Det andet punkt, som står meget klart, er, at LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) har sat dagsordenen; … Glass-Steagall; den omgående nødvendighed af at nedlukke Wall Street; og det faktum, at det amerikanske folk ikke var villigt til at acceptere Obama-Clinton-dagsordenen om at bringe USA ind i Tredje Verdenskrig med en konfrontation med Rusland. Men vi må fortsætte med at sætte dagsordenen. Der er intet alternativ, ingen erstatning for en fortsat mobilisering og en fortsat klarhed i lederskab, som kommer fra LaRouche Politiske Aktions-komite og vore allierede.
specialudsendelsen efter valget, som vi udlagde på denne webside onsdag; med direkte udtalelser fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Vi har haft mulighed for at tale med hr. LaRouche flere gange siden, inkl. for blot en time siden; og hr. LaRouche fastslår fortsat den pointe, at dette er en højst uafgjort situation; meget udefineret. Vi har endnu ikke fået de fulde fakta om, hvad implikationerne af den tiltrædende administration vil blive, men to punkter står klart. Og jeg tror, at folk meget klart har set, at dette har været en total afvisning af hele Obama-Clinton-Wall Street-apparatet, der havde overtaget det Demokratiske Parti; men også, på samme tid, det Republikanske Partis Bush-Cheney-apparat. Begge partier er nu ophørt med at eksistere i deres tidligere form, og vi befinder os i en situation internt i USA, der ikke har fortilfælde.
»Trumps sejr betyder kun en udsættelse af krigsfaren – med mindre der vedtages en langt mere fundamental forandring«.Den indledes med følgende erklæring:
»The United States joins the New Silk Road« (Se også dansk introduktion ved samme navn). Heri fremlægges det meget klart, hvordan USA kan tilslutte sig dette nye paradigme.
Fire Nye Økonomiske Love, med implikationerne af Alexander Hamiltons økonomiske rapporter, der oprindeligt definerede og skabte USA, og med anerkendelse af, hvad klokken er slået; og med skiftet til en totalt ny, international, økonomisk og strategisk orden, er det vores ansvar at mobilisere USA og bringe det ind i denne nye orden.
WE MUST SET THE AGENDA!
THE UNITED STATES MUST JOIN THE NEW SILK ROAD.
International Webcast, Nov. 11, 2016
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it's November 11, 2016. Happy
Veterans' Day! My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to
welcome you to our regular weekly Friday evening broadcast here
from larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio today by Ben
Deniston, my colleague, as well as Kesha Rogers, member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee and former candidate for Federal
office — United States Congress and US Senate — joining us from
Houston, Texas; and Michael Steger, joining us from San
Francisco, California, also a leading member of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee.
I hope everybody had a chance to see the post-election
broadcast special that we posted on this website on Wednesday;
which included some direct video statements from both Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche. We've had a chance to speak with Mr. LaRouche
several times since then, including just about an hour ago; and
Mr. LaRouche continues to make the point that this is a highly
inconclusive situation; very undefined. We have yet to get the
full facts on what the implications of the incoming
administration will be, but two points are very clear. And I
think as people have observed very clearly, this has been a total
repudiation of the entire Obama-Clinton-Wall Street apparatus
that had taken over the Democratic Party; but also, at the same
time, the Bush-Cheney Republican Party apparatus. Both parties
have now ceased to exist in their previous form, and we are in an
unprecedented situation inside the United States. The other
point which is very clear is that the LaRouche Political Action
Committee has set the agenda; and this point should have been
clear for years leading into this, including from Kesha Rogers'
successful, highly impactful campaigns for Federal office. But
we've put on the agenda: Glass-Steagall; the immediate necessity
to shut down Wall Street; and the fact that the American people
were not willing to accept the Obama-Clinton agenda to bring the
United States into World War III with a confrontation with
Russia. But we must continue to do so, and we must continue to
set this agenda. There can be no alternative, no replacement for
a continued mobilization and a continued clarity of leadership
coming from the LaRouche Political Action Committee and our
allies.
Now, I would like to read a short portion of the lead item
which was posted on the LaRouche PAC website today, because I
think it very clearly defines what Mr. LaRouche's current
analysis of this situation is. And then we can open up the
discussion from there. But the title is, "Trump Victory Is Only
a Reprieve from War Danger Unless a Much More Fundamental Change
Can Be Enacted". It begins by stating the following:
"The election of Donald Trump and the defeat of both Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama has provided a short reprieve in a drive
for World War III against Russia, so long as Obama is prevented
from taking some kind of insane action in his remaining lame duck
weeks in office. The fact that an immediate danger of nuclear war
is off the table for the time being is important; but it does not
address the other grave crises that the world is facing.
"The trans-Atlantic financial system is still on the edge of
total disintegration, and unless that problem is immediately
addressed, the conditions will soon re-emerge for global war. To
solve that imminent crisis, the US Congress must immediately pass
the pending legislation in both Houses, to reinstate the original
Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks
into totally separated commercial and investment banks. This must
be the first order of business when Congress returns to
Washington early next week."
This continues by saying: "Well beyond that urgently
required action, other measures must be taken to forge a new kind
of relations among the leading nations of the planet." This is
something we will elaborate much more during the course of this
broadcast, but this statement goes on to cite some statements
that were made by Sergei Glazyev, a leading advisor of President
Putin; Chas Freeman, a top and very distinguished diplomat in the
United States diplomatic community; and otherwise, that make the
very clear and correct point that now is the time to realize that
the world is moving into an entirely new paradigm. And beyond
just a détente between the United States and Russia, which is a
potentially very positive development, the United States must
also reciprocate the offers from China to enter into this New
Silk Road, New Paradigm program; entering into the AIIB, joining
the New Silk Road in a very concrete and definitive way.
Now, what can be very clearly defined, is that Mr. LaRouche
is the leading statesman on the scene right now in the United
States. The Four New Laws that we have been repeatedly
emphasizing over the course of the recent several months leading
into this election, continue to be the number one agenda item.
Of course, that begins with Glass-Steagall, but the entirety of
the program is a Hamiltonian renaissance for the United States.
Now, during a discussion we had earlier today, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche emphasized this supplementary pamphlet which was
issued by the LaRouche Political Action Committee almost a year
ago — "The United States Must Join the New Silk Road; a
Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance". And this very
concretely lays out how the United States can join this New
Paradigm.
Now, I'd like to just begin with a few excerpts from these
statements that were made by Sergei Glazyev and Chas Freeman,
which I think clearly get to this point; but I think a lot more
can be said. This is an interview with Sergei Glazyev from {Itar
Tass} in the aftermath of the Presidential elections: "According
to Glazyev," this article says, "the result of the US elections
show that 'The American people don't want war. For the first time
in the world's history, there is a chance to a new global
economic order without waging a world war.'|"
And then Chas Freeman, in a speech called "One Belt, One
Road" which was delivered in Hawaii a few days before the
election, end with the point that "The United States must now
realize that the new paradigm defined by the AIIB and the New
Silk Road, and all of the other initiatives that have been taken
by China, is the new game in town." And Chas Freeman's point is
that Americans are not in the game. Now's the time for us to
enter into this and to realize that it's in our interest to join
the One Belt, One Road initiative. Chas Freeman says, "China's
growing influence is very good reason to seek a seat alongside
it, both in the new and old councils of the emerging multi-polar
world, rather than continuing to futilely try to exclude it. The
United States needs to be constructive and helpful, not negative
and critical — still less obstructive — as all this unfolds.
Americans have a big stake in how Eurasia integrates, and in what
its relationships with other continents and regions become. Time
to get in the game," he concludes; "time to participate in
crafting the post-Pax Americana order. Time to leverage China's
initiative to American advantage."
And I could go on, but I want to just make the point that
now is the time to recognize the full responsibility of the
intellectual leadership that LaRouche PAC has defined and
continues to deliver. And taking the Four New Economic Laws,
taking the implications of Alexander Hamilton's economic reports,
which defined and created the United States in the first place,
and recognizing what time it is; with the shift to an entirely
new international economic and strategic order, it's our
responsibility to mobilize and bring the United States into that
new order.
So, I'll just leave it at that; and I think we can explore
some of the implications of this in discussion with Kesha and
Michael.
