Lyndon LaRouchen webcast -seminaarien perjantaisarja loka- ja marraskuussa 2012: Osa 3

Tässä on muistiinpantuna kolmas osa LaRouche -liikkeen perjantaisin järjestettävistä webcast -seminaareista, joista kaksi ensimmäistä listasin viime viikolla muistiin (Lyndon LaRouchen webcast -seminaarien perjantaisarja loka- ja marraskuussa 2012: Osat 1 ja 2). Jatkan samaan tapaan myös tämän osan arkistolistaamista. Sitä ennen vielä muuta ajankohtaista ja aiheeseen liittyvää asiaa -->

Lyndon LaRouchen ajantilan kiteytys, kun Muammar Gaddafin murhasta tuli äsken kuluneeksi tasan vuosi:

"The role of President Obama in the murder of Libya's Qaddafi, has promoted an implicitly deadly threat to world peace, one which is combined with the presently onrushing, general economic breakdown-crisis now raging throughout both Europe and the trans-Atlantic system. This arrangement presently represents a degree of qualitative threat greater than that which existed throughout the intervals of two preceding, so-called "World Wars." ". Lähde: On the Anniversary of the Murder of Qaddafi: LaRouche's Statement Defined the Issue.

Lisäksi oheen tämä tärkeä sisältö: tässä videossa Lyndon LaRouche keskustelee kongressivaaliehdokkaina olleiden liikkeensä nuorten jäsenien kanssa ja piirtää kuvaa pian tulevista USA:n presidentinvaaleista ja siihen liittyvistä maailmantilanteen seikoista --> The Candidates Show · October 23, 2012: "Are the people of the United States stupid enough to vote for their own extinction? In this week's candidates show, Lyndon LaRouche defines the issue of the upcoming election.".

Videon sisällöstä huomataan keskeisinä pointteina mm.: Lyndonin arvio Mitt Romneystä on se, että hänen tullessa presidentiksi "voidaan sen kanssa elää toisin kuin Obaman"; Obama on siis paljon merkittävämpi uhka tällä erää kuin Romney hänen mielestään. Lisäksi hän tähdentää, että tämä nykyinen kaksipuoluejärjestelmä on eliminoitava todellisen demokratian ja kansanvallan tieltä pois. Nimittäin meidän on muistettava omasta mielestänikin, että sekä republikaanien että demokraattien taustalla vaikuttavat hyvin paljon samat pankkiirieliittipiirit lahkoineen ja ko. puolueiden vastakkainasetelmallisuus on siten ainoastaan harhaanjohtavaa illuusiota.

Nämä huomiot ovat poikkeuksellisen merkittäviä, sillä siihen verrattuna Infowars -sivustolla on ollut viime aikoina rajuja juttuja siitä, kuinka äärimmäisessä vastakkainasetteluilluusiossa eläviä Obamaa kannattavia amerikkalaisia on aikomassa lähteä jopa tappamaan Mitt Romneyn, jos hänestä tulee presidentti: Obama Supporters Continue Threats To Riot, Assassinate Romney.

Samaan aikaan päävihollisen (Ko. pankkiirikartelli kätyreineen ja eri lahkoineen transatlanttisena imperiumina) häärätessä ennen näkemättömän radikaalisti kulisseista käsin ihmiskunnan alistamista neofeodalismiin, on pitkälti juuri siitä johtuvan länsimaisen yhteiskuntarappion edetessä siis kuitenkin eskaloitumassa mm. vastakkainasetelmallisia hallusinaatioita näin vakavan väkivaltaisesti!

Tämä on hyvin vakava huomio länsimaiden nykyisessä rappiohegemoniassa, kun muistamme sen, että suomalaisillakin on taipumusta imaginaarisiin vastakkainasetteluihin, kuten Seppo Oikkonen (Kuinka Karl Marx tavataan) kirjoituksissaan monesti tähdentää.

