Moskva, Jack Matlock, formanden for det iranske Majlis, Ali Larijani, samt fhv. tjekkisk præsident Vaclav Klaus. Der er grund til at forbinde disse to udviklinger.

Obama kan fjernes nu, og han må fjernes.

I sin erklæring fra 20. okt. sagde LaRouche:

»Den enkle sandhed er, at en ærlig vurdering af det katastrofale kollaps af reel produktivitet i den amerikanske økonomi er, at et stort og stadigt voksende flertal af vore medborgere står over for at miste deres arbejde, sult, sammenbrud af den almene sundhedssektor, ødelæggelsen af uddannelsessystemet og en generel opløsning af basal infrastruktur.«

Nylige statistikker, som det rapporteres af Administrationen for Social Sikkerhed (i USA, folkepensioner, invalidepensioner m.m., -red.), viser, at, alt imens det statslige fattigdomsniveau for en familie på fem ligger på 28.410 dollars om året, så har næsten 40 % af alle amerikanske arbejdere ikke engang en indtægt på 20.000 dollars om året. Der er 7,9 mio. amerikanere i den arbejdsdygtige alder, der er »officielt arbejdsløse«, og yderligere 94,7 mio., der anses for ikke at være en del af arbejdsstyrken, som vi har rapporteret – kombiner de to tal, og man får et tal på 102,6 mio. amerikanere i den arbejdsdygtige alder, der ikke har noget arbejde. »Som nation er vi ruinerede, og de fleste af os lever fra løncheck til løncheck«, skrev en bidragyder til Zero Hedge-websiden. Det skønnes at koste 50.000 dollars om året at forsørge en middelklassefamilie på fire, og dog har 71 % af alle arbejdere mindre end det, hvilket gør det umuligt for en familie at overleve med kun en forsørger.

LaRouche kræver en nedlukning af Wall Street under Glass-Steagall og udstedelse af

»statskredit til genoplivelse af den produktive økonomi gennem anlægsinvesteringer i infrastruktur og andre vitale programmer«.

Samtidig refererede Putin i dag, i sin Valdai-tale – i en passende sammenhæng med Obamas krigspolitik, som han fordømte – til flygtningekrisen i Europa og sagde:

»Desværre hører vi ordene krig og konflikt stadig hyppigere, når vi taler om relationer mellem folk fra forskellige kulturer, religioner og etnicitet. I dag forsøger hundrede tusinder af migranter at integrere sig i et andet samfund, uden en profession og uden noget som helst kendskab til sprog, tradition og kultur i de lande, de flytter til.«

Det eneste svar kommer fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som hun udrykker det i sin artikel fra 20. september, »Flygtningekrisen kan kun løses gennem et fundamentalt skift i den økonomiske politik«. 

Hun indleder med de inciterende ord:

»I disse, verdenspolitikkens stormfulde dage, ser vi to, grundlæggende forskellige typer af politiske og finanspolitiske beslutningstagere: de, der ud fra et optimistisk menneskesyn fremlægger en klar vision for menneskehedens fremtid, og de, hvis kræmmersjæl slet ikke lader nogen plads tilbage til noget som helst menneskesyn, men kun med tilbagevirkende kraft søger at opretholde deres magt og gæld fra fortiden, selv om disse for længst er ophørt med at være erholdelige. I de dramatiske ændringer, der vil finde sted i de kommende uger, vil vi kun kunne løse de problemer, vi står overfor, hvis det lykkes at vinde de europæiske nationer og USA for det nye paradigme, som BRIKS-nationernes økonomiske politik og Kinas »win-win«-politik med den Nye Silkevej repræsenterer.«

  

Lyndon LaRouche fremlagde mandag et strategisk overblik over kampen for omgående at fjerne Obama fra Det Hvide Hus og »vende tidevandet til fordel for menneskeheden« i sine indledende bemærkninger til den ugentlige webcast med LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.

Han begyndte med at gøre op, hvor vi står ca. en uge efter debatten mellem det Demokratiske Partis præsidentkandidater tirsdag, den 13. oktober, og den åbenlyse britiske indsats for at forme denne debat i løbet af weekenden.

»Vi har nu nået et vendepunkt, der følger efter det, der skete den 13. ds. [Tv-debatten mellem præsidentkandidaterne fra det Demokratiske Parti], og det var en parodi. Det var et orgie, en vederstyggelighed. Men desværre for fjenden er det ikke en populær trend, og det vil gå i den anden retning – og det har det gjort. I det mellemliggende interval på en uge siden debatten har vi set den største stigning i folkelig støtte blandt mennesker, der stemmer eller har tænkt sig at stemme, end vi har set i lang tid.

Vores job nu er ikke at være abstrakt omkring disse spørgsmål. Vi ved, at vi har hakket sporerne i Obama, at Obama nu er færdig. Alt rent globalt siger, at Obama er færdig. Det er, hvad der nu vil ske.«

LaRouche uddybede videre, at LaRouche-bevægelsens mobiliseringsaktivitet under anførsel af Manhattan-projektet finder »en total forandring bort fra pessimisme« i en stor del af befolkningen. Han tilføjede, at denne forandrede situation også har alt at gøre med det globale lederskab, som Rusland og Kina frembyder.