KESHA ROGERS: OK, I will start in response by saying that what
has to be recognized is that the fight has never been a matter of
party politics, one party over the other; because as President
George Washington said, "Party politics is the bane of our
nation's existence." What we saw during my campaigns for US
Congress, was very instrumental in that; because the people I was
able to pull together were people from all different types of
backgrounds. It was a question not of just what party you
belonged to, or what your race was, or any of that; but this
question of what do we want to see for our nation and for the
future of our nation? Reviving the vision and the ideas of
President John F Kennedy, President Franklin Roosevelt; people of
all different types of backgrounds — as has been stated — came
together around Glass-Steagall to defy Wall Street, and they
continue to do so. The Republican Party, the Democratic Party,
and so forth. So, I think it's important to note that what we
have identified is a question of the direction that mankind has
to take; that the people of this nation have come together on a
few accounts that have been completely against what the
establishment had thought would happen. During my campaigns, the
victories around the two nominations despite the fact that the
party establishment did everything in their power to create a
divide against the truth that myself, Mr. LaRouche, and our slate
were saying; that Obama represented a threat to this nation. The
cancelling of the NASA Constellation program, the continued
policies for backing Wall Street against the interests of the
population. The second time that we saw the population come
together in a real way — as has been said on a number of
occasions here — is the JASTA vote. The JASTA vote was not a —
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — was not a Republican
or a Democratic issue; so I think we are now eliminating the
party system. This has been a big part of what I have been
advocating, what Mr. LaRouche has been advocating is that we have
to have a new conception of mankind brought forward. I think
it's been very clearly stated in the discussions that we've had
with him, that are really continuing and hopefully we can get
that developed in this discussion today. The idea that this is
not just a US issue; now we're talking about how do we improve
and develop new conceptions of international relations. New
conceptions of relations among human beings.
Just a couple of things I want to start off with to develop
that. First of all, just in the discussion we had with Mr.
LaRouche yesterday, in response to the election and where we must
go from here, he said we will get a unity among human beings as
human beings. The US and Russia can work together as human
beings; and we are looking at mankind in a universal way. We are
going to learn how to apply our minds. People have to see the
meaning of their existence in a way that most people have not.
If we're really going to conceptualize that idea, I think what
we're going to discuss here today is: 1. The concrete policies
that are needed to bring together the type of collaboration as
we're seeing develop from the development of the BRICS nations —
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa — and their
cooperation. The development of the AIIB, and the offer of
cooperation through the Silk Road, by President Xi Jinping to the
United States. People probably remember that Obama rejected it.
Now, the mission is, we have to reverse the rejection. We have
to work with Russia; we have to take up China's offer. But we
have to take it up in a bigger way than just around treaty
agreements or working together on international cooperation of
projects. Those things will be essential, but the essential is
going to be the development of a new, unified, international
mission of a new direction for mankind in space collaboration. I
want to develop that a little bit more, but I will stop right
there, because I think we need to pull a few more things together
to come back to that point.
MICHAEL STEGER: The underlying ability for the LaRouche
organization and LaRouche PAC to operate as a leading force on
the planet has been something that eludes most people. It's not
something that's in the predicates of the policies we've been
fighting for directly; there's something philosophically more
profound. It does stand out, the fact that this election, where
vote came from, what people voted for — whether it be in the
Democratic primary, where we saw Glass-Steagall both by Martin
O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, and again even by Trump at the end
of the general election campaign; where Glass-Steagall came up
again. {We} were the leading factor and force of a political
fight, won in the opposition of Bush and Cheney and the clear
tyranny that they represented, but even more distinctly, because
of the nature of Obama in this last years–which is important
just to take a few seconds, not long, but just to recognize: the
Republican Party for the last eight years worked with Obama.
There was no real opposition to it. That's why the Republican
Party is really in as much of a shambles as the Democratic Party
is.
The Party system, as Kesha said, is gone, because there was
no legitimate opposition to Obama, except for what we did. And it
started on the Obamacare question. We led the fight entirely. We
defined it as a Nazi program, while the Republican Party was
likely going to adopt it and support it, the same way Mitt Romney
had pushed in Massachusetts. It was generally a kind of Heritage
Foundation, right-wing, healthcare reform. We recognized it to
be, underlying, a fascist program of population reduction, and
we've been relentless with Obama, unrelenting, on the question
that this Presidency was a failure and a very danger to mankind.
But then you had Lyn's intervention following the invasion
of Libya, and the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, and Lyn's precise
insight that this represented a very accelerated drive for
nuclear war. There was immediate resonance, immediate response
from the leadership in Russia. Like Dmitry Medvedev, [then
President, now Prime Minister]. And we saw an increasing level of
recognition, somewhat slowly, but from key figures, who began to
identify the fact that Lyn was absolutely right. And that again
became a center of the discussion of the U.S. Presidential
election over the last few months.
So, you have the immediate collapse of the financial system
— which is there, we're on the precipice, this has been in the
financial media now practically for a year, going back to last
December, when the financial markets collapsed then. There's a
very, very imminent breakdown of the trans-Atlantic financial
system. It's an underlying bankruptcy, a deep bankruptcy. Then
you also have the immediate drive for war. Both of those issues
have now been on the table. That's what the American people voted
for. It was a mandate for the LaRouche policy. And for the very
reason that the political establishment in this country
compromised on Lyn, going back to the 1980s, shut down his
efforts for space exploration, for collaboration among nations,
and instead put an FBI attack on him and our organization, they
got this kind of revolt. Had they adopted Lyn's policies then,
you wouldn't see neither the breakdown of our economy and our
society, the threat of nuclear war, or the collapse of a
revolutionary type situation in the United States.
The only way to really address this problem is to address it
quickly. We are talking about a timeframe where if the new
Administration coming in does not fulfill what the LaRouche PAC
has defined as the "New Presidency," then it will fail, and fail
quickly. There is a quality of crisis in the country, and so
there is a level of urgency that Mr. LaRouche expressed today in
our discussions. We need to get a handle on this. The policy
orientation needs to be very clear. And it needs to be a
comprehensive program. You can't just implement Glass-Steagall,
though that's exactly where you have to start. You've got to go
with the full Hamilton perspective. You've got to look at a full
development of the country. And you can't go with this Wall
Street garbage. It's not going to function.
A point that Kesha really made an emphasis of, and that Lyn
emphasized on Wednesday following this election, stands out,
because there is clearly — as Matt, you read from the Chas
Freeman quote — at the highest institutional level of
recognition, that this New Silk Road orientation is in depth; it
is not weak; it is not superficial. As someone from the Chinese
Consulate in San Francisco recently said, "This is not on paper.
This is on the ground. This is a real project. This is not the
TPP." The question though, is how is this approached? The
approach of the political establishment may be best indicated by
Henry Kissinger and these types: is to approach it from the
Hobbesian view — an animalistic view of man, where you're
looking for advantages. How do we take advantage of this? How do
we work with this? China is looking to their advantage. How do we
look to our advantage?
It doesn't mean that one disregards one's own benefit. But
the emphasis that Lyn made, and I think what Kesha was
developing, is that you have to look at the universal nature of
mankind. You have to look at what policies, what approach towards
the relationship among nations is of benefit to mankind as a
whole, or as Helga said on Wednesday in a discussion, what used
to be referenced as the "common aims of mankind." That has to be
then the basis, the philosophical basis for a scientific
foundation, for a new relationship among nations. And that really
then defines how this can be very much a new paradigm or a new
era for mankind. Not only is an immediate action required, but
the potential of action is perhaps greater than it's ever been.
OGDEN: Just to continue to emphasize the point that you, Kesha,
brought up, the first indications, I think very clearly, of what
hit with full force with this election, was what you were able to
generate around your campaigns for federal office.
BEN DENISTON: Over and over again.
OGDEN: Three times in a row. Twice the Democratic nominee
for Congress, and then you forced the Senate campaign into a
run-off, in Texas, on precisely this LaRouche PAC program. Every
time that people say, "Oh, we are so surprised, we are so
shocked, none of the polls saw this coming," whether it was in
this general election campaign for President, whether it was in
the Brexit vote — every time somebody tells you that, you say,
"No, that's actually not true."
DENISTON: Most people probably know, but it's worth
emphasizing: Kesha led with "Impeach Obama." You had a Democrat
leading the Democratic ticket on impeaching Obama, and that was
what shocked. It was national news. It's kind of amazing that the
Democrats are so far behind, so much in this crazy bubble, that
they can't see where the ferment is in the population. Just to
add that in there.
OGDEN: Absolutely!
DENISTON: It shocked the country, it shocked the world.
There was international recognition when Kesha won [the
Democratic Party primaries for U.S. House in 2010 and again in
2012; and came in second in a field of five candidates for U.S.
Senate in 2013, but lost in the run-off]. These guys are now
years and years behind the ball on this thing.
OGDEN: The other element of your campaigns, Kesha, was a
clear vision for the country. This is an element of inspiration
that a population which was, yes, legitimately angry and enraged
against the policies of the last not 8 years, but the last 15, 16
years of both the Obama and Bush administrations, and had been
ground into the dust and left behind, and were literally
suffering from an increase in mortality, and so forth, as we've
spoken about.
