USA har brug for en massebevægelse for udvikling NU!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
2. december, 2016; Leder

USA har brug for en massebevægelse for udvikling NU!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
2. december, 2016; Leder
image_pdfimage_print

hamissue16Matthew Ogden: Både Diane Sare og Kesha Rogers har skrevet en artikel i denne uges The Hamiltonian; jeg mener, deres artikler meget fint tjener til at skabe en ramme omkring aftenens diskussion. Diane Sares artikel hedder "President Putin's Purloined Letter; the Poetic Principle in Political Affairs" (Præsident Putins stjålne brev; det poetiske princip i politiske affærer) – jeg kan godt lide bogstavrimet her. Kesha Rogers skrev en artikel, "Mankind Is Taking a Leap! You Should Ask 'How High?'" (Menneskeheden foretager et spring! Man bør spørge, ‘Hvor højt?’”)

Begge disse artikler tjener virkelig til at definere det, som hr. LaRouche pointerede mht. den nødvendige tankegang, når vi går frem i den nuværende situation i verden. Man må ikke blive fanget i lokal tankegang; man bør ikke tænke ud fra den laveste fællesnævner, eller tænke på alle de forskellige politiske taktikker, der plaskes ud over forsiden af New York Times eller Washington Post og de forskellige nyhedsmedier. Man må i stedet tænke som en leder; og man må tænke ud fra standpunktet om, hvad der er drivkraften bag den hastigt skiftende dynamik i globale anliggender.

four-laws-widget-gsGanske kort: vi så dette meget direkte i denne uge fra et par forskellige standpunkter. For det første, så var der en aktionsdag fra LaRouchePAC-aktivister i Washington, D.C. i onsdags. Jeg havde den store glæde at deltage. Vi havde aktivister, der kom fra hele østkysten, inkl. fra ’Manhattan-projektet’ i New York City; og vi var dér for at sætte hr. LaRouches principper, i form af de Fire Økonomiske Love, på dagsordenen. At der ikke er noget alternativ til en omgående genindførelse af Glass-Steagall og en omgående renæssance af Alexander Hamiltons principper. Disse er: et nationalbanksystem; direkte kredit til forøget energi-gennemstrømningstæthed og produktivitet i arbejdsstyrken; og princippet om videnskab som [økonomisk] drivkraft, som Kesha Rogers diskuterer i sin artikel i The Hamiltonian. Et aggressivt program for udforskning og udvikling af rummet, og for at opnå fusionskraft og en højere energigennemstrømningstæthed i produktionsprocessen.

Og jeg mener, dette kan ses meget klart ud fra det, der finder sted internationalt, og som hovedsagligt kommer fra Rusland og Kina. Der var for det første et meget vigtigt dokument, som netop er blevet offentliggjort, fra Kina, som vi kan diskutere lidt mere omkring. Dette dokument hedder »Retten til udvikling: Kinas filosofi, praksis og bidrag«. Denne hvidbog erklærer, at udvikling er den fundamentale, umistelige rettighed. Og for det andet, så er der nu en ny, strategisk doktrin fra Rusland, som blev annonceret i summarisk form af den russiske præsident Putin i sin årlige ’Tale til nationen’, hvor han sagde, at verdensdynamikken nu er forandret. Vi er nu villige til at samarbejde med USA som ligeværdige partnere omkring fælles interesser – inklusive endelig at besejre de falske, konstruerede fjender, som vi har hørt om fra Obama-administrationen gennem de seneste otte år.

Så med denne form for geometrisk strategi har vi et meget rigt felt, vi kan intervenere i, og en meget rig mulighed.

Så der er mange detaljer, som jeg gerne vil have, vi kommer ind på under diskussionen af alle disse spørgsmål. Lad det være nok som introduktion, og lad os høre Kesha og Diane.

(Herefter følger udskrift af diskussionen på engelsk.)