»Det er storartet! Dette er, hvad der er sket med Rusland. Ruslands aktivitet, hvad Rusland succesrigt har opnået, og det, som de stadig gør, har været den udløsermekanisme, der har været gnisten til en global evne til at vende tidevandet til fordel for menneskeheden. Og det er, hvad vi gør!«

Alt imens LaRouche advarede om, at de nødvendige, dramatiske ændringer ikke vil komme let, tilføjede han:

»Men det, jeg har fået ind i løbet af de seneste 48 timer, er en slående eksplosion: nationen og dele af verden er i bevægelse. Og naturligvis, det, som Kina og Rusland har gjort yderligere, har været absolut afgørende i denne forandring i omstændighederne over hele planeten.

Vi befinder os i en periode med ansvar, ikke for at gøre krav på store præstationer, men for at erkende, at vi har mulighed for resultater, der ikke har været tilgængelige for os længe. Vi må derfor bruge og støtte disse talenter og erkende, at man har et ansvar for at sikre, at man yder sit bidrag til den proces, som vi nu kæmper for at gøre til virkelighed.«

I løbet af weekenden blev præsident Obama stukket af fire ødelæggende angreb på hans forbrydelser i embedet. Det absolut mest dramatiske er, at der stadig fremkommer nye detaljer fra Dronepapirerne, de lækkede dokumenter, der viser, at præsident Obama lige fra sine første dage i embedet stod i spidsen for et globalt mordprogram, der blev styret fra Det Hvide Hus’ Situationsrum, og i hvilket program tusinder af mennesker blev mål som ofre for mord i Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen og Somalia under Obamas dronedrabs-program.

Situationen er pludselig meget moden til, at præsident Obama omgående kan blive fjernet fra embedet. I samme forbindelse, med sin vidneforklaring om Benghazi planlagt til torsdag, den 22. okt., for den Særlige Komite i Repræsentanternes Hus, må man forvente, at Hillary Clinton også snart bliver dumpet.

I løbet af weekenden blev præsident Obama stukket af fire ødelæggende angreb på hans forbrydelser i embedet. Det absolut mest dramatiske er, at der stadig fremkommer nye detaljer fra Dronepapirerne, de lækkede dokumenter, der viser, at præsident Obama lige fra sine første dage i embedet stod i spidsen for et globalt mordprogram, der blev styret fra Det Hvide Hus’ Situationsrum, og i hvilket program tusinder af mennesker blev mål som ofre for mord i Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen og Somalia under Obamas dronedrabs-program. Skønsmæssigt 90 % af ofrene for dette massemordsprogram var ikke engang opført som mål på listerne, som blev personligt underskrevet af Obama. De blev imidlertid omgående klassificeret som terrorister og fjendtlige kæmpere for at dække over størrelsesordenen af Obamas forbrydelser.

Dronepapirerne blev ikke gjort tilgængelige for offentligheden før sidste torsdag, men Amnesty International har allerede krævet en tilbundsgående undersøgelse under Kongressen. Hvad der er mere relevant, så krævede Lyndon LaRouche i løbet af weekenden, at Obama omgående blev fjernet fra embedet, enten gennem en rigsretssag eller ved at påkalde bestemmelserne i det 25. forfatningstillæg – og dernæst blive stillet for en kriminalret for massemord.

Søndag udgav New York Times Magazine en udstrakt gentagelse af Seymour Hershs afsløring fra maj 2015 af det bedrageri, der lå bag Obamas Hvide Hus’ redegørelse for mordet på Osama bin Laden i 2011. Obama, daværende rådgiver til det Hvide Hus i kontraterrorisme John Brennan og andre i Obamas inderkreds løj åbenlyst om omstændighederne omkring drabet på bin Laden, alt sammen for at styrke Obamas udsigter til genvalg, på bekostning af sandheden. Obama og hans team fabrikerede en udførlig fabel i Hollywood-stil om angrebet i Abbottabad, Pakistan, og reklamerede for CIA’s detektivarbejde, når sandheden var, at de væsentlige informationer kom fra en pakistansk officer, der kom med oplysninger om nøjagtigt, hvor al-Qaeda-lederen befandt sig – til gengæld for en belønning på 25 mio. dollars. Det Hvide Hus dækkede på typisk vis over saudiernes rolle, der i årevis betalte for at holde bin Laden i sikkerhed under Pakistans ISI’s overopsyn. Alt imens New York Times Magazine ikke til fulde bekræftede Hersh’ redegørelse, så var de først til at give en fremtrædende amerikansk mediedækning af den virkelige historie.

Den højt respekterede, internationale organisation, Læger uden Grænser, optrappede sin kampagne imod Obama ved at udstede nye anklager og udgive nyt bevismateriale i løbet af weekenden om, at USA med fuldt overlæg bombede LUG-hospitalet i Kunduz, Afghanistan, og dernæst satte tunge køretøjer ind for at pløje hen over beviserne. En unavngiven kilde i Pentagon bekræftede, at LUG havde »gjort alt det rigtige« i deres dokumentering af hospitalets koordinater, således, at dette var placeret på en liste over beskyttede lokaliteter, en liste, der består af hospitaler, skoler og moskeer, der aldrig måtte angribes, selv, hvis der var beviser for, at kæmpere fra al-Qaeda eller Taliban befandt sig i umiddelbar nærhed. Dette var endnu en operation for massemord fra Obamas side, og det kan have relevans, at bombningen af Kunduz kom på et tidspunkt, hvor LUG havde svoret at kæmpe for at bekæmpe Obamas underskrivelse af aftalen om Trans-Pacific Partnership, fordi denne aftale ville nægte almen medicin (dvs. som ikke fremstilles af de store medicinproducenter; billigere kopimedicin) til en halv milliard fattige mennesker i hele verden.