It was not only a rage factor, in terms of that, but it was
also, and it continues to be — and this must be recognized — a
deep desire for purpose, for meaning, for inspiration, and for a
vision of what the future actually can be. And, Michael, as you
were saying, it's a philosophical question: What is the meaning
of mankind? What is this really all about? Why am I struggling,
day in and day out? What's the meaning behind "what it means to
be human?"
And so, the Number One point of emphasis in your campaigns,
Kesha, and the Number One point of emphasis continues to be, what
is the role that mankind is going to play over the next 100 years
in this solar system and in the universe? It was clear when John
F. Kennedy committed the United States to having a man on the
Moon before the end of the 1960s, that this was the defining
moment in the entire generation at that point. The United States
rose to the challenge because it was a truthful challenge.
We applied the Hamiltonian principles to make that happen.
You stood up and you said "We're going back to space. China is
doing it." In the years since your campaigns, Kesha, China has
achieved unbelievable feats. There will be a robotic lander on
the far side of the Moon. If we put this on the agenda, and we
say, "We are no longer going to succumb to the backwards agenda.
We're going to join hands, not only on the New Silk Road here on
Earth, but we're going to join hands with China to go back to the
Moon. We're going to go to Mars. We are going in a way which
affirms the true, creative nature of the human species. We're
going into space." That's the other element of this.
ROGERS: Yeah, that was already defined by Krafft Ehricke. It
was defined by Lyndon LaRouche. It was exemplified, as has
already been stated, in a conception of mankind and the
relationships among human beings, that most people, through the
degenerate culture that we have been immersed in, has yet to
actually, truly experience. It's not just a question of "Well, I
like this policy of going to the Moon," or "Yes, we should do
that," or "Kennedy's idea of going to the Moon was for economic
profits or to put feet on the Moon and then it was going to be
over." We were talking about policy for a 50-year-plus plan, or
should we say, a generational.
Right now, the problem is that we have lost the conception
of acting for the next generations. Most people say, especially
with space policy, "Well, we'll see what this next President's
going to do, but then after that we have to follow whatever the
next President wants to do, and it's just going to be an
up-and-down cycle. Maybe we'll have a good one who wants a good
policy, and maybe we'll have a bad one." But that's not how the
process works. As I said, this is a question of international
relations, but also, as Krafft Ehricke said, the question of
development of space, and what that represents for understanding
our relationships right here on Earth is a Universal, an
Extraterritorial Imperative.
I think these conceptions are not just things that are to be
thrown around, but they really have to be conceptualized,
understood, and mastered, just as Lyn's emphasis and very
important call, that the only thing that can save the United
States right now, and for that matter save the entire world
against this economic collapse, is the return to those
Hamiltonian principles — the recognition that we have to restore
an understanding of what Hamilton was developing in his four
reports: "Report on Public Credit;" "Report on a National Bank;"
"Report on the Subject of Manufactures;" and "On the
Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States."
We've done a number of very thorough presentations on those
points, because that's not just something of the past, or just
"policy issues," but it is the necessary direction that has to be
re-established right now: how are we going to build up our
capabilities on this planet to provide for the needs of every
single human being? We're talking about development around food,
most importantly around fusion resources–LaRouche's Fourth Law.
We have to have a science-driver fusion program. This is the key
aspect of China's policy for their Moon mission, and their space
program — the mining of Helium-3, the development of the far
side of the Moon.
This is the policy that the United States has gone far away
from. We just have to just put the United States back on course
again, and that the course of action has been clearly stated by
the direction that China's taking with their space program. It's
interesting to note: that was the direction we were going in, or
slated to go in, with the development of the Moon, under not just
President John F. Kennedy, but this was the policy that was being
put forth prior to President Obama cancelling it.
OGDEN: I want to pick up on what you said, Michael. What the
LaRouche Movement — both in the United States, but also
internationally — has clearly been at the forefront of for
decades, is the agenda. The intelligentsia of the planet has
concentrated itself, at key moments of history, around what the
conceptions for the future must be that have been laid forward by
the LaRouche Movement. I just want to bring up one point which
was contained in this report. This is the transcript of an
international conference that took place in June of this year.
Coincidentally, it was literally the day after the Brexit vote
occurred; which had the entire trans-Atlantic expert
establishment on their heels. Nobody supposedly saw this coming.
But the keynote speaker at this event was Helga Zepp-LaRouche;
one of the other keynote speakers was Ambassador Chas Freeman.
At that point, the point of the One Belt, One Road policy, the
New Silk Road policy was put clearly on the agenda. The other
major agenda item of this conference was the necessity to work
with Russia to resolve and rebuild the situation inside Syria.
This conference was called in order to discuss the contents of
this massive special report, which was published by {Executive
Intelligence Review}. This is "The New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge"; and with the publication of this, the entire
nitty-gritty aspect of what this New Paradigm really means on the
ground — not on paper, as you said, Michael — was put into
writing.
At that point, Helga Zepp-LaRouche called for the
publication of a supplementary pamphlet which would concretely
elaborate exactly how the United States would join that New Silk
Road. And with all of the discussion now in the last few days of
infrastructure and big projects and how to create millions of new
jobs inside the United States, this is clearly the number one
item of relevance. Now, we're going to play a short excerpt from
a video which was put out by LaRouche PAC about two months ago.
The full video is called "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge", but this short excerpt from the concluding portion
of that video elaborates exactly how the United States could work
with China and work with these Eurasian countries to build itself
into this New Silk Road. So, I'd like to play that excerpt for
you right now.
"As part of the trans-Atlantic, the United States is also
associated with a high standard of living. However, the Wall
Street-dominated, post-World War II paradigm has taken its toll
on the US economy and its people. Scrapping its agro-industrial
sector for financial and services industries, with the promise
that it would make for a more competitive economy, high-earning
skilled work was out-sourced to cheaper markets abroad which
provide a living wage for their workers. This flawed version of
globalization lowered the productivity of the Americas as a
whole, increased the rate of poverty throughout the hemisphere,
and invited billions of dollars of illicit money flows from the
global drug trade, which to this day represent a significant
portion of the cash on hand in the Western banking sector.
"However, even after the 2007-2008 crisis, when the
bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial system could no longer
be covered up and needed an emergency bail-out —
"|'This is not just about Lehman Brothers; these problems
are not limited to Wall Street or even Main Street. This is a
crisis for the global economy.'
"– no serious structural reforms have been made to the
Western financial establishment; putting the West and the rest of
the world at risk of an even greater crisis.
"No wonder that in recent years, China, Russia, and other
emerging economies have begun to create new international
financial institutions, based on a concept of 'win-win' relations
among nations and created to facilitate economic development and
trade for all participants instead of preserving the hegemony of
some. Instead of the exclusivity of US trade agreements like the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, China has extended an invitation to
the US and the rest of the Americas to join them in establishing
a new era of global economic development.
"'I state this very clearly to President Obama that China
will be firmly committed to the part of peaceful development; and
China will be firm in deepening reform and opening up the country
….¦'
"But can the US envision a world where it is no longer the
sole superpower; and instead shares that responsibility with
other nations?
"'|..¦.and will work hard to push forward the noble cause of
peace and development for all mankind.' [Chinese President Xi
Jinping]
"The potential for US participation in the New Silk Road
program is immense. One key project in EIR's New Silk Road
report is finally connecting the Eurasian continent with North
America at the Bering Strait. A Bering Strait provides the
needed symmetry to make the One Belt, One Road strategy a global
one; and would transform the two continents the same way the
ancient Silk Road opened up Europe to Asia.
"Imagine boarding a magnetically-levitated train in downtown
Paris or Berlin, travelling 250 miles per hour across the steppes
of Siberia, through a tunnel below the Bering Strait, emerging on
the other side in Alaska on your way to Manhattan. Layered with
a freight and passenger rail line running north-south from Alaska
to the lower 48 states from Eurasia, is the construction of the
long-awaited North American Water and Power Alliance [NAWAPA]; an
Apollo-era continental water management system that takes
freshwater run-off from Alaska and Canada, and diverts it
southward for use in the arid southwest United States.
"And while the average American will tell you these projects
are impossible, the average Chinese today is building them. In
the last decade, China — comparable in size to the United States
— constructed over 11,000 miles of high-speed rail; and seeks to
triple that number by 2020. Similarly, China's Three Gorges Dam
and South Water North projects are some of the greatest water
infrastructure projects ever undertaken. In the new 'win-win'
paradigm, big infrastructure investment is the new normal
everywhere."
That video is available on the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel
and the LaRouche PAC website. But I'd like to ask Ben to just
follow that up.
BEN DENISTON: Off of the discussions that Matt referenced with
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in the last couple of days, we wanted
to redirect people's attention to this supplementary pamphlet.