DIANE SARE:  OK, I'll just go ahead.  I'm really glad with
what you said, Matt; because there really is a transformation,
and I think we tend to miss it.  Or you catch a glimmer of it
like the real joy that I certainly felt watching all the vote
totals come in; and these poor silly reporters not having a clue
what had hit them.  But then, you get bombarded with the real
fake news, which is what comes from the so-called mainstream news
media; which has absolutely zero about developments in the world
which are being created by billions of people.  So, you have the
most extraordinary, most gigantic Earth-changing events occurring
under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, under the leadership of
Xi Jinping, and their collaboration with leaders in South
America, leaders in Africa.  Not one word of it here, and then
we're treated to some miniscule detail of a misplaced wart that a
politician has somewhere or whatever.  I think we would do well
to bear in mind a little bit of what I tried to capture in that
article.  There is a poetic principle; there is a world
revolution underway.  These things are not separate, discrete
events.  The Brexit vote — contrary to the stupid media spin —
was not a bunch of white racists who hate immigrants.  Maybe
there are some of those, but the real factor was that the whole
euro system is bankrupt.  It didn't work and it wasn't designed
to work; and people were rejecting it.  Similarly, you had these
recent votes:  the winner in the French Republican Party
nominations, François Fillon, who does not want a war with
Russia.  I think most people on the planet actually recognize
that a nuclear war between superpowers is not a desirable policy
or outcome; and it's not necessary because what President Putin
is doing is leading a fight to eradicate terrorism.  He has been
very direct about this; especially after September of 2015, at
his speech at the United Nations.  He's reiterating again the
call for a coalition to wipe out this terrorist scourge.  So what
you see in this election process here in the United States, is we
have a potential now to join with the New Paradigm.
        Therefore, the most significant aspect of what we know about
the incoming administration perhaps, are the two phone calls that
Trump had with Xi Jinping and with President Vladimir Putin; and
this is absolutely not missed by people of the world.  I just
wanted to give a little bit of a report on an event last night at
New York University with this extraordinary woman, who is the
second only I think woman in history to be the chairwoman of the
Foreign Relations committee in the Chinese national assembly.
Her name is Madame Fu Ying; she is extraordinarily dignified,
calm and very confident.  She began her remarks at this forum at
New York University by referring to the phone call between Xi
Jinping and Trump.  She made a point of saying the Chinese are
always being accused of not contributing to good in the world, of
not working with the world.  So, we figured when we started the
Belt and Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, that
the United States — which is always accusing us of not wanting
to work with anyone else — would have been the first in line to
join.  Instead, our invitation to participate in these
extraordinary projects was rejected.  Now, clearly there is a
potential for this opportunity to be taken.
        This is really very big.  Similarly, the decision that Trump
has made to have retired General Michael Flynn as one of his
advisors; who has called for collaboration with Russia in Syria.
And Trump's reiterations of the necessity of that kind of
collaboration — these things are very important.  And the fact
that Flynn has come out calling for a Marshall Plan for the
region; which is similar to the Chinese; Xi Jinping made a tour
of several of those nations not so long ago.  The only way you
are going to secure peace is through economic development — not
on a low level, not on repairing the decrepit, aging, out-of-date
infrastructure we have; but by leaping into a new domain.  So, I
think I'll stop there for a minute; because I think Kesha
probably has a lot to add in that regard.