Med Hillary Clintons forestående vidneforklaring sendte ABC News søndag morgen en dokumentar, der afslører, at Obama, Clinton, Victoria Nuland og Ben Rhodes løj for det amerikanske folk og mørklagde al-Qaeda-angrebet på det amerikanske diplomatiske kompleks i Benghazi, Libyen, den 11. sept. 2012, hvor USA’s ambassadør Christoffer Stevens og tre andre amerikanske embedsmænd blev dræbt. ABC-udsendelsen afspejlede Lyndon LaRouche og Jeffrey Steinbergs briefing i National Press Club i december 2012, hvor de beviste, at Obama og Clinton, mens angrebene fandt sted, vidste, at det var et overlagt, tungt bevæbnet al-Qaeda-angreb, der blev udført af en Ansar al-Sharia-gruppe, affilieret med al-Qaeda i det Islamiske Magreb (AQIM). ABC-historien omfattede Nuland, Obama, Clinton og Rhodes, sammen med Susan Rice, der udtænkte løgnene om Benghazi-angrebet, idet de var udmærket klar over, at angrebet intet havde at gøre med »spontane demonstrationer« mod bagvaskelse af profeten Mohammed.

Anden del af samme ABC-udsendelse handlede om et interview med tidligere kongresmedlem Peter Hoekstra, der var formand for Efterretningskomiteen i Repræsentanternes Hus, og som nu fremkom med anklager om, at Obama havde forrådt den libyske leder Gaddafi, der var en førende allieret i krigen mod islamiske terrorister, og at Obamaregeringen havde uddannet og bevæbnet de selv samme terrorister, der udførte slagteriet i Benghazi den 11. sept. 2012.

Alene disse Dronepapirer udgør et klart anklageskrift for kriminel virksomhed imod Obama, der går langt ud over »store forbrydelser og ugerninger« som standard for en rigsretssag. Obamas omgående fjernelse fra embedet er nu en mental sundhedstest for USA’s Kongres.

Der er en mulighed i denne uge for at dumpe Obama og påbegynde processen med at genindføre korrekt, forfatningsmæssig regering af USA, noget, der stødt og roligt er blevet eroderet i løbet af de seneste 15 års Bush- og Obamaregering. Dette er ubetinget den vigtigste handling, der skal udføres, med omgående begyndelse.

 

Som hr. LaRouche understregede, har vi nu en chance for at katalysere et presserende nødvendigt oprør, der kommer internt fra det Demokratiske Parti og de amerikanske borgere generelt imod alt, hvad Obama og hans team står for. Det er den presserende nødvendige handling, der må udføres, hvis vi skal redde USA; og hvis vi skal opbygge et virkeligt kvalificeret præsidentskab til at erstatte Barack Obama i det Hvide Hus, som De forenede Staters præsidentskab. Engelsk udskrift.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, October 16, 2015:

Take the Opportunity of Catalyzing an Urgently Needed Revolt

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it’s October 16, 2015. You’re watching our weekly Friday night live webcast from larouchepac.com. And we are broadcasting live tonight, at our usual time; 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific. And we thank you for tuning in. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review magazine. And the two of us had the opportunity to meet with Mr. LaRouche earlier today; and had a very important and necessary conversation that we intend to convey the essence of to you. He had a very concise message; and our aim tonight is to get that across to our viewership.

So, we’re looking at the opportunity right now, as Mr.LaRouche emphasized, of catalyzing an urgently needed revolt from within the Democratic Party and the American citizenry generally, against everything that Obama and his team stand for. And this is the urgent, necessary action that must be taken, if we are going to save the United States; and if we’re going to build a truly qualified Presidency to take the place of Barack Obama in the White House as the Presidency of this United States. Over the course of this week, the evidence against Obama has only continued to pile up. This is very clear evidence; and we intend to present this evidence in summary form to you tonight. This will include, but will be exclusively, significantly number one: The release by Glen Greenwald and by Jeremy Scahill in their publication, {The Intercept}, of what they’re calling “The Drone Papers”; a reference obviously to the famous “Pentagon Papers” of the 1970s, which incidentally were read into the Congressional Record by former Senator Mike Gravel, who has appeared on several forums with representatives of the LaRouche Movement nationally, recently. Number two, you have the continued fall-out from the savage, deadly, murderous bombing of the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, under the orders and the command of Barack Obama; which the MSF organization is referring to explicitly as a war crime. And number three, in this context, we have the announcement by Obama just yesterday that he is extending the US perpetual-war military deployment in Afghanistan even further. And I know that Jeff will get into all three of these points more in depth tonight.