Vaikka Mitt Romney ei ole mielestäni ollenkaan hyvä vaihtoehto Obamalle (Mm. Ayn Randilaisen varapresidenttinsä takia!), niin silti on kauhistuttavaa havaita, kuinka Obaman uskonnollisluonteisessa kannattajuudessa on jäänyt yhä elämään monille ihmisille "messiaansa" eli Obaman puolustamista äärimmäisen ylilyödysti, jossa hänen (eli Obaman) petturuutensa ja huonoutensa aiheuttamaa syvää pettymystä projisoidaan ainoastaan vastapuolelle (Romneyn piiriin) jopa em. rajuudella ymmärtämättä samalla kuitenkaan juuri yhtään mitään Obaman roolista nukkena ja kätyrinä ko. maailman kokonaistilanteessa eli havaitsematta molempien presidenttiehdokkaiden taustakartelleja samoina ihmiskunnan vastaisina rahataloususkonnon ja -imperialismin voimina.

Valistumisella ja valistamisella on vieläkin mitä ilmeisimmin hyvin hyvin paljon tehtävää... :/


Lyndon LaRouchen webcast -seminaari perjantaina 19.10.2012: Countdown to Obama's Removal

Text Transcript

Keynote (Lyndon LaRouchen alustus): "So what I shall do, given the circumstances, is not only to address what the problems are that confront the Presidency of the United States and the nation now, but give you a picture of when it began, how it happened, and how it developed, so that you understand not that we have problems—I think many of you, most of you, know we have serious problems.

We have, for example, 27 million people in the United States, who are of working age, who are desperately unemployed. They have no resources whatsoever, and this has been one of the products of what the policy has been of the United States, in its process of degeneration into this absolute low point of Obama running for re-election. This is the lowest point in all American history, the entire history of the United States; this is the very worst.

So, let's look at this, and just the highlights of the recent history, when the current problems really began......". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, miten Lyndon LaRouche jatkoi alustustaan -->

Question 1: Obama's October Surprise (Obaman lokakuun yllätys): "So, this comes in, the question is: "Mr. LaRouche, despite accurate U.S. intelligence and State Department reports, within hours of the Sept. 11th attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, indicating that it was a premeditated terrorist attack, carried out by local affiliates of al-Qaeda, no less, President Obama sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice on to five national television shows on Sunday, Sept. 16th, to directly lie to the American public, that the attack was a spontaneous mob protest over a video posted months earlier, that slandered Islam. Days after the Rice appearances on TV, President Obama repeated the same lies, in an appearance on David Letterman, and later on "The View." He continued to make similar statements, when he spoke to the UN General Assembly, as late as Sept. 25th.
 
"Now, we have very strong indications that Obama plans to order an attack on some target or targets in the Benghazi area, perhaps on the eve of the elections, as a sort of "October Surprise" to try to capitalize on this tragic attack, that was horribly mishandled and then covered up by a barrage of lies. It's not clear if we could even find the correct people to target for such an attack.
 
"So after Obama had been on the campaign trail for months, crowing at every opportunity, that he has killed Osama bin Laden, that al-Qaeda's on the run, then we have this attack. And in fact, al-Qaeda is stronger than ever in many respects, based on funding and assistance from London, and from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in places like Yemen, and now, even inside Syria."
 
So the first question is if you'd like to comment on that?". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, mitä Lyndon LaRouche vastasi -->

Question 2: Obama's Lies and Negligence Surrounding the Benghazi Attack (Obaman valheet ja heitteillejättö liittyen Benghazin hyökkäykseen): "Well, this is another follow-up to this one, here. This is some things we recently came across. One is that, on the day after the attack, on Sept. 12th, EIR, the intelligence agency you founded decades ago, received a briefing from an intelligence community member, which was very similar to what the State Department and the Congressional committees had heard: Which was that, already again, the day after the attack, it was understood that there was no demonstration, the movie didn't come up at all; but that Benghazi, being a hotbed of jihadi activity, including the fact that two members of Ansar al-Sharia, which was the group suspected in the attack, were part of the public safety committee in charge of the city! — it had become clear that there was no surprise involved in this. There were repeated warnings about the security situation; these were ignored.