        KESHA ROGERS:  Yes.  Just taking from that, we really have
to advance mankind; we really have to have a leap forward for
mankind.  This is what Mr. LaRouche is committed to; this is what
you see Russia and China committed to.  I was greatly inspired by
the discussion and some of the developments that came out of the
President of Russia; President Putin's State of the Union
address.  The leap for mankind really requires putting the
commitment to the future.  This was really expressed very
beautifully in his remarks, which captured in essence the
conception that the responsibility of the nation is to foster
creativity in science, and foster creativity in the youth of your
nation.  The best expression to doing this, in terms of
scientific and technological development.  In his speech he says,
"Our schools must promote creativity, but children must learn to
think independently, work both on their own and as part of a
team, address usual tasks and formulate and achieve goals; which
will help them have an interesting and prosperous life.  You must
promote the culture of research and engineering work.  The number
of cutting edge science parks for children will increase to 40
within two years; they will serve as the basis for development of
a network of technical project groups across the country.
Companies, universities, and research institutes would contribute
to this, so our children will see clearly that all of them have
equal opportunity and an equal start in life.  That Russia needs
their ideas and knowledge and they can prove their mettle in
Russian companies and laboratories…."  And he goes to say, "Our
education system must be based on the principle that all children
and teenagers are gifted and can succeed in science, in creative
areas, in sports, in career, and in life."
        That should be the model for every single nation.  That is
the model for our space program, and it really starts with the
question of what is human nature?  If we're going to advance
mankind and have leaps forward?  As a part of this paper that
Matt mentioned, from China they're expressing the same expression
for their nation; and for mankind as a whole.  It's not just "our
nation is better than yours, and we're going to have our people
pulled out of poverty and your people can stay in poverty.
They're not thinking like imperialists or wanting to keep nations
backwards; they want nations to move forward.  So, China has
pulled 700 million people out of poverty; you can't do that by
taking baby steps and going with a few infrastructure projects.
You have to have creative leaps.  This has really been expressed
for their Silk Road development offer of win-win cooperation and
their commitment to space and space as the potential for opening
for mankind across the planet and across the galaxy.
        I think if people look at the very exciting developments
that we're seeing coming from Russia and China, that has to be
the model.  We have that potential right now, because I think
what Diane pointed out — that when President-elect Trump was
elected, this was a mandate.  This was a repudiation of the
Bush/Obama destruction of this type of potential for a future; a
repudiation of Hillary Clinton's commitment to continuing war.
The American people said, we're not going to condone this any
longer.
        The question is, what is the positive aspect that you're
going to fight for?  We've put that on the table with LaRouche's
Four Laws and our commitment to a future perspective for mankind,
based on this very identity that has been clearly laid out by
what we could be doing if we decide to make the commitment and
collaborate on the basis that Russia and China have laid out.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, China really is an inspiration in that regard.
Let me just read a very quick quote from that paper that you
referenced, Kesha. The title of this white paper, again, is "The
Right to Development: China's Philosophy, Practice and
Contribution"; and they start by saying, "The right to
development must be enjoyed and shared by all peoples. Realizing
the right to development is the responsibility of all countries
and also the obligation of the international community." If you
just juxtapose that to the Malthusian philosophy of the British
Royal Family and others in the so-called "West" today, where they
say, "Well, no, you know, the right to development — it's not a
right. All peoples do not have an equal right to the same living
standard, and, plus, if we were to pursue that — as Obama said
when he went to Africa — 'the planet would boil over.'" I mean,
give me a break!
        So, China's white paper is laying out the opposite
philosophy, view, of man. I think, in accordance with what Putin
said in that State of the Union, that, yes, every human being is
a creative human being. That is the fundamental right of every
human being — is to develop that creativity and to contribute it
to his or her nation and to the future of mankind.
        In the China white paper, they go on to state some really
stunning statistics. You, Kesha, cited the lifting 700 million
people out of poverty; which is just an incredible achievement in
and of itself. Now only a little bit under 6%, 5.7% of the
population of China, are officially under the poverty line. And
in the white paper they were very proud to point out that China
was actually the first to achieve this UN Millennium goal —
which is a goal to lift such and such a percentage of people out
of poverty. But they refuse to stop there! They say, "That's not
enough. We have a goal, that we are going to eliminate poverty
altogether!"
        The statistics are amazing. If you compare China in 1949 to
China in 2015, only a 70-year difference, the average longevity
in China in 1949 was 35 years. Today it's 76 years. The
enrollment of school-age children in school in 1949 was 20%.
Today it's almost 100%; 99.8% of all school-age children are
enrolled in schools in China. The difference between 1978 and
2015: the GDP was at RMB767 billion in 1978. Today their GDP is
RMB68,000 billion! So, that growth is unbelievable. And then
there's, obviously, much less tangible things that you can
measure, but which are clear to see, including the spread of art,
classical culture, classical musical training among the children
of China.  So this is really a model for the rest of the world,
an inspiration. As Xi Jinping has said, "We invite the United
States, we invite the West to become a part of the New Silk Road,
and to become a part of the One Belt, One Road initiative."
        One event that was happening in Washington, D.C.,
simultaneously with this Day of Action that the LaRouche PAC
activists had on Capitol Hill, was really an unprecedented event
that was sponsored by the Asia Society. It was an all-day event
that was hosted by a scholar named Dr. Patrick Ho, who's the
Secretary General of the China Energy Fund Committee. One of my
colleagues who was there, said about the event that "This was one
of those days in Washington, D.C. when all of the principles that
you've been talking about as a LaRouche PAC activist for years
and years and years, all of a sudden are being echoed by the
person standing at the podium." We've had those experiences
periodically, but this entire event was about the right to
development, the One Belt, One Road Initiative, the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, the World Land-Bridge, the New Paradigm, win-win
cooperation, the United States joining the Silk Road — quite
literally, in those terms.
        Dr. Ho actually laid out five points of advice to the new
incoming [Trump] administration on how to integrate the United
States into the One Belt, One Road program. His five steps are as
follows:
        1) Consider One Belt, One Road a platform to spearhead
initiatives and programs to bring closer cooperation between the
United States and China;
        2) Realign trade agreements with Asia-Pacific nations to
accommodate the One Belt, One Road;
        3) Adjust the U.S. posture towards the international
development banks — that's the AIIB, the New Silk Road Fund, the
New Development Bank of the BRICS, and so forth — and promote
their capacity to assist in support for infrastructure
development;
        4) Help secure security along the One Belt, One Road;
        5) Get the international institutions to work with the One
Belt, One Road.
        So, I think that's actually a very clearly stated way to, as
we say in this pamphlet that we've published from LaRouche PAC,
have the United States join this new Silk Road.
        These ideas, as Diane was saying, this is an active
principle, this is the dynamic {elsewhere}, and our
responsibility is to ensure that {this} is the dynamic shaping
policy in the United States.