But first, what Mr. LaRouche wanted to begin tonight’s broadcast with, is the significance of what’s being referred to as the “insurrection” that has erupted from within a certain layer of the Democratic Party leadership — the Democratic National Committee — which came to a head around this CNN debate that was held in Sin City; Las Vegas, earlier this week on Tuesday. This insurrection is being led by none other than Tulsi Gabbard, a Congresswoman from Hawaii, who is one of the five vice chairs of the Democratic National Committee [DNC]. Our viewers might recall that Tulsi Gabbard made herself an outright, outspoken enemy of the Obama White House about two weeks ago, by very prominently denouncing Obama’s World War III policy in Syria on national television; stating that 1) the overthrow of President Assad would be a grave mistake, akin to the overthrow of both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi. This is significant from Tulsi Gabbard, who is herself an Iraq War combat veteran. She called for the direct cooperation with President Putin of Russia in military operations in defeating ISIS and al-Qaeda. This was in the image of Franklin Roosevelt’s cooperation with Russia during World War II to defeat Hitler and the Nazis; which is by the way an echo of exactly what President Putin himself called for in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly.
And this isn’t the only policy which Tulsi Gabbard has openly disagreed with Obama on; she’s also a major and outspoken supporter of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. And this is a point that Mr. LaRouche stressed was very significant and must be emphasized.
So, it just so happens that Congresswoman Gabbard is at the center of the rebellion within the leadership of the DNC against the chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is an ally of Obama. So, according to an article in Bloomberg today, which is titled “Insurrection Erupts at the Democratic National Committee”, this has, in fact, been brewing for quite some time; but it boiled over this week when Gabbard was dis-invited by Debbie Wasserman Schultz from attending the Democratic Party debate in Las Vegas, because she had openly criticized the policy of limiting the number of these Democratic debates to only six.

Only four of them are before the significant primaries at the beginning of next year. And Gabbard also criticized the policy of punishing any of the candidates if they participated in any forums that were not sanctioned by the DNC. Now, what this is being called, and the adjectives that are being used in this Bloomberg article are “autocratic”, “dictatorial”, this policy by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And there’s an open coup that’s brewing against her leadership of the Democratic National Committee. And I’m going to ask Jeff to get into is the implications of this.

I’d advise that people read some of the coverage that’s in this Bloomberg article. One very significant quote is by another one of the vice chairs, a man named RT Ryback; a former mayor of Minneapolis, who is allied with Tulsi Gabbard on this issue. He is outspoken, saying Wasserman Schultz is operating with dictatorial, autocratic power over the Democratic National Committee; her leadership must be questioned. And he’s almost at the point of saying she should be kicked out as the leader of the Party. Ironically, this is coming on the heels of the exact same treatment that was dished out to John Boehner on the Republican side.
So, what I’m going to introduce Jeff with, is just a quote from this article. And I think this sort of summarizes exactly what we have the responsibility to address here tonight. “Says one Democrat with close ties to the Democratic National Committee, ‘The next Chair is going to have to burn the place down and rebuild it.” So Jeff, how do we do that?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I think the critical thing to bear in mind here is that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is nothing other than a total clone and voice at the DNC for President Obama. Go back to the beginning of the Obama presidency. Initially, former Congressman and former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland had been called by the White House, and had been asked to be the Chairman of the DNC, and had been told, “Wait by your phone, because you’re going to get a call from the President very soon.” He waited, and waited, and waited, and then several days
later, read in the newspaper that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz had been named instead as the party chairman.

As we understand this, this was the direct result of an intervention by Valerie Jarrett, by Michelle Obama, and it was a foretaste of many things that would follow from them. So, what she is doing to the Democratic Party is all being done on the basis of orders coming directly from the White House. Tuesday’s debate in Las Vegas was a demeaning insult to the institution of the Presidency. That’s not to say that everything that the participants in the debate said was demeaning, but the whole way that the debate was organized by CNN, which has no qualifications whatsoever to actually be hosting a debate like this, was turned into some version of the Barnum and Bailey circus mixed with the
Gong show. Every candidate brought swarms of people, probably right off the floors of the casinos half drunk, and they were being encouraged to scream and razz and make all kinds of noise whenever their candidate had something to say. It was shameful, it was demeaning, and what Mr. LaRouche said is that this was organized by the British. This wasn’t even done directly by President Obama. This was the kind of stunt that’s meant to demean the office of the Presidency, and people who participated in this process were by and large victims of a set-up that should have never ever been allowed to happen.

Of course, this is the same CNN that bailed out Obama four years ago, when Mitt Romney was about to nail him on what had actually happened in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, but instead, you may recall Candy Crowley jumping in on behalf of Obama, and shutting down Mitt Romney mid-sentence. So what you have here is an assault against the appropriate decorum and respect for the Office of the Presidency, and even though there were a few comments by Martin O’Malley, on two occasions, openly calling for Glass-Steagall, the reality is that the entire event
was a shameless circus, and the best thing to do is to make sure that this is forgotten as soon as possible, and that there is never again this kind of insult to the Office of the Presidency by allowing this kind of clown show to occur.

And Mr. LaRouche, during his Thursday night Fireside Chat with supporters from around the country, emphasized that we’ve got to return the Presidency to a constitutional framework. We’ve got to have qualified candidates, and we’ve got to assemble not an individual, not some personality or popularity contest, but we’ve got to assemble a qualified team of people, a President, a Vice President, qualified people to fill out the cabinet, so that we can get away from the horror show of the last 15 years, where 8 years of Bush and Cheney, and now 7 years of Obama, have all but effectively destroyed the institution of the Presidency.

Now the reality is that we can’t wait. The reality is that Obama must be removed from office in the immediate days ahead, and this is not a matter of trying to scramble around to find some pretext in which to do that, because Matt just mentioned at the outset, that the Glen Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill new publication, the Intercept, has published an extraordinary 8-part series, based on newly-leaked government documents. These documents were prepared after Edward Snowden had already dumped his material, and had already left government, and probably already taking refuge in Russia. But what these documents show is that President Obama is guilty of mass murder. The entire drone program that has been the hallmark, the entirety, of the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism program, has been conducted outside the framework of the U.S. Constitution, outside of international law, and represents perhaps the single greatest incident of mass murder in the modern history of this planet.