Obviously the full report is a little bit hefty for your average
American, we did want to produce this shorter, condensed kind of
organizing report to really grip people and give people a sense
of what it means for the United States to join this New Silk Road
program, this New Paradigm. We want to make sure people know —
we can bring up on the screen share here — that this full report
is also available on our website. If you go under "our
policies", "US Joins the New Silk Road" it's available right
there; and the entirety of the report is available here. As
Matthew said, this was published almost one year ago, so maybe
some of the introduction might be a little bit dated to the
context of the time when we put this out; but the substance, the
content, is still very relevant, very crucial, and integrates
together with the more recent focus Mr. LaRouche has put on his
Four Laws program.
But just to give people a very quick overview of the report,
we can see here in the table of contents, it's broken into a
series of chapters following the introduction. The first chapter
really provides somewhat of a sketch, but a real presentation of
what can be done in the United States in the context of joining
this New Paradigm. So, passing Glass-Steagall; engaging in an
international credit/finance system to facilitate growth,
development. What does that mean? Well, as was referenced in
the video, one of the mega-projects that's been on the table for
a century now quite frankly, if not longer, is this Bering Strait
connection; literally connecting, via high-speed rail, North
America into this entire World Land-Bridge perspective. So,
that's been long recognized as a keystone project. That can come
together with — as was also discussed in the video — high-speed
rail across the United States. As Mr. LaRouche, in his work on
the Eurasian Land-Bridge and World Land-Bridge, had developed,
these are more than just rail corridors; this mankind developing
the interior regions of continents. Moving from a coastal
dominated civilization to one that actually master the interior
landmass of regions. A lot can be said, but this really goes to
the heart of his science of economics, his insight, his metric of
potential relative population density; how mankind can transform
the so-called "carrying capacity" of a piece of land of society
with this kind of development. So, bringing in high-speed rail
and all the associated infrastructure to make vastly larger
regions of the territory of the United States inhabitable and
developable. We have huge amounts of unused land waiting to be
developed.
In the development of this report, Helga LaRouche also
placed a large emphasis on the development of new cities; new
renaissance cities as she called for as part of the whole
development program. Bringing rail, water, power to these new
regions of the country to develop new, highly-organized cities;
not just urban sprawl, not just endless unorganized development.
But actual cultural city centers organized around a central
region, focussed on an educational, artistic focus of society;
and you center your activity around that. That's also discussed
in some detail in this report.
This is obviously going to create major spin-off effects in
terms of job requirements; rebuilding US industry. All kinds of
connected jobs required to support that kind of activity. So,
this talk about creating millions of jobs, this can be done very
easily in the context of this New Paradigm system. One thing we
fought with in producing this report was actually gripping people
with what this means. It's easy to go through the figures —
this many miles of rail, this many cities, etc. — but the
American people have suffered so long under a lack of this kind
of development, that it's important to really grip people and
give them a sense that these are not just projects; this is your
future. This is a return to the idea that every generation is
going to be fundamentally better off than the generation before
them. That you live your life with the recognition that your
children are going to have a fundamentally better life than you
were able to live; and it was because you and your generation
contributed to creating that.
It's been recognized — LaRouche PAC may have been the first
to point this out — but it's now generally recognized, the
current youth generation does not have that. You have the first
situation potentially in American history where the younger
generation is worse off than their parents' generation. If you
want to talk about the death rates, the drug epidemic, all these
things, that's the substance of what's driving that process. Not
just poverty per se, but poverty in the context of no future;
complete degeneracy of society.
So, returning to this idea that there is
to your job, to your employment, to your activity, to your
family's activity, to your neighborhood, your city, your town.
There's a purpose in investing and creating a new, higher state
of living for the nation as a whole; and that's what this really
means. That's driving inspiration in China, in nations working
with China; in this whole One Belt, One Road program. That's
what we can revive and return to in the United States; that's
what these infrastructure projects really mean. It's about
mankind participating in the truly immortal nature of mankind's
creative development.
And what we also address in this report, just to point this
out to people directly, is an added integral element of that is a
real science driver program. So, we have on the one hand — it's
not separated, but together with the idea of joining the New Silk
Road, rebuilding the United States on a higher level with new
infrastructure, a new standard of living; also engaging in the
science driver programs and technology driver programs that push
to new frontiers. Fusion power. With fusion power, you can
completely transform mankind's capabilities; you can blast
mankind up to a higher level of potential existence. Both in
making power available, but also completely revolutionizing all
kinds of production, industry, technologies; it's a totally new
stage for mankind.
This goes directly together with space; the development of
the Moon, the development of helium-3 resources on the Moon as a
key fusion fuel. So, bringing mankind really into a level of a
Solar System species, a Solar System existence; and learning —
we had some discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today —
learning what the Solar System is really all about. There are
some of the most basic things we still don't understand about how
the Solar System works; even how the Moon works. Our knowledge
is still extremely limited in terms of what mankind is existing
in here in this Solar System; let alone what the Solar System is
doing in the galaxy, and how to understand these kinds of things.
Recognizing that that is kind of the first of the substance of
these kinds of revolutions of mankind's ability to exist. If we
discover these higher levels of the principles organizing the
fundamental nature of the universe, we can uniquely utilize that
understanding to transform how we act.
So, it's this intimate connection that Mr. LaRouche, I
believe, is the first to really define scientifically between
fundamental scientific discovery and the crucial rile of real
scientific method in that context, and what people call economic
progress and economic growth. That's the integrated central
picture that we have to present and break through on; and we have
presented it in a somewhat short but moving and condensed and
illustrated way in this report. So, Helga had specifically
requested that we draw people's attention again to this important
piece of organizing ammunition that we have; to move people in
this time of ferment, in this time of potential, to not sit back
and wait for something to happen, but to take action. Realize
this is the future we can create. We've just had an opening
created that gives us the potential to act; it's not here yet,
but now we have a potential that we have not had for four terms
of the Presidency. So, I think this is critical that we get all
this on the table and move immediately with the recognition that
this is the true mission of mankind.
STEGER: I would just like to say, on the Four Laws, which
captured this policy direction, the subtitle is that this is not
an option, but an immediate necessity. And I think it's worth
making it clear that these are not policy options from the
standpoint of government. These Four Laws and this orientation
that Ben just laid out, is actually a necessary and integral
functioning of any competent form of government. Hamilton
uniquely understood that at his time; there was resistance from
the slave-based oligarchy at that time which opposed the
recognition that the economic power to unleash mankind's
advancement, to orient mankind towards this level through
manufacturing, through industry, and especially through the
scientific process. But that was an integral part of what
government required to fulfill its obligation to the well-being
of its population and its posterity. So, these Four Laws are a
necessity not simply because of the economic crisis; they must be
adopted by government as laws. Our government today, to secure
for the first time as Glazyev said, for the first time, world war
is no longer a danger; and for the first time the United States
will set the leading example of a form of self-government based
on the highest scientific conception of mankind based on these
Four Laws; and have the economic power and potential to unleash
that unique characteristic of mankind. These Four Laws are of
that quality of significance.
OGDEN: This is the immediate action agenda. And as Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche said earlier, there's a lot that's undefined;
there's very inconclusive facts available right now. But the one
thing that is clear, is that we need a full-scale mobilization
from the people who are involved in the activities of LaRouche
PAC, to immediately force the Glass-Steagall agenda. Congress is
coming back into session at the very beginning of next week —
Monday and Tuesday. They need to be confronted with an absolute
torrent, a flood of calls and activity from around the country to
say "There is nothing else; this is agenda point one." And to
pull out all the stops on this entire program. We've emphasized
we have the ability to pull together the entire country on the
Four Laws action page; this is action.larouchepac.com/fourlaws.
If you haven't signed up there yet, that's available. There's
also a place where you can submit your reports. All of the
material that you need is on that website, including the
Alexander Hamilton four reports and Mr. LaRouche's original
document, "LaRouche's Four Laws". Then as Ben just showed you,
we also have this supplementary page, a digital pamphlet that we
produced; "The United States Joins the New Silk Road". This is
also available on the LaRouche PAC website.
So, we are in undefined and uncharted territory right now; I
think people are recognizing that at the point that the United
States, for example in the 1930s, faced similar situations, it
was only because of the immediate leadership that Franklin
Roosevelt provided with the entire program — this was the
initial Glass-Steagall, this was a reorganization of the entire
bankrupt financial system, this was immediately getting people
back to work — that is the agenda. At that point, it was
undefined what was going to happen; it was because Franklin
Roosevelt provided the kind of leadership that he did, that
prevented what could have been a very dangerous situation from
degenerating into that. It's our responsibility to place that
onto the agenda now. Nobody else is going to do that. We have a
short reprieve, a short window of reprieve from the danger of
World War III. You have qualified leadership from around the
world tentatively reaching out and saying we are ready for an
entirely new paradigm of relations with the United States.