        SARE: Along these lines — because I know there's discussion
and there's an article about Sen. Schumer saying he will work
with Trump on a $1 trillion infrastructure package (something
like that) — I think the idea of Hamilton and the ideas of
people like Krafft Ehricke and what China is doing, really need
to be understood by our activists, so that people can reflect.
For example, there's discussion about one of the things that was
promoted in the New York Times for Trump to do with his
infrastructures, that there should be a tunnel under the Hudson
River, from New Jersey to New York. Right now I think the trains
go, I don't know, every 90 seconds, or every three minutes, or
something like that. There's an enormous amount of traffic. The
Port Authority Bus Terminal is very old and decrepit. It's going
to have to be rebuilt and relocated. The tunnels are very old.
        So, this is something that has needed to be done for a long
time. As everyone might imagine, there's an absolutely enormous
amount of traffic between Manhattan and New Jersey across the
Hudson River. So, you say, "What's wrong with a new tunnel
between New Jersey and New York?" Well, in a sense, if you were
to do that, it would be a sin of omission. Obviously we need a
tunnel, but if the idea were to connect this tunnel to a tunnel
under the Bering Strait, so that you could travel from Manhattan
to Moscow, that would be a completely different idea. And I think
what…

        OGDEN: [cross talk] …Manhattan to Jersey City; that's for
sure! [both laugh]

        SARE: Yeah! Or even, you know, for people who don't want to
go to Moscow, for whatever reason. They could go to Paris, but
they could travel through Siberia. All kinds of exotic, really
wonderful places. It would be quite a ride. Although, I suppose,
if we get the magnetically-levitated vacuum trains, you wouldn't
really get to see much. On the other hand, you'd arrive at your
destination before you left, by the clock.
        Anyway, all of these things would completely transform the
way we think of everything. If you could take a train from New
Jersey to San Francisco. Supposing even that it wasn't three
hours — it was a normal high-speed train — so you got there in
a day-and-a-half, that's a completely different phenomenon. It
changes the United States: what you can ship; whom you can work
with; the exchange of ideas; the exchange of goods.  The ability
for people to find the very most brilliant individual, whether
they're in China or Somalia or India, who has expertise in a
particular area, and you want to bring them in to collaborate
with a team of scientists in your local laboratory. All these
things become thinkable.
        So, when Mr. LaRouche a few years ago had made the point
that he doesn't like the term "infrastructure" anymore, because
it doesn't really get at what is actually necessary; which is the
question of how do you increase the productivity of every person.
And that requires thinking in terms of a platform. The
difference between not having electricity, for example, and
having electricity, is not simply night and day. You just can't
even compare it. It's incommensurate. Therefore, I think we
have to be both open-minded, but we also have to set {really
high} standards for what we think we should be doing. It would be
absolutely criminal, even if it did employ millions of people, to
fill in every pothole in every major city in the United States.
That would not lift the standard of living or the productivity of
the nation as a whole; whereas a high-speed rail link that went
from Manhattan to Moscow would actually have a completely
transformative effect.