Now, that may sound extreme, but I would urge all of you to not just read the 8-part series of articles, but to go to the links to the actual documents that reveal the true nature of this Obama administration, completely lawless mass murder campaign. One of the points that’s made right at the outset, in the opening article of this series, is that since 1975 — and you can go back to the history of the revelations about CIA crimes, the Church and Pike Committee investigations — during that period President Gerald Ford issued an Executive Order and laws were passed, making it explicitly illegal for the U.S. President to order assassinations. And of course, President Obama, since the very beginning of his term in office, has been regularly convening Tuesday meetings at the White House, where they’ve been specifically developing kill lists of targets to be gone after. And so, rather than use the appropriate and accurate term of assassinations, President Obama and his team choose the word “targetted killings,” but the concept is identical.
Now, we’ve talked on a number of occasions in recent weeks, on these webcasts on Friday night, about the fact that General Michael Flynn, who was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and was fired by President Obama in the summer of 2014 for being a major obstacle to the kinds of illegal programs the Administration has been running since the beginning – General Flynn was interviewed by The Intercept to comment on the documents and to comment on his own first-hand knowledge of this assassination program. General Flynn had been the Director of Intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command, for Central Command, and then became the head of the entire Defense Intelligence Agency. Here’s what he had to say about the Obama Administration’s program:

“The drone campaign right now really is only about killing. When you hear the phrase ‘capture or kill’, capture is actually a misnomer. In the drone strategy that we have, `capture’ is a lower case c. We don’t capture people any more. Our entire Middle East policy seems to be based on firing drones. That’s what this Administration decided to do in its counter-terrorism campaign. They are enamored by the ability of Special Operations and the CIA to find a guy in the middle of the desert, in some shitty little village (pardon my French), and drop a bomb on his head and kill him.”

Now to hear President Obama, you would think that the White House program has been surrounded by Constitutional lawyers who’ve been studying every step along the way, to make sure that everything involved in this program is legal. In a speech at the National Defense University several years ago, President Obama discussed the program, and again, quote: “The United States has taken lethal, targetted action against al-Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft, commonly referred-to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions about who is targetted, and why. About civilian casualties and the risk of creating new enemies. About the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law. About accountability and morality. Drone strikes, he concluded, are effective and legal. Now, it happens that under pressure, particularly after news reports about his Tuesday kill-meetings at the White House, caused quite a stir, the White House issued a policy document. It’s in the public record, it didn’t have to be leaked out. It’s called “U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counter-Terrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities.” I won’t bore you with the precise language of this document, but among the highlights, they say, “In every instance we prefer to capture rather than kill. We have precise standards for the use of lethal force, and these criteria include, but are not restricted to, near-certainty that the terrorist target is present, near-certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed, an assessment that capture is not feasible at any time of the operation, an assessment that the relevant government authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not address the threat to U.S. persons, and an assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.” And they say, “There must be a legal basis for using lethal force, and secondly, that lethal force will only be used against a target that poses a continuing imminent threat to U.S. persons.”
Now, the fact of the matter is that these were strict rules for targetted killing that were promulgated by the Obama Administration, signed by the President himself, and as documented in The Intercept series, by commentaries by people like General Flynn, this policy has been violated in virtually every instance. So even by the criteria that his own Administration set forth, President Obama has been guilty of carrying out what can only be described as mass murder. Now, there are procedures for dealing with crimes of mass murder.
Number one, to the extent that the President is directly implicated in these actions, this is cause for immediate and obvious impeachment, and perhaps, because of the urgency and timeliness of this, it would be more appropriate to simply invoke the 25th Amendment. If you have somebody who has been living under the cloak of apparent civility and respectable position, but who turns out to be a mass murderer, then you’d have to conclude that that person was suffering from a form of socio-pathological insanity. That invokes the 25th Amendment immediately. And so, that’s the situation that we’re dealing with. What Mr. LaRouche said, is in this case, you would want to remove that person, President Obama, from office immediately, and then immediately commence with criminal proceedings for the mass-murders that he’s committed.

Now, among the documents that were leaked to the authors of this series of articles, is a document that was prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, in April of 2012. It was called the Performance Audit of the Department of Defense Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR). And what this audit by the House Intelligence Committee concluded, is that the entire targetted-kill program was rife with violations, with failures to live up to any of the standards that would be appropriate under the Constitution, or even under the Obama Administration’s own guidelines, and that basically there was a mad rush to try to line up as much money as possible for these drone-kill programs, and therefore there were shortcuts, there was misrepresentation of the program, and in fact since the September 11 attacks, the Defense Department has spent $67 billion on putting together the ISR infrastructure that the Obama Administration has exclusively used for the drone killing-program.