Russia, China, other countries around the world. But the United
States that they want, is LaRouche's United States.
So, thank you very much for joining us. I'd like to
especially thank Michael and Kesha. Kesha, thank you; and I'm
sure we will be looking to you for some more in the near future.
And I'd like to thank Ben for joining me here in the studio.
Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. If you haven't subscribed
to our YouTube channel yet, do so immediately. And subscribe to
our weekly and daily emails as well. Thank you and good night.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Video 2. del:
Lyd:
Matthew Ogden: Jeg tror, vi helt bestemt kan sige, at vi befinder os i en meget farlig, men afgørende periode i vores historie lige nu; både nationalt og internationalt. Tiden efter valget, der finder sted næste tirsdag, vil fordre et meget fattet, klart og sobert lederskab, som kun LaRouchePAC kan yde. Jeg tror, at vi nu ser den rolle, vi har kunnet skabe; og faktum er, at, umiddelbart efter valget, må vi have en hastedebat i USA’s Kongres med en omgående vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall, som det første hasteskridt. Det afgørende, første skridt i et helt økonomisk genrejsningsprogram, som må indføres i USA; og der må gribes til afgørende handling for at forhindre præsident Obama i at lancere Tredje Verdenskrig i de sidste uger af hans embedstid.
Tidligere sagde Diane [Sare] – jeg citerer kort og lader hende selv sige lidt mere; men, under en diskussion med hr. og fr. LaRouche kom et meget vigtigt punkt frem. Der er en masse såkaldt »analyse« og propaganda derude i nyhedsmedierne og andetsteds, der siger, at det amerikanske folk er mere splittet end nogensinde tidligere som nation, osv., osv. Men sandheden er, at det amerikanske folk faktisk er mere forenet end nogensinde før, omkring disse to afgørende hovedspørgsmål: den omgående vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall og nedlukning af Wall Street; og forhindring af atomkrig, at forhindre, at Obama starter Tredje Verdenskrig. Dette skyldes naturligvis ikke mindst LaRouchePAC’s vedvarende indsats i løbet af de seneste år; men hovedsagligt koncentreret i de seneste måneder med det, vi har kunnet katalysere fra vores base i New York City, i Manhattan.
Lad mig blot nævne to ting, som jeg mener, demonstrerer denne pointe meget klart. Der var en ny opinionsundersøgelse, der blev offentliggjort i begyndelsen af ugen, og som sagde, at, i nøgle-kampstaterne, må-vinde-staterne – Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina og Florida, og et par andre stater – sagde 70 % af de sandsynlige vælgere, der blev spurgt, at Glass-Steagall, med navns nævnelse, var en nødvendighed. De var tilhængere af Glass-Steagall. 68 % sagde, at de var tilhængere af at bryde Wall Street-bankerne op. Dernæst sagde en anden opinionsundersøgelse, der blev offentliggjort tidligere på ugen – foretaget af Marylands Universitet – at 2/3 af amerikanerne, inklusive 65 % af Demokraterne, ønsker mere samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland; især mht. at løse krisen i Syrien. Det taler netop om den pointe, som du, Diane, fastslog. Men hvad der fortsat er klart, er, at det afgørende program fortsat er LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love; baseret direkte på de principper, som Alexander Hamilton brugte til at opbygge USA. Vi kan inspireres og modellere det, vi må gøre i dette land i løbet af de kommende uger og måneder, ud fra det, der finder sted med et nyt paradigme, der foregår i hele verden i andre lande, inklusive i Kina. Vi har eksempler, som Jason Ross vil gennemgå; meget solide, konkrete eksempler på, hvad man har gjort i Egypten for at bygge den nye Suezkanal, og i andre lande. Det vil Jason Ross fremlægge lidt om senere i udsendelsen; baseret på en præsentation for det Amerikanske Selskab af Civilingeniørers afdeling i New York City for et par uger siden.s
Lad os begynde diskussion herfra.
Engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet, er dagens leder fra LaRouchePAC:
WE’VE GOT TO REVIVE A TRUE UNITED STATES.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN A GREATER MOMENT
TO DEVELOP LAROUCHE'S IDEAS.
International Webcast, Nov. 4, 2016
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's November 4, 2016. My
name is Matthew Ogden; and you're joining us for our weekly
Friday evening broadcast here from larouchepac.com. I'm joined
in the studio tonight by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team; and via video, by two members of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee: Diane Sare, joining us from New York City; and Michael
Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California.
Now, I think it can be said very definitively that we are in
an extremely dangerous but decisive period in our history right
now; both nationally and internationally. The aftermath of this
election coming up next Tuesday is going to require very calm,
clear, and sober leadership which only LaRouche PAC can provide.
I think what we're seeing right now is the role that we've been
able to leverage; and the fact is, that immediately following
this election, an emergency debate will have to take place inside
the United States Congress with a vote scheduled promptly on
Glass-Steagall as the emergency first step. The critical first
step in an entire recovery program that must be instituted in the
United States; and decisive action must be taken to prevent
President Obama from launching World War III in the remaining
weeks that he has in office.
Now, Diane said earlier — which I just want to cite and let
her say a little bit more on; but during a discussion we had with
Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche, a very important point [came up]. There's
a lot of so-called "analysis" and propaganda out there in the
news media and elsewhere, saying that the American people are
more divided than they've ever been as a nation, etc., etc. But
in truth, in fact, the American people are more united than
perhaps they've ever been around these two key critical issues:
the immediate passage of Glass-Steagall, shutting down Wall
Street; and preventing thermonuclear war, preventing Obama from
starting World War III. This is obviously due in no small part
to the consistent efforts of LaRouche PAC over the recent number
of years; but focussed mainly over the recent number of months
with what we've been able to catalyze from our base in New York
City, in Manhattan.
Let me just cite two quick things that I think demonstrate
this point very clearly. There was a new poll that came out at
the beginning of this week that said that in the key battleground
states, the must-win states — Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina,
Florida, a couple of other states — 70% of the likely voters
polled said that Glass-Steagall by name was a necessity. They
were in support of Glass-Steagall. 68% said that they were in
support of breaking up the Wall Street banks. Then another poll
that came out earlier this week — this one done by the
University of Maryland — said that 2/3 of Americans, including
65% of Democrats, want more cooperation between the United States
and Russia; particularly having to do with resolving the crisis
in Syria. So, I think that speaks exactly to the point that
Diane, you were making. But what remains clear, is the critical
program remains LaRouche's Four Economic Laws; based directly on
the principles that Alexander Hamilton used to build the United
States. We can be inspired and model what we have to do in this
country over the coming weeks and months off of what is happening
with a new paradigm happening around the world in other
countries, including China. We have examples that Jason Ross is
going to go through; very solid, concrete examples of what's been
done in Egypt to build the new Suez Canal, and others. So, Jason
will present some of that a little bit later in the show; based
off of a presentation that he made to the American Society of
Civil Engineers chapter in New York City a couple of weeks back.
But let me just leave it at that; and I think we can start
the discussion from there.
DIANE SARE: Well, I was — as often I am — was inspired by
the local morning news; which both the local New Jersey paper I
get and the {New York Times} had these articles as Matt said
about how divided the population was. The truth of the matter
is, the population is not divided. People are divided over which
candidate they hate more; and people have enormous hatred for
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. In that regard, I just have to
say that Hillary Clinton — who is the continuation of the
Bush/Obama legacy and is a total stooge of the British Empire,
George Soros, and everything that represents — and is putting us
on a trajectory for war with Russia; she absolutely has to be
stopped. And Obama absolutely has to be thrown out of the White
House; and if that could have happened yesterday, that would have
been excellent. And we do have the Congress coming in the week
after the election. But it's not as if the American people don't
realize that their standard of living has completely collapsed,
particularly in the last 15 years. There is enormous rage at
Wall Street; where I think there was another poll where something
over 90% or 94% said that Wall Street bankers should be put in
jail. So, the American people are very unified that they think
that the people who actually destroyed the US economy, which is
not — as we're so often told by the Wall Street bankers and
billionaires, just as in the time preceding Franklin Roosevelt —
that the people who caused the depression were all those
unemployed working class people. The people who caused this are
the people who run these financial institutions — like the CEO
of Wells Fargo, like George Soros; like the people who were
behind the assassination of Herrhausen and then took over
Deutsche Bank and turned it into a disaster. These people are
responsible for this, and they should be punished in a way that
would begin to restore confidence to people that there was
justice.