        OGDEN: Yeah, it's these {leaps} in progress that are
unquantifiable, because it's a completely different measuring
rod, from one leap to the next. Last week on the webcast here on
Friday night, Ben Deniston gave an excellent presentation on
what's necessary for a real space colonization and exploration
program. I thought one example that he used during that
presentation, was really interesting. Just think about what's the
difference between Lewis and Clark's Expedition to explore the
Louisiana Purchase Territory and to cross the continental United
States vs. what we were able to do with the trans-continental
railroad. That's a different universe vs. what we would able to
do with what you're talking about, Diane, with a
magnetically-levitated train that goes from New York, to Los
Angeles, all the way up to Anchorage, Alaska, and across the
Bering Strait, into the Eurasian landmass. Those are just
quantifiably and qualitatively different modes of action. And so,
yes, it's "setting the bar" incredibly high.
        Kesha, in your article, you said, "You should ask: How high?
We should leap, we should jump. Mankind should take a leap. How
high?" It's these kinds of insights that Krafft Ehricke, that
others, were able to discuss from the terms that now Mr. LaRouche
has {scientifically} defined, in terms of energy-flux density,
how much more productivity are you able to achieve, with less
effort, with less energy applied, because of these qualitative
leaps in technology and in the principle that you're employing.
        Before we get into a little bit more of that, I do want to
bring up, though, because you mentioned it, Diane, this article,
this interview with Sen. Chuck Schumer. Mr. LaRouche was told
about this earlier today when we had a discussion with him. He
placed some importance on it and said, "You know, Chuck Schumer
does play a significant role in the Democratic Party." He is now
Minority Leader in the U.S. Senate, and, very significantly, led
the fight against Obama's veto of the JASTA bill; very publicly
broke with the Obama administration, in favor of the 9/11
families, in overturning the Obama veto of the JASTA bill. I'd
like to say something about that later.
        This article is an interview that's published on
syracuse.com. It starts by saying, "U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer
said Wednesday that he's optimistic Congress will strike a deal
with President-elect Donald Trump, to pass a $1 trillion
infrastructure bill within the first 100 days of the
administration." However, he warned, "the bill cannot rely on
what he called 'gimmicks' or tax breaks." He said "any
infrastructure bill must be paid for through substantial and
direct federal funding." He said, "The bill needs to be stronger
and bolder than ever before. Simple tax credits will not work."
He also said that the so-called public-private partnership that
Trump's infrastructure plan and other incentives to build
projects that would be privately owned, would not function. He
said that he had personally told Trump in a private meeting, that
such a plan would lead to investment only in the most profitable
projects — people who are just trying to make a buck; and could
lead to significantly higher tolls on privately owned roads and
bridges.  Instead, Schumer said, "The $1 trillion could flow into
the U.S. Treasury to be used for rebuilding the nation's
infrastructure."  So, this is a direct Federal financing, not a
scheme, not a gimmick, not tax breaks, not PPPs [public-private
partnerships].  That is a significant development.
        I do not think it is a coincidence that that interview comes
directly in the wake of a two-week mobilization by LaRouche PAC
activists on Capitol Hill to force the issue of Hamiltonian
national banking, direct Federal credit.  I know that there were
countless meetings from activists; there were several dozen
meetings that Paul Gallagher personally had with staffers and
Congress people on Capitol Hill to discuss the details of what
Hamiltonian economics and Hamiltonian national banking actually
means.  If you haven't seen it yet, I would highly recommend
going back and listening to the recorded Fireside Chat that Paul
Gallagher did last night; that was on this question of what
Hamiltonian national banking really means.
        So this is significant; but, indeed, we have to have the
view that {we} are setting the agenda.  This nation and the
leadership of the country need a very intensive course in what
Hamiltonian economics really means.