Now, other comments on this. Again, from General Flynn. He said that the White House, for expedient reasons, abandoned its own guidelines. There were no attempts to capture. There were no attempts to work with local governments on setting up the circumstances to capture. There was no attempt to live up to the standard that to be a legitimate target for these assassinations, the individual had to oppose an immediate and imminent threat of terrorist attack against the United States. And what General Flynn said, quote, “We’ve tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone, and put out a headline that ‘We killed Abu Bag of Donuts’ and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours. And you know what? It doesn’t matter. It just made them a martyr. It just created a new reason to fight us ever harder.” Flynn went on to say that there was “way too much reliance on technical aspects of intelligence, like signals intelligence, or even just looking at somebody with unmanned aerial vehicles. He gave an example. “I could get on the telephone from somewhere in Somalia, and I know I know I’m a high-value target. And I say in some coded language, ‘The wedding is about to occur in the next 24 hours.'” Flynn said, “That could put all of Europe and the United States on a high-level alert, and it may just be total bullshit. SIGINT is an easy system to fool, and that is why it has to be validated by other INTs, namely like human intelligence. You have to ensure that the person is actually there, at that location, because what you really intercepted was the phone.”

And in fact, one of the things that was concluded in this in-depth House Intelligence Committee review of this drone-kill program was that in most instances, there was almost exclusively reliance on the tracking of cell phones, and so, very often, it was the cell phone that was the determinant of the location where the drone attack occurred. And in many instances, almost a majority of the instances, many innocent people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time were killed, and immediately afterwards, even though these people were not known, they didn’t even know what their identities were when the drone-firing took place, they would immediately be classified as unknown enemy combatants. In other words, if you were there, you were de facto a terrorist, and it was de facto justified that you were a legitimate target for Obama’s assassinations.

Now, the documents also included a number of structural flow-charts. The point that the Pentagon and the CIA wanted to make, was that these programs did not involve a few people sitting around in a room, going through piles of what they themselves called “baseball cards” — photographs and biographical information on the people who were on the potential-target list. It was based on the data in these “baseball cards” that the President of the United States would sign the kill-order. And once the kill-order was signed — and by the way, it usually took on average 58 days from when an individual was identified by name to when he went through the process of investigation, surveillance, and his name landed on the President’s desk for a finding that this person should be killed. And then from that moment on, there was a 60-day time deadline for accomplishing the killing. I’m sure part of the reason for that is that every week there were more and more names being added, and the priorities were continuously shifting. But the fact of the matter is, that there was an elaborate chain of command through which this vetting process took place; chains of command within the military and the CIA. Then there was a chain of command which led up to what was called the Principals Committee, which are the leading members of the President’s Cabinet and heads of other agencies that have critical roles to play in this process. And then in every single instance, the ultimate decision was made and was signed off on by the President of the United States. So, in other words, every single person killed in this drone warfare program was authorized for assassination by President Obama.

Now, we know that there were a number of leading advisors, particularly John Brennan; who for the first four years of the Obama Presidency was the President’s Counter-terrorism Advisor right there at the White House — then he was made Director of the CIA. We know that David Petraeus, who was formerly a high-ranking military commander, brought over to the CIA, and who was found not only to have been engaging in an extramarital affair, but was caught passing massive amounts of classified documents to his mistress and biographer; and yet he only received a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor, and to this day is still a key advisor to President Obama. Petraeus propagated a series of orders, establishing the chain of command and the operational profile of at least the Joint Special Operations Command [JSOC] part of this kill program. But ultimately, everything landed on the desk of President Obama; and when he signed the kill order, the 60-day clock began to tick down, and that was when the operations in the field went into action.

We know, of course, that Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — clearly someone who had an association with al-Qaeda, was put on the assassination list; and yet, as an American citizen, he was denied any of the Constitutional due process that all American citizens are entitled to. And so, al-Awlaki was killed in an American drone attack in Yemen; several weeks later, his 16-year old son and another American citizen were killed in another drone attack. The administration had to scramble to cover that up. And now there are at least some indications that Anwar al-Awlaki may have been targeted for cold-blooded murder; because he was an FBI informant, and in that capacity, knew certain secrets about how this whole process and program of targeting was working, and perhaps knew of certain government ties to al-Qaeda. We don’t know that, but there are court actions underway right now that may provide an even further light on the specific case of al-Awlaki. In Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Pakistan — those were the four major areas where this mass assassination was taking place; there were extensive drone bases, massive amounts of military equipment. But yet, in all of the instances, it would appear that more often than not, the criteria that the administration itself put forward were never in a single instance adhered to; and the collateral damage, the number of innocent people later, after the fact, posthumously declared enemy combatants was massive. We don’t even begin to have a total death toll, but for every individual on the Presidential-approved kill list, there were multiple numbers of people who were killed simply because they were in the immediate vicinity. And one aspect of the program evolved to the point that targeted assassination operations were conducted on the basis of activity profile, not even identification of specific individuals. In the case of Afghanistan, there were instances where drone-targetted operations were directed against weddings, simply because the drones detected a large number of young males holding up guns in the air and firing them into the air. Now that happens to be part of a fairly typical tribal wedding ceremony in Afghanistan; so we don’t know how many of these targeted assassinations were conducted on the basis of those kinds of activities.

Now, there was a report that was issued in 2014, that was done by General John Abizaid, who was the former head of the Central Command, and a lawyer from Georgetown named Rosa Brooks, who was a former attorney at the Department of Defense. And that report noted that there are “enormous uncertainties” in drone warfare, and that these uncertainties “are multiplied further when the United States relies on intelligence and other targeting information provided by a host nation government. How can we be sure we are not being drawn into a civil war; or being used to target the domestic political enemies of the host state leadership?” So, in other words, this program was completely out of control, off the charts; but was thoroughly embraced by President Obama from his first days in office – probably initially courtesy of people like John Brennan. But the fact of the matter is that a massive number of crimes have been committed. The official documents, including those classified documents leaked out to {The Intercept}, make it clear that there was an absolute, unambiguous chain of command. In other words, the way that law enforcement would map out the structures of a mafia organization that they were going to break up; and unambiguously, the godfather of this entire mass kill program was President Obama. And if that doesn’t constitute sufficient criteria for immediately launching impeachment proceedings or invoking of the 25th Amendment, then we’ve pretty much lost any sense of what our Constitutional republic is all about.