It is also the case that the majority of Americans are tired
of war. We have been in perpetual war frankly since the
reunification of Germany — which was the intent; but
particularly since September 11th. I think people can reflect on
what happened with the override of Obama's veto on JASTA; the
vote against Obama was 97-1. I would say that's a pretty
strongly unified Senate against the Saudi role in terrorism and
the cover-up. Whatever occurs on Tuesday and Wednesday, the
potential following that is going to be extraordinary for us to
pull the nation together and demand that the policy — starting
with LaRouche's Four Laws — which is Glass-Steagall and
emphatically a system of national banking and credit that allows
us to fund the things that are on the most advanced scientific
levels. That is, our nation can pull itself together and do
this; and it is not going to be a period where people just doze
off, because as I said, everyone hates both of the candidates so
intensely that no one will feel safe giving them a grace period
to see what they do.
So, I think everyone who is watching this, should mobilize;
inform yourself of the program, study the material on the
larouchepac.com site, and presume that 90% or more of your
neighbors on what has to be done to save the nation, and that
that's the direction in which we can move.
MICHAEL STEGER: I think there's been a number of cases where
people have gone out to the American people and found out what's
actually out there. This is an undeniable characteristic. 70%
to 80% of the American people agree fundamentally on that; and
they also agree that our political establishment — the people
who have been run by Wall Street, by this war policy — are
bankrupt. There is no trust or commitment towards their ability
to lead the country; that's why you saw such an upsurge in
support for populist candidates like Sanders or Trump. And
that's why this Hamilton conception — and it stands out more and
more as we get deeper and deeper into this kind of crisis, and
closer and closer to where a decision has to be made to address
it — what Mr. LaRouche did on the question of Hamilton. Because
Hamilton really captures this as an essence of the unification of
the American people around a conception. Hamilton's politics,
Hamilton's economic policy recognized the very clear necessity of
every person in the country. Hamilton, as any real economist
would, recognized that we had a deficiency of people; we need
more immigration, we needed more diversity. We needed different
people from different backgrounds. That's how an actual nation
thrives and functions; there's that commitment.
I think probably the best example we have today on the
planet is what you saw from Vladimir Putin's leadership. Because
Putin came in, he was dedicated to the Russian people; there were
a lot of factions, a lot of anger, a lot of resentment towards
what had happened in Russia. And Putin's commitment — as was
Hamilton's, as is Lyn's and is our organization's — is a
commitment to the entire development of the entire nation and all
of its people. That's what we have to have; you're not going to
find — no candidate right now is going to be perfect. That's
pretty clear I think to every American. But is there a devotion,
a deeper one? What we've referenced in people like Joan of Arc;
or what you saw in examples of Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln captured
that same Hamilton almost to a deep, profound spiritual
commitment to the people of the United States; all of them.
There was "malice towards none". That we're going to take the
entire population of our country and develop it in a very rapid
capability. Any executive, any Presidency that comes in today —
and one must — that adopts these programs; the Glass-Steagall,
the basic Hamilton Four Laws that Lyn has put forward; our
collaboration with Russia on the terrorism question, with China
on the economic question will easily gain the favor and support
of 70% to 80% if not more of the American people.
I think the one thing that stands out — because we raised
this question to Mr. LaRouche over a year ago in discussion.
What he raised I think is worth raising here, and I think we can
discuss it more. Why do the American people then think there is
this separation? How can they be easily deceived into thinking
this separation exists? It's because of the attack on the human
mind going back to the early 20th Century. They took the human
mind and said, actually there's two different kinds of human
minds. Some people have a left mind and some people have a right
mind; some people have a math mind, some people have a poetry
mind. They attacked the actual characteristic of human identity;
that underlying, unifying creative characteristic that makes us
human. They separated it out into styles and to niches and
categories. Once you have that, you then have all of a sudden,
people identifying in different factions or categories of society
based on the way they think their mind works versus the way
somebody else's mind works. That's where you get the scientific
flaw; that's the fraud. That was the fraud of Bertrand Russell;
that was the power of the creative genius of Hamilton, or of
Einstein, or of Lyn to recognize the human mind is a universal
characteristic. That's the basis of economics; that's the basis
of a nation or a political process. That really is the basis of
real leadership; why Percy Shelley says the poets are the true
legislators of the world, because they identify that human
characteristic in human identity. I think is what is really
critical; that quality of leadership today with this kind of
crisis.
OGDEN: One thing I think, "with malice toward none" and
with charity towards all; the sense of the development of the
entire nation was a devotion that Abraham Lincoln possessed. But
the key word is development. When you look at the situation at
this point in the United States, after 15 years of a Bush-Cheney
and Obama policy, you have mass despair, desperation, anger,
rage. Why did we reach the point now where we've got an election
which is unprecedented in history? Where you have drug
addictions and drug overdoses that are unequalled in recent
memory? Where you have no productive work for people to be
engaged in? Now the working class is somehow defined as people
who are greeters at Walmart, or work at temporary jobs at Target?
This is not a working class; this is not a skilled labor force;
this is not a population that has a sense that their lives have
consequence, or meaning. I think if you look at the situation in
other countries where you've had real leadership in the recent
years — at the same time that we've been suffering under the
lack of leadership of the Obama administration — you've had
other nations who have had leaders who have been devoted to the
development of their nations. And they took populations that
were similarly desperate, demoralized, enraged; take a look at
Egypt, for example — and have given them a sense of mission and
purpose. The accomplishments in Egypt, the accomplishments in
China; lifting 700 million people out of poverty. The kind of
radiation of optimism that has come from nations such as that,
through this New Silk Road paradigm and otherwise; this is
something which the American people are desperate for access to.
Perhaps they don't realize that that's the key, that's what they
are seeking. But I'm sure that the expression of despair,
demoralization, anger, and rage — the only antidote for that is
a commitment to the development of the nation, much in the way
that Abraham Lincoln in his way, applied the principles of
Alexander Hamilton and understood that that's how you bridge the
seemingly irreparable fault lines within a people. And that's
how you bring people together again, with a sense of commitment
to building the future.
With that said, it would be critical for us to get a sense
of exactly, in detail, what are the particular ways in which that
kind of program could happen, with the commitment from the top,
within days, weeks, and months of a completely new paradigm and
new Presidency in the United States.
JASON ROSS: I've put together a few aids to thinking about this.
In particular, thinking about what the implementation of
LaRouche's Four Laws look like. In discussing that, I also want
to think about this in terms of Hamilton. I'm very happy to say,
that Hamilton's four great economic writings, along with the Four
Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, will be available on Amazon {very soon}.
It's been submitted. It should only be a few more days. I'll be
reading some quotes from this.
Let's take a look at what an economic recovery would look
like, using LaRouche's Four Laws. Let me read what LaRouche said
the remedy to the current situation is. LaRouche writes,
"The only location for the immediately necessary action
which could prevent such an immediate genocide throughout the
trans-Atlantic sector of the planet, requires the U.S.
government's now immediate decision to institute four specific
cardinal measures — measures which must be fully consistent with
the specific intent of the original U.S. Federal Constitution, as
had been specified by U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton
while in office. (1) Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall
Law, instituted by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, without
modification as to principle of action. (2) A return to a system
of top-down, thoroughly defined national banking." Skipping
ahead: "(3) The purpose of the use of a federal credit system, is
to generate high productivity trends in improvements in
employment, with the accompanying intention to increase the
physical economic productivity and standard of living of the
persons and households of the United States." And "(4)", LaRouche
writes, "Adopt a fusion-driver 'crash program.' The essential
distinction of man from all lower forms of life, is that it
presents the means for the perfection of the specifically
affirmative aims and needs of the human individual and social
life."
Let's take a look through some of these Four Laws. The first
step is Glass-Steagall, which I'll just say a little bit about.
This is something we've discussed frequently [laughs] and to
great effect, I think, in our programs and on our website.
Take a look here. [Fig. 1] This is what percent of supposed
U.S. income, what percent of the value added in our GDP, comes
from manufacturing — you see that there in blue–vs. "f.i.r.e.,"
which stands for finance, insurance, and real estate. For over 30
years now, the world of finance itself has {supposedly},
according to official thinking, contributed as much to U.S.
productivity and economy, as has manufacturing. Flipping houses
— that kind of thing — is now as productive as manufacturing
steel, or building things. It's crazy!
Over this period, [Fig. 2] — this is Lyndon LaRouche's
Triple Curve, a pedagogical device that he had used to describe
the increase in monetary and financial aggregates, at the same
time that the {physical} economic output of the economy was
collapsing–something that we've been in a situation of for
decades now.
What we need to do, then, is make it {possible} to be able
to finance a recovery. Alexander Hamilton, in his reports on
public credit and the national bank and on its constitutionality,
describes the importance of banking. Banks can provide an
essential function for the economy. They're not optional. They
provide an essential useful function. Now, they're tied up, in a
way, where the potential of the banking sector is impossible
right now, because they're involved in all sorts of speculation
and gambling. By implementing Glass-Steagall, we make it possible
for the banking sector to be able to play that useful role, while
jailing and shutting down all of the people behind the caused
collapse that's been created and the looting that's been taking
place via Wall Street.