In the words of Ambassador Stevens himself, he had sent in a cable, regarding the situation in Benghazi: He called it, the "Guns of August, Security in Eastern Libya." And this was back on Aug. 8th, the ambassador said that, "Benghazi has moved from trepidation, to euphoria, and back again, as a series of violent incidents have dominated the political landscape. The individual incidents have been organized, a function of the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes. Islamist extremists have attacked the Red Cross, with relative impunity. What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather, targeted and discriminate attacks." He said, "Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable."
 
So, here you've got straight from Ambassador Stevens his view that there is a series of attacks, which we've gone through, there's plenty of detail on this on our website and other places about the other embassies being attacked, the Red Cross being attacked, the consulate itself being attacks. And the idea that the President didn't receive this briefing, is basically indicative either of the fact that he's just lying, which seems most likely, or that he's so amazingly incompetent, that after an American ambassador is killed for the first time in decades, Obama doesn't even get a real briefing on it!
 
And then, instead, we've got the idea the U.S. didn't want to ramp up security too much, didn't want to have a big presence by putting Marines in the area — as though anybody in the city was unaware that this was an American consulate! So, I know it's rather similar to what was just asked, but if you'd like to say any more on the subject, a lot of people want to hear more about it.". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, mitä Lyndon LaRouche vastasi -->

Question 3: Dismantling the 9/11 Apparatus (9/11 -koneiston purkaminen): "So, I'd like to raise a question of the assassination of President John Kennedy, and from what this organization, what the LaRouche organization has published in the past, what you know, I believe through your direct experience in such matters, is that this operation against the United States, was run, in a large part, through an incredibly well-funded assassination ring. You can put the name, Permindex, on it, a trading exposition company, a whole octopus network of them, whose president just so happened to be a superb asset of British intelligence; who then went on to become another asset of the FBI; who was actually recruited into the FBI.

And this network operated through commercial ventures, which were highly effective at conduiting money, laundering money. So this was money laundering through these commercial ventures, this was drug money, as well; and this went toward funding the most, you could say, successful, assassination ring, which was responsible — and there were players even within his own administration, within the Kennedy Administration, who were assets of this apparatus. This was an international apparatus, which French President Charles de Gaulle caught onto, and made many attempts to try to shut down.

But in the end, what strikes me, is one year ago, we put out a video — I had a certain amount of responsibility in it — "Ten Years Later," the 9/11 video, exposing what the apparatus was behind the original 9/11 attacks; the funding of the hijackers through a slush fund which was a British BAE Systems, one of the largest weapons companies on the planet, still today, and Saudi oil venture, which created the slush fund that enabled 9/11 Part 1.

Now, that apparatus, because it has not been exposed, and it is basically well known within the intelligence community, within former members of the Congress, that this is likely to be, this connection, the Saudi-British connection, is likely to be what is in the 28 pages [blacked out from the 9/11 Commission Report] that President Barack Obama swore to reveal, and never did.

So, again, it's a little bit of an involved picture, to try to paint for you, but I'm wondering how you viewed this entire process? Whether you view it as the same process, and I guess this is sort of a parochial question, but how you effectively dismantle it? Because it is known — what do we do about it?". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, mitä Lyndon LaRouche vastasi -->

Question 4: The Science of Forecasting (Ennustamisen tiede): "Well, this concerns the science of forecasting. There's a question that came in, about, in a world without parties, in a post-party world, the science of forecasting takes center stage at offering a way of making policy.

Now, there's another specific question tied with this, about how the mind works in making discoveries. The questioner is asking that, "All important discoveries, even mathematical ones, are made by insights of the mind, through the mind making leaps of insight, seemingly related to leaps of faith." He'd like to know, how it is that the mind is able to discover things that can't be arrived at from mathematics, which seems to be the description of the external world, how is it that the mind is able to find concepts that match these external things, — in other words, how do the concepts exist out there, and not only in the mind? What's the connection?". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, mitä Lyndon LaRouche vastasi -->