        ROGERS:  Yes, and I think that the title of our publication
which we are continuing to get out en masse, The Hamiltonian
Vision for an Economic Renaissance is absolutely imperative to
be understood as just that.  We're not just talking about
developing infrastructure or increasing manufacturing; because
that's not what Hamilton understood in the increasing of the
productivity of society.  It was starting with advancing the
creative powers of mankind; and Lyndon LaRouche has taken that to
a very high level and conception, as you said.  His work over the
past 40-50 years looking at this conception of leaps in
productivity of society based on this conception of the potential
for mankind to advance in ways that had not been thought of
before; to advance in ways where the creative leaps in mankind
take the development scientifically and technologically to higher
and higher states.  Mr. LaRouche's understanding of this and
Krafft Ehricke's were very synonymous; they worked hand-in-hand
together.  The German space pioneer Krafft Ehricke — the
rejection of his ideas by the "limits to growth" imperialist
budget-cutters, who didn't want to see mankind advance in this
way, was as direct as the opposition to Lyndon LaRouche.  If Mr.
LaRouche's policies had been put through — along with Krafft
Ehricke's — on the development of LaRouche's perspective in the
'80s for a vibrant space program, setting the agenda of the space
program to heights that had not been thought of up until that
point, and continuing what John F Kennedy had laid out as a
national mission for advancing not just in the moment for space
development; but looking far into the future.  It's interesting
to go back and look at what the vision was at that time, and how
far we have been set back because we've had people who decided
that it's not the place of human beings to develop.
        Krafft Ehricke, as Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have continued to
say, represented a quality of genius.  It wasn't just that he
understood aeronautics and was one of the best in terms of field
of technology.  He was a real philosopher; his conception of
space development started from the standpoint of the development
of mankind as a whole.  That we on this planet, have a
responsibility for the development of each and every human being
on the planet; but the way we're going to achieve is — as he
said on many occasions — that you have to leave the confines of
one small planet. The idea that there are only limited resources
here for a limited number of people is not true.  There's a very
beautiful conception of that drawn out by Krafft Ehricke in a
very short writing that he wrote called "The Extra-Terrestrial
Imperative; Growth and Life"; that's the model that he worked on.
I just want to read something quickly from that, because I think
it's very indicative of what we're talking about here.  People
have to get these ideas in a very advanced understanding of it
when we're going into Congress right now.  It's not just about
getting them to pass a piece of legislation.  It has to be, and
we're seeing, a total shift in the thinking of the population.
He says:
        "There was a time when the human mind was slow to accept
growing evidence that Earth is not a flat center of the universe.
Now the concept of a closed, isolated world must be overcome.
Viewing our Earth from space should make it obvious that the
world into which we now can grow is no longer closed.  By
ignoring this new reality, current predictive world dynamic
models fail.  Adhering to an obsolete, closed worldview, they
despair of the future growth prospects.  The extra-terrestrial
imperative enjoins us to grow and live through open world
development which contains all the futures the human mind can
hold."
        So, that's what we're talking about.  How far can the human
mind advance?  How far can the human mind see into the future?
That's what we're talking about right now, and we have a
potential to really bring that perspective into focus if we have
a revolutionary change in the way we think about society, and we
think about the responsibility of the growth in society which we
have to now bring on, because it's long overdue.  LaRouche's
solutions really put forth exactly how we bring that into being.