We've got a lot of very good recent editions to our website.
The Economics Frequently Asked Questions page at
larouchepac.com/econ-facts. This addresses some of these
questions that come up that {you} may have heard when talking to
people about these things. [For example:] "If Glass-Steagall were
still law, it wouldn't have stopped the crash of 2007-8." Are you
sick of hearing that? Well, you can now just send people the
explanations here. You don't really need to waste your time with
it. It's very clear.
So, Glass-Steagall's the first step. Step 2 that Mr.
LaRouche describes is national banking. This is definitely a more
complex concept. I direct people, again, to the works of
Alexander Hamilton on this, to get a sense from the beginning, of
what it meant to have a national bank, or the role that banking
could play in the nation. I'd point to the success of this
approach under the administrations of Hamilton, of John Quincy
Adams, of Lincoln, and of Franklin Roosevelt, who, in various
ways, created the effect, if not in deed, national banking,
through a facility for the promotion of credit and directing it
in an economy.
One of the most horrific ideas that people have about how
economics works, is that you shouldn't try to direct anything;
that government should always stay out; that the "invisible hand"
does everything in the best possible way. This is something that
Hamilton addresses very directly, countering the arguments of
Adam Smith's {Wealth of Nations}, for example, in these reports.
Once we decide that we're going to have a national
orientation, and actually choose a direction to go, the question
then is, how do we direct this credit in the direction of
programs that are going to increase the energy-flux density? How
then do we understand "energy-flux density?" This is an economics
concept that Mr. LaRouche has employed over the years in his
understanding of economy.
We have to think about what is the basis of the
transformation of the human species, over time, in a way that's
uncharacteristic of any other form of life. This chart of
Population Growth Over the Historical Time Period [Fig. 3] is of
{human} population growth. It couldn't have been the growth of
any animal species acting on its own. Animal species don't
transform their relationship to nature. They can't discover
principles. They might use a tool, like a stick, to do something,
or a rock. They don't use principles as tools.
The beginning of this, the real starting point for this for
us historically, certainly in Europe, or extended European
civilization, is Prometheus, the Greek story of Prometheus, who
really created humanity. Before Prometheus, who, as the story
goes, took fire from heaven and gave it to mankind, human beings
were animals. Prometheus describes that when he saw mankind, we
were just animals. We had eyes to see (but we didn't understand);
we had ears, but we didn't understand anything. We lived like
swarming ants. What did Prometheus do? He brought fire, he
brought astronomy, he brought navigation, he brought beasts of
burden, he brought sailing, he brought agriculture, he brought
the calendar, he brought poetry, he brought written language,
mathematics, science, knowledge, fire. What defines us as a
species, as in this original story of the creation of the
specifically human species, is this power of fire.
We now consider the different kinds of fire that have been
developed over historical time. Take a look at this [Fig. 4].
This is the Use of Different Forms of Energy over the History of
the United States. Two trends we can see here: (1) the Energy
Used per Person has, overall, increased — although not at a
uniform rate. It's not increasing now. The other thing that we
can notice, is that (2) the Type of Fuel Used has changed, over
time. Wood has very niche applications at present, as a fuel.
Wood is used for furniture, not for burning. Coal replaced the
use of wood, saving forests, making it possible to not have to
cut down all sorts of trees to make metals by making charcoal out
of the wood. Oil and natural gas supplanted the use of coal.
Nuclear fission — which never reached its full potential — in
this projection, from the era of the Kennedy administration, was
expected to become a primary, dominant form of power for the
United States, and, indeed, as seen in the world.
What this shows us, is, yeah, using {more} energy. The other
thing is the {type} of energy. What can you do with that energy?
Think about what you can do with oil and natural gas that you
can't do with coal or wood. You can't run a car with wood. You
can't run a car with coal. You can run a car on oil. You can't
run a train on wood! You can run a train on coal. What can we do
with nuclear power that we can't do with lower forms? Think about
how with coal we can use wood for furniture instead of for
burning. Oil: that's what we make plastic out of. Oil is a useful
substance. It's a wonderful material. It's a great source of
carbon, which, by its chemical nature, is able to form {enormous}
molecules. Here it is, sitting in the ground, ready to be used to
make all sorts of products, and we're burning it! It's, you know,
it's stupid!
With the potential that we've got, of shifting to a real
nuclear economy, of developing fusion, we would be reaching
another stage of energy-flux density. What's the power, the
throughput power of your energy source? And, what qualitative
improvements does it bring? What new things does it allow you to
do?
You can't have economic development without power, without
energy. Here's a chart [Fig. 5] of Electricity Use per Capita vs.
GDP per Capita. I know GDP per Capita is not the best measure,
but it's very clear what you see with these things. If you say,
which parts of the world seen here are relatively wealthy and
have higher living standards and life expectancies? Well, it's
the places where you see the most light. The places where it's
dark, that's not because people are people are fond of astronomy
in that region and keep their lights off at night so that they
can see the stars better. It's because there's not development.
Infrastructure itself really serves as the mediator, the
great mediator, of higher forms of energy-flux density into the
economy as a whole — the mediator of bringing new technologies
into achieving a maximal expression in the economy by partaking
in almost all of the processes that go on in an economy.
We now consider the fourth of Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws,
which is the call for a crash program on nuclear fusion. This
[Fig. 6] is a chart that was created back in 1976, which frequent
viewers of this website no doubt have seen several times. What
this chart showed was, based on how much money was devoted to
achieving the fusion breakthrough, at what year it was
anticipated that the great breakthrough for a commercial fusion
reactor would take place. In '76 it was considered that if a
maximum possible effort were put into this — something on the
scale of the Manhattan Project, or the Apollo Project to go to
the Moon — if we took that approach with fusion, it was
anticipated that we would have had it over 25 years ago! Even at
a moderate level of funding, we should have had it a decade ago,
according to this projection, which isn't necessarily exactly
right. Actual funding for fusion has been {below the level} that
was anticipated in the '70s to {never achieve fusion}.In other
words, there has been a decision not to reach the next level of
Promethean fire; not to make that breakthrough on fusion.
Why would that happen? Who would hold back the development
of fusion power? Is it the oil industry trying to make money
selling more oil? No; that is way too simplistic. It is the
brutish outlook of the British Empire, of Zeus earlier — Zeus,
the character from the Prometheus story. Zeus, the tyrannical
god who created his own power in part by holding back others. By
preventing mankind from making this step, this is one of the
greatest crimes that has ever been committed; the deliberate
underfunding of fusion and the campaign to prevent its
development.
I don't want to go on forever; let me just show a few
projects that the US ought to participate in with a sane outlook.
There's a different paradigm going on in the world right now,
with the BRICS highly representing this; it represents the
decades of work by LaRouche and the LaRouche Movement.
Organizing for this World Land-Bridge proposal; something that's
been promoted for decades now. This proposal, the power of this
idea to change the world, is absolutely being realized at
present. This concept that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have been
organizing for, is now Chinese policy; the One Belt, One Road
program that is now bringing together over 70 nations
[representing] the majority of the world's population. The
greatest potential for economic growth in the world; this is a
policy that is taking place.
Instead, the United States under Obama — who should be
thrown out of office yesterday, as Diane said, if not last week,
last month, last year; those would all be even better — is
holding these things back. What would it look like if we joined?
One thing would be the Bering Strait crossing; a proposal that
was first discussed over a century ago. Really bringing the
United States, via land, into coordination and connection with
Eurasia and Africa, with the rest of the world in a very serious
way; a new way and a more efficient way than sea-borne shipping.
Within the United States, we've got [Fig. ??] to test your
geography here, this is the US on the left; and on the right that
is China. Similar nations. Look at all that high-speed rail in
China that you see in blue, and probably some of the red; since
this map was made, they've probably completed it, they're
building it so rapidly. The United States doesn't have a
high-speed rail network; we barely have a rail network. Instead,
we use the less-efficient form of road transportation for freight
and for people stuck in traffic jams. What would it mean to
build a network that makes the United States more efficient, more
productive? How many jobs would be involved in building new
cities, in building the kinds of power plants that would be
required? What kind of power could we have over our physical
economy with the really full development of control over the
water cycle? It is within our means to create desalination right
now in California to provide for coastal water needs if we wanted
to do that. It's within our ability to serious and in-depth
research on atmospheric ionization and other technologies to
control the water cycle. It's within our ability to transfer
water that has already fallen on land; but we need to insure that
there's actually enough to make that a possibility.