OGDEN: OK, I would like to just present the institutional question which we got in this week, which is very brief. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, the United States is to extend its military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2016. What is your opinion about the extension of our military presence in Afghanistan?”

STEINBERG: Well, I think first of all, you’ve got to consider the timing of this announcement. Regardless of whatever process there was, however long the deliberations were about making this decision, I find it extremely distasteful that the President chose to make this announcement just days after the United States had bombed the hospital of Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz. There are new developments just in the last 24 hours, indicating that some American or NATO either tanks or APCs — armed personnel carriers — had arrived on the site soon after the bombing had ended, and had basically plowed through the rubble. And at least in the eyes of Doctors Without Borders, this was an attempt to bury and conceal evidence of a major crime that was committed. We spoke last week about the fact that Doctors without Borders had issued a call under the Geneva Convention for a top-down investigation, and they basically say that the actions that were undertaken under the auspices of President Obama, constituted war crimes.

So I think if you step back, and think about the thrust of what we’ve presented here in the last half hour or so, about the nature of the drone program, and then situate the bombing of this Doctors Without Borders hospital within that overall framework, I think you’ll see that this situation is completely out of control, and lawless. In fact, one of the commentators who have been noting the horrors of this incident has pointed out that it may come down to the fact that President Obama’s only legacy is that he will have been the only Nobel Peace Prize award recipient to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize recipient — because Doctors Without Borders has also been far more legitimately granted that award.

Now, the fact of the matter is that the United States has been engaged in Afghanistan since 2001, since soon after the 9/11 attacks, and here we are, 14 years later, still debating the question of whether or not we’re on the verge of the Taliban taking the place over again. I think that that 14 year process, at an estimated cost to U.S. taxpayers of well over $2 trillion, ought to raise some serious questions about whether this policy is advisable to continue indefinitely into the future, even past the Obama Presidency. And one of the ways that the argument is being framed, for why the U.S. should remain and why NATO should remain, in Afghanistan, is the argument that there’s more training, there’s more assistance needed, but the implication is that there’s only a binary choice: either we stay, or we go, as if there were no other options on the table, which is emphatically not true.

There are some senior retired U.S. military officials, and others, who have recently proposed that there is a viable alternative, and that you have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is a regional security arrangement which involves Russia, China, all of the countries of Central Asia, and as of their last meeting earlier this year, it also includes India and Pakistan. And it’s virtually a certainty, now that the P5+1 agreement has been ratified both here in the U.S. and by the Majlis in Iran, so that the sanctions will be lifted in the months ahead, that Iran will be the next member country given full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Just look at that on a map. Every country surrounding Afghanistan is a member of the SCO, and again, within a very short period of time Iran, which borders on Afghanistan, will be included in that membership. Right now, they’re associate members, so in effect they’re already part of the deliberations.

What about having the SCO, which has a strong vested interest in the security and stability of the area, working out a coordination with the US and NATO for a hand-off of security responsibility, as well as economic development responsibility, to the SCO? China, which was one of the initial sponsors of the SCO, has a critical vested interest, because the entire One Belt, One Road policy that is the cornerstone of Xi Jinping’s international outreach, requires stability in exactly that area around Afghanistan. You have countries that are of the same ethnic background. You’ve got Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Iranians, Persians, who form a major part of the population of Afghanistan. You’ve got Pushtuns, who are also across the border in Pakistan. India has historically played an extraordinarily important and close role with the government in Kabul, and of course, Russia is gravely concerned about the security of Central Asia, as well as the Caucasus region of Russia.

So, it would be a sane and natural policy for the U.S., for NATO, to enter into discussions with the SCO, and propose an orderly transition, and develop a coherent strategy for bringing this whole 15 year crisis to an end. If you in fact go back to the original Brzezinski plans for conducting covert operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan, which preceded by six months the Soviets coming into Afghanistan, you see that this area has been affected by an even more than 30 years of war uninterrupted process. So there is an alternative. There’s a thoughtful, diplomatic, economic, security alternative, and one must wonder, if this option is not being considered, whether the real concern here is to keep Afghanistan safe for the opium trade, because 95 % of the world’s opium supply, at enormous profits, is coming out of Afghanistan.

OGDEN: Well, thank you very much, Jeff.

What we’ve now presented in the summary course of this webcast tonight, was what Mr. LaRouche asked for. It is high time for the Obama policy to go. The evidence has just been presented by Jeff and myself here on this broadcast tonight, and that evidence speaks for itself. However, the task still remains, as Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, that LaRouche PAC and responsible citizens across the United States, must also build a New Presidency, to lead the United States out of what is arguably the worst disaster that we’ve ever faced as a nation, after eight years of Bush and Cheney, and then eight more years of Obama.

It’s very clear, what Mr. LaRouche’s thoughts were about the Tuesday Democratic debate, and what Jeff said earlier about the CNN kind of clown show atmosphere that was created around that. But as people who listened to Mr. LaRouche’s fireside chat last night might have heard, he was also emphatic on keeping our vision clear as to what our responsibility as citizens is, not to just pick and choose among candidates, but to create what he calls a Presidency, and to conclude tonight’s webcast, I actually want to read what I found to be a very compelling section of Mr. LaRouche’s discussion on this question of the Presidency last night.