        OGDEN:  This the moment of opportunity.  If you look at, as
Diane covered in the beginning of our discussion, this wave of
unexpected and completely dramatic electoral results and
otherwise; from Brexit to the Presidential election.  We've got
the Italian referendum coming up this weekend; we could see some
very dramatic results out of there.  Hollande has now declared
that he will not be running for President of France.  This is a
very dramatic and uncharted period; and the potential is there,
the doors are wide open.  I think we have repeatedly gone back to
this point, but I think we should return to it again.  It should
have been seen that this was not business as usual at the point
that the entirety of the United States Senate and a vast majority
of the U.S. House — not along party lines — rejected Obama's
treasonous veto of the JASTA bill.  That was in no small part the
result of the activation and the leadership of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee in the United States.  I think we who
are on this discussion right now, can say that we know directly
that the role that LaRouche PAC played was central and primary in
leading that fight for years.  Direct collaboration with the 9/11
Families; direct collaboration with the members of the U.S. House
and Senate in forcing this through.  That was not something that
Obama — despite all of his bluster — and the Saudi government
— despite all of their millions of dollars; they just could not
handle that.  That was something that overcame everything that
they tried to throw up against it.
        Now you have a pathetic effort by McCain and by Lindsey
Graham to try and gut the JASTA bill in the last days of the lame
duck session; but this is not going anywhere.  There was a very
good statement put out by Terry Strada and the 9/11 Families
United for Justice Against Terrorism, where they said in their
press release, "We wish to state our firm opposition to the
proposed legislative language offered by U.S. Senators Lindsey
Graham and John McCain that would effectively gut the JASTA bill;
which was overwhelmingly passed by Congress in September."  Later
they say, "Notably, Graham's and McCain's efforts come in the
wake of a massive lobbying campaign by the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, which is now employing roughly a dozen lobbying firms at
a cost of more than $1.3 million per month."  And then Terry
Strada herself is quoted saying "In April of this year, Senator
Graham met with 9/11 family members and told them that he
supported our cause 100%.  Senator Graham is now stabbing the
9/11 Families in the back.  He and Senator McCain are seeking to
torpedo JASTA by imposing changes demanded by Saudi Arabia's
lobbyists.  We have reviewed the language, and it is an absolute
betrayal."  She says, "We, the 9/11 Families, are fortunate to
have Senators John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer to block this action
in the Senate."  I can tell you that Senator Schumer told me
personally on Wednesday night that this effort is going nowhere;
this thing is not going to fly.  So, they are holding the line
very firmly.  But really, they have no choice; because this
victory on the JASTA bill and then everything that has come since
then, including this Presidential election, was a statement that
this is not business as usual among the American people anymore.
There is a mood of revolt among the American people.
        I just want to read one very short excerpt from an article
in The Hill which I think excellently gets to that very point
and I think is more generally applicable.  The article was
titled, "Note to Allies: Don't Underestimate Overwhelming Popular
Support for JASTA."  The author, Alexander Nicholson, says in
this article, "[O]n this particular issue…, no amount of money
or insider Washington connections will be able to overturn the
overwhelming will of the American people. Indeed," he says, "the
highly unexpected but highly populist-inspired election of Donald
Trump to the White House should serve as an indicator that no
amount of inside-the-beltway inside baseball can achieve results
when it comes to certain issues at certain times. And this, too,
is one of those issues and times."  And then he concludes the
article, "The current arguments are as ineffective as the
synthetic inside-the-beltway strategy it has thus far employed.
But the new era of empowerment of the American electorate is not
to be underestimated."  So, I think that is absolutely the case;
and people should take heart to that.  This is, indeed, a new
political era for the United States; it's the "empowerment of the
American electorate."
        Now's the time to take that empowerment and just keep the
momentum going; but it has to be from the standpoint of educating
ourselves, as Kesha said, on the principles of Alexander Hamilton
and the principles of the science of physical economy, and
saying, "We now are committing ourselves to what the Chinese have
called 'the inalienable right to development'; and we will not
let go of our demand for that inalienable right."