So, let me read a couple of quotes from Alexander Hamilton
here, in terms of where an understanding of an increase in energy
flux density, of where economic growth comes from. It doesn't
come from money; it comes from the human mind. Here's Treasury
Secretary Hamilton. He's describing in the beginning of his
"Report on Manufactures" whether it makes sense to have a
manufacturing economy, as opposed to a purely agricultural one;
which today seems like a stupid argument to even have, but it was
something that Thomas Jefferson didn't get, for example. Because
he wanted to keep the American economy from developing; he didn't
have that same outlook of human beings — clearly — that
Alexander Hamilton did.
So, Hamilton writes that "the work of artificers as opposed
to cultivators", that is, manufacturing as opposed to farming,
"is susceptible of a greater improvement in a proportionately
greater degree of improvement of its productive powers; whether
by the accession of skill, or from the application of ingenious
machinery" — labor saving. How does the development of a new
technology transform the potential of a production in an economy?
This is a quote Matt had used: Hamilton writes — on page 148
when you get the book — "It merits particular observation that
the multiplication of manufactories not only furnishes a market
for those articles which have been accustomed to be produced in
abundance in a country, but it likewise creates a demand for such
as were either unknown or produced in inconsiderable quantities.
The bowels as well as the surface of the Earth are ransacked for
articles which were before neglected. Animals, plants, and
minerals acquire a utility and value which were before
unexplored. Iron ore wasn't iron ore before the Iron Age; it was
a rock. Malachite wasn't copper ore before the Bronze Age; it
was just a green rock that Egyptians used for mascara." You
transform the value of the things around you; the mind transforms
what those things are. That rock was transformed into ore by the
human mind. We change the universe through our discoveries; we
transform our relationship to it, we change what it is, what it
can participate in.
Hamilton understood that the purpose of the United States
was nothing less than the promotion of the General Welfare. This
quote is a bit long to read, but it's on page 187; and it's where
he describes that there shouldn't be a limitation — except what
comes up in the Constitution — that the promotion of the General
Welfare he says "the term General Welfare, doubtless intended to
signify more than was expressed or imported in those parts of the
Constitution and Congress' powers which preceded it. This phrase
is as comprehensive as any that could have been used, because it
was not fit that the Constitutional authority of the Union to
appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within
narrower limits than the General Welfare." The real point to
take is that it's a different economic outlook. What China is
doing is great, but it's not up to the level of what it should
be. The concept embodied in the One Belt, One Road project is
positive; it's very good. But what really needs to be brought to
this is the explicit understanding of its basis in the human
identity. The human ability to make discoveries that transform
our relationship to Nature; that's the key to economics. We see
its effects in various studies we might do about how building a
road transforms the amount of agricultural production in an area;
or how bringing in a stable power supply allows factories not to
have to turn off every three hours when the power goes out —
what transformations that has. But the real key is to give a
mission to people by participating in the ability to bring that
to a yet higher level of understanding, of living standards, and
of participation in that process. That's the key thing; create a
society where people are able to participate knowingly in that
increase.
OGDEN: As Jason said, the four economic reports that Hamilton
wrote were the founding documents of the American republic in a
very real sense; and he was conscious of that. He said, we can
have political independence, but without economic independence we
are nothing; we won't survive as a country. And there are
scientific principles which need to be understood and applied.
But just as those were the founding documents at that point, we
now have a founding document of a new era in the economy of the
United States in this LaRouche Four Economic Laws. It's a
distillation and an elaboration of the principles that Alexander
Hamilton understood, for the 21st Century, for today. A
commitment to the fusion program, a commitment to space
exploration on a massive scale. The same way that Franklin
Roosevelt had the New Deal, the same way John F Kennedy had the
new frontiers, we have a new paradigm. And it's a vision of the
future which, if fully committed to, will absolutely within the
lifetimes of the people who are living today, transform what the
human species is capable of. And it's that sense of the
opportunity of an evolution of the entire human species to an
entirely new level of capability; that's what we experienced in
the aftermath of Hamilton's breakthrough, the aftermath of the
American Revolution. It's an opportunity in perhaps a larger and
more comprehensive form today, where you have the opportunity for
a collaboration among nations that is unprecedented in the
history of mankind.
So, if you hold up against that, the kind of criminality of
Wall Street; the kind of rabid war-mongering and saber-rattling,
the threat of World War III and thermonuclear war; I think the
gut feeling of the American people around Glass-Steagall, around
stopping World War III, this is something which — as Diane said
— has the potential to unify the population in a way perhaps
we've never seen before or in a long time. But it has to be
developed to a level which contains the type of depth that you
just witnessed with the presentation that Jason just gave.
SARE: I just want to add — I know we're getting close to
the end of our time, but Mr. LaRouche has said on numerous
occasions that the American people need to assemble themselves;
that they have lost confidence in their own ability to reason
through the crisis and to act in their own interest. But I think
what we've seen in this presentation is what LaRouche has been
putting forward frankly for years; and the material that is on
our website allows us to have the program and the conception.
Particularly the conception of what it means to be human; which
is what the United States is based on, according to Alexander
Hamilton and our Constitution. That is something around which
the American people can mobilize; just as when the Berlin Wall
came down, the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1989. You had an
economic system that completely collapsed, and people turned to
Beethoven and Schiller. Well, we are seeing such a moment now in
the trans-Atlantic system; and we have here Alexander Hamilton
and Lyndon LaRouche. I am confident, although we cannot count on
anything 100%, that the population of the United States can be
mobilized on this level, and not something lower; and that that
potential will become very apparent in the next few days.
STEGER: I think it's just worth stating — China just
accomplished another major advancement in their space program.
They launched the Long March 5 rocket; this is a 25-ton payload
rocket. Japan is now going to be working with Russia it looks
like, based on the discussion that Putin and Prime Minister Abe
will be having in December, of Japan making an even larger
investment into the new Cosmodrome, the new space city up in the
Far East of Russia near the Pacific. These nations are dedicated
to this kind of advancement; and it only condemns further what
Obama has done these last eight years. The first initial steps
of this Presidency were to tear down the very space program that
these nations have now recreated in their own way on an advanced
scale. An Apollo project-like scale of development is what you
see now in China with their space program. How dare Obama do
this? How dare Hillary Clinton think that she can win a
Presidency while chaining herself to this insane legacy? The
drone killings; the murders; the wars; the bail-outs; the
shutdown of the space program as the first act of the Presidency;
the failure of Obamacare? Bill Clinton had the intelligence to
recognize this Obamacare was the most insane policy anybody ever
adopted; and as soon as he said that, I guess he was thrown into
the broom closet, because you haven't seen him since. Then you
see Obama and Hillary marching hand-in-hand; it really is insane.
Obama should be condemned in every possible way. And if Hillary
is going to tie herself to this legacy — blaming the KGB on
email leaks from her server? Blaming the KGB and Putin because
she has not operated in a way of the dignity of the US Presidency
to lead the American people at a time of crisis? To bomb
countries like Libya? To support the overthrow of Assad and the
possible conflict with Russia?
You have to remind Americans — and I think what Jason's
presentation did so well — what the Four Laws indicate; what a
real Presidency looks like. What is the true United States? For
30 years, FBI and British factors and our own government, like
the Bush family, went after Lyndon LaRouche and our organization.
We've lost a sense of what the real United States is; the world
has. And during that period of time, the world has gone nearly
crazy; barreling towards world war and nuclear destruction.
We've got to revive a true United States. We need it in the
United States, and so does the world. There's never been a
greater moment to develop that around Lyn's ideas.
OGDEN: Good! I think that's a perfect conclusion. So, as
Jason said, {The Vision of Alexander Hamilton} book will be
available within the coming days. It's something to absolutely
purchase and find access to; we'll make that clear. And if you
haven't yet, please sign up for the daily emails from
larouchepac.com; these are the critical strategic updates that
are coming into your inbox on a daily basis. We make sure that
you have that at your fingertips. Things are going to change
very rapidly over the coming days; and you need to be connected.
So, please sign up for the daily LaRouche PAC email list.
Thank you very much for joining us here today; and please
stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.
Matthew Ogden: Både Diane Sare og Kesha Rogers har skrevet en artikel i denne uges 
Ganske 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 
Den samme entusiasme for et nyt paradigme ses i hele Afrika og Asien, og i stigende grad også i Øst- og Vesteuropa. Overalt grunder folk på en fremtid, hvor USA ikke længere truer med krige og undergravning gennem »farvede revolutioner«, men som i stedet går med i BRIKS, AIIB og den Nye Silkevej om opbygning af en fremtid for hele menneskeheden. Dette potentiale må realiseres, især i selve USA. Et vindue mod muligheder åbner sig for os, men det kunne være kortvarigt, og med utænkelige konsekvenser, hvis vi mislykkes.