He said: “The point is that people usually think that we want a President. Now, according to our national law, we do get a President, one President. We also get a Vice President. But on the other hand, what we need is a team of citizens who are qualified to lead the formation and institution of a system of government under a Presidential system. In other words, you can’t just say, this is the President; now everyone’s going to listen to him. That’s not right. You have to have a President who is acceptable, who’s qualified to lead the nation, but no one person can control the United States as a nation efficiently. There has to be a team based on the kind of team that we had when we composed a Presidential system. It also means we depend in the way that we can deal with certain members of Congress, in the House of Representatives in general, and so forth.

“You have people who don’t always agree with each other, but we need that kind of office as a deliberation process, in order to have the kind of people of the United States find they have a core of agreement on goals and purposes which suit the requirements of the Presidency.

“Now the other part of that has a feature to it. When we create a Presidential system, we don’t create a President per se. We try, in the best features of our existence, in our history, our intention is always to introduce new concepts, more appropriate concepts, more brilliant, more fruitful than ever before. Maybe some people can come together as a team around that idea. They might be rivals, but our goal is to go to the higher level, the highest level of achievement, of the improvement of our system of government: to create a team of people who are qualified, and actively qualified, to conduct the business of our government as a whole. And that’s the way we have to look at it.”

So, lest we get too distracted by the personality contests, and all of the media hype that’s created by CNN and related organizations, I think it’s important to keep that idea is mind.

And that’s what Mr. LaRouche has devoted his entire career to, over the last 40 to 50 years of his public life. So we have the responsibility as leaders of the LaRouche PAC, and you have the responsibility as viewers of this broadcast here tonight, to cooperate with us in trying to bring that lofty and noble goal about.

I appreciate your attention to our broadcast tonight. I advise that you take the evidence that we’ve presented here, and let it speak for itself. Please share this as widely as you can. Get it around to your friends and neighbors, and continue to participate in all of the events that LaRouche PAC is hosting — from these Friday night broadcasts, to the Fireside chats with Mr. LaRouche, and the continuing activities in Manhattan, including the discussion that I know we will be engaged in again tomorrow, with Mr. LaRouche himself.

So, thank you very much for tuning in tonight, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Tirsdag eftermiddag fremlagde Lyndon LaRouche den amerikanske præsidentvalgkampagnes farlige tilstand på et møde med sine medarbejdere. Han advarede om, at Det britiske Imperium er i færd med at orkestrere ødelæggelsen af den igangværende præsidentvalgkampagne i USA. Det Republikanske Parti er mislykket. Det Demokratiske Parti er mislykket. LaRouche krævede, at der skabes et grundlag for et nyt præsidentskab i USA, der vil erklære Wall Street bankerot, reorganisere den amerikanske økonomi og håndtere den aktuelle krise på et internationalt grundlag.

LaRouche ramte plet. Hans vurdering blev til fulde virkeliggjort i den rædselsfulde forestilling, der fandt sted senere samme aften i den såkaldte Demokraternes partidebat.

»Det var en fornedrelse. En farce. Et falskneri. Dette var et cirkus. En af de mest frastødende, mest rådne ting, der nogen sinde er udført i henseende til en politisk kampagne i USA. Dette var korrupt. Folk blev trukket med af det. Deres sjæle blev taget fra dem. De blev reduceret til de blotte marionetter. Man behøver bare at fjerne kandidaternes ansigter og give dem dyreansigter i stedet. De bar alle en dyremaske. Og der var disse horder af idioter, der skreg op. Og de såkaldte kandidater var simpelt hen lakajer for dette stykke tortur.«

Det hele var orkestreret af Obamas kredse. Men Obama er blot Det britiske Imperiums instrument. Det var britiske operatører, der kom til USA og orkestrerede det hele. USA står på spil, grundlæggende set pga. Obamas indflydelse. Obama er en slags billigudgave af en Satan-skikkelse. Den har ingen ære, ingen moral, intet.

I modstrid med vurderingen fra medierne og de politiske orakler, blev Hillary Clinton debattens største taber. »Hun er en tabt sag«, sagde LaRouche til LPAC’s Komite for Politisk Strategi, »det var hende, det kom til at handle om i demonstrationen i går aftes. Hun var den største fiasko af dem alle. Hun var arkitekten til den største fiaskofaktor i den periode. Hun var den dumme person, der tabte prisen.«

LaRouche advarede mod at fokusere på de spørgsmål, der blev diskuteret i debatten. Hvor var diskussionen om fremtiden? Hvor var diskussionen om, hvordan man skulle reorganisere USA’s økonomi?

Det afhænger således af LaRouche og LPAC for at definere de fremtidige udsigter til at skabe et kompetent, amerikansk præsidentskab. »Kuren er at præstere standarden for lederskab, konceptet for lederskab, missionen for et lederskab. Det er vores ansvar. Hvis man forsøger at udlede det fra iagttagelse af såkaldte kendsgerninger, og ved at antage, at disse såkaldte kendsgerninger vil give dig en fornemmelse af tryghed, så er det tåbernes paradis. Vi bliver nødt til at skabe vores eget paradis. Hvilket vil sige, ingen af de ovennævnte«, sagde Larouche.