        SARE:  Just on that, I think on the one hand it's sort of
obvious; although I guess it shouldn't be, because we've
tolerated such criminality for the last 16 years since 9/11
occurred.  Droning people, torture, and so on.  The NSA spying on
every detail of everything of everyone.  But there's a certain
limit where people just said, "No, we're not intimidated."  We
saw that particularly strongly in Manhattan among first
responders and others who died, who are still dying as
after-effects, or who had loved ones who died, or colleagues who
died.  There's a certain sort of sacred commitment that "We are
not going back on this," and they're not afraid.  The challenge
now again is to raise the standard; in other words, can we fight
with the same fearless passion for those things that are
necessary for mankind to progress?  Could we get a situation
where the population just says, "Absolutely not!  We're not
shutting down our nuclear power plants.  Are you crazy?  This is
unacceptable.  You're saying we're not going to go back to the
Moon and build the means to get onto Mars from the Moon?  This is
crazy!"  Where no one even gives it a second thought that it's so
obvious.  I think that is where the two areas which Einstein
excelled in both: the music — his violin as a certain source of
inspiration and thought; and the science come together.  When one
is conscious of what it means to be truly human and creative,
then anything on a lower standard than that, is the same kind of
affront as the Saudi Foreign Minister traipsing through the halls
of Congress in his robes lined with money.  You just say, "Oh,
this is beneath us."  We saw that effect here when the Schiller
Institute Community Chorus participated in this series of
performances of the Mozart Requiem; and there's more music
coming up — again sponsored by the Foundation for the Revival of
Classical Culture — on December 17th in Brooklyn.  A unity
concert with the conception of, what does it mean: to be human?
Because human beings are not animals, no matter how many
environmentalist barbarians want to try and impose that on us.
When you've located your identity in a realm which is truly
beautiful, then a lot of these things that seem so difficult now
— like the difficulty of these politicians standing up to Wall
Street on Glass-Steagall.  Why are they afraid?  Why do they find
that difficult?  Because their own identities are right now on
too low of a level; but if they began to look at the world from a
higher standpoint — which is I'm convinced where people like
this woman from China, the Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying — you
just get a sense among some of these people that where they're
coming from is a much higher level and that such a thing would be
beneath them.  I imagine this was the effect of someone like
President Abraham Lincoln, who was described when he was seen
visiting the soldiers; because his identity was placed in a
different location in a higher realm.  Therefore, it wasn't just
that he was fighting against fear; there wasn't fear because
there was such a firm commitment to what is right.
        So, I think the next phase in this process is to have a
similar, almost ease; a soaring quality of mankind, even in the
United States, to get ourselves into the realm where we actually
should be living.

        ROGERS:  Diane, you keep getting them to sing; bringing more
inspiration and optimism.  So, we can get more singing and get
more space development, then we can really succeed.

        OGDEN:  President Modi of India called it a mass movement
for development; and I know Helga LaRouche has echoed that call
repeatedly since he said that.  And we really do see a mass
movement for development among some of these Eurasian countries
especially, but also with them reaching out to African and South
and Central American countries, you have a majority of the
world's population now getting in on this mass movement for
development.  But that's what we need demanded from the American
people right now; and I think we can turn this new era of
empowerment of the American electorate into a mass movement for
development.  But we have to do it from the standpoint of a
Hamiltonian renaissance in the United States.  We have the
materials for that, as we've said before.  The new book,
Hamilton's Vision is available on Amazon; and people can read
those four reports that he wrote to the United States Congress as
Treasury Security.  We also have the Four Laws from Mr. LaRouche
which are available on the LaRouche PAC website, and the related
pamphlet, "The United States Joins the New Silk Road."
        So, I implore people to become as active as you can. If you
haven't yet become an activist with the LaRouche PAC, now is the
time to take that step. Support us in every way you can, and
make yourself into a world historical individual by acting on
this current, very brief window of opportunity for mankind.  You
can sign up on the LaRouche PAC website; you can subscribe to our
YouTube channel; you can become an activist through the LaRouche
PAC Action Center; and you can share this video as widely as you
possibly can. Let's make this a mass movement for development!
        Thank you very much for joining us here today. Thank you to
both Kesha and to Diane. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

          

0 Kommentarer

Skriv en kommentar

Din e-mailadresse vil ikke blive publiceret. Krævede felter er markeret med *

*