Vi befinder os på tærsklen til jul; og vi mente, at det var meget vigtigt at få en diskussion i aftenens show, for vi har en ekstremt intens og vigtig politisk situation i øjeblikket. Vi håber, I alle har en fornemmelse af, hvor vigtige de umiddelbart forestående timer og dage er, og at I ikke er for optaget af julehøjtidelighedens festligheder.

På trods af de massive, falske nyheder, der i øvrigt kendes som de etablerede medier; på trods af de ting, vi dér hører, så er der i øjeblikket et betydningsfuld historisk og strategisk skifte i gang på globalt plan.

For blot at sætte fokus på ét element i dette, så er man i stor stil flippet ud over det faktum, at et lækket overgangsmemo fra Pentagon, fra den tiltrædende Trump-administration, udtrykkeligt ikke opregner Rusland som en eksistentiel trussel mod USA. Alene dette er en lille, men betydningsfuld indikation på den type overgang, vi ser. Der er mange spørgsmålstegn omkring Trump-administrationen, men det, der ganske klart er fremgået, er, at han har til hensigt at tage hele denne geopolitiske trussel om Tredje Verdenskrig af bordet. Dette er endnu en indikation på, at han ikke er indstillet på at spille hele dette Obama-Hillary Clinton, geopolitiske spil, der går helt tilbage til George Bush-administrationen, gående ud på at forsøge at true, underminere og ødelægge Rusland og Kina i forsøg på at opretholde en eller anden form for anglo-amerikansk globalt herredømme. Dette skræmmer livet af Obama og folkene bag ham i USA, i Europa, i London og lignende steder. Det skaber på den ene side en åbenlys, klar mulighed; men også en temmelig spændt og farlig situation. For blot et par dage siden advarede hr. Larouche udtrykkeligt om, at i denne periode, selv, når det ser ud, som om vi er tæt på Trumps indsættelse, så befinder vi os stadig væk i en meget farlig overgangsperiode; og Obama sidder dér som en dræber, en morder, der har begået mord i hele verden, ødelagt nationer i hele verden, dræbt amerikanere, fuldstændigt revet forfatningsmæssige forholdsregler i stykker, og sådanne ting. Dér sidder, han, stadig i embedet, stadig ved magten. Og blot umiddelbart herefter så vi, næsten efter bogen, en bølge af handlinger af en terroristisk art over hele planeten. Der var terrorhandlingen i Tyskland, der stadig er årsag til udbredt hysteri dér, med ubesvarede spørgsmål mht., hvad det var, der rent faktisk fandt sted. Og selvfølgelig, mordet på den russiske ambassadør i Tyrkiet, som var en direkte trussel mod hele den operation, der med held køres af Putin, for at bringe stabilitet og en reel bekæmpelse af reel terrorisme i dette område, i sammenhæng med en række andre terrortrusler og forsøg på aktioner i hele verden. Det er næsten efter bogen, at denne kaos-operation så bryder ud.

Men i aften vil vi diskutere noget, der er mere gavnligt. Mike [Billington] vil gå mere i dybden med, hvor verden i realiteten er på vej hen, og kunne være på vej hen; under forudsætning af, at vi kan grundfæste dette strategiske skifte; samt, hvorfor planetens nye direktion, under lederskab af Putin, Kina og allierede kræfter, virkelig er i færd med at omstøde dette historiske paradigme, der frem til i dag har knust verden i årtier.

EVERY GENERATION SHOULD BE FOCUSSED ON A COMPLETE REVOLUTION IN THE VERY NATURE OF MANKIND!

LaRouche PAC Webcast, Dec. 23, 2016

   BENJAMIN DENISTON:  Hi!  Welcome to the LaRouche PAC Weekly
Report for December 23, 2016.  My name is Benjamin Deniston; I'll
be hosting the discussion today.  We're happy to be joined by
Mike Billington of {Executive Intelligence Review} here in the
studio; and over Google Hang-outs, we have Diane Sare, leader of
the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee joining us from the New
Jersey-New York area.
   So today we have, I think, a rather exciting and important
discussion.  We're here on the eve of Christmas Eve; and we
thought it was very important to do a show today and have a
discussion, because this is an extremely intense and important
political situation right now.  We hope all of you have a sense
of the importance of the situation in the immediate hours and
days right now; and are not too swept up in the festivities of
the holidays.  Despite the massive fake news operation, otherwise
known as the mainstream media, despite what you're hearing from
that, there is a major historical and strategic shift underway
right now globally.
   I think just to highlight one element of this, there's been
a major freak-out around a leaked Pentagon transition memo from
the incoming Trump administration, which explicitly does not list
Russia as an existential threat to the United States.  This alone
is one more small but important indication of the type of
transition we're seeing.  There's a lot of questions around the
Trump administration, but what's been absolutely clear
consistently is that he is looking to take this entire
geopolitical threat of World War III off the table.  This is just
another indication showing that he is not willing to play this
Obama-Hillary Clinton going back to the George Bush
administration, geopolitical game of trying to threaten,
undermine, and destroy Russia and China to try and maintain some
kind of Anglo-American global hegemony.  This is completely
terrifying Obama and the people behind him in the United States,
in Europe, in London and related places. This is creating on the
one side obviously a clear opportunity; but also a rather tense
and dangerous situation.  It was just a few days ago that Mr.
LaRouche emphatically warned that in this period, even if it
seems like we're close to the inauguration of Trump, we still
have a very dangerous transition time; and you have Obama sitting
there as a killer, as a murderer, who has committed acts of
murder around the world, destroyed nations around the world,
killed Americans, completely ripped up Constitutional measures
and those grounds.  And he is sitting there, still in office,
still in power; and it was only in the immediate hours and days
after that that you had almost by the book, a wave of
terrorist-type activity launched all over the planet.  You had
this terrorist event in Germany, which is still creating major
hysteria over there, and there are still major questions about
what actually happened with that operation.  You obviously had
the assassination of this Russian ambassador in Turkey, which was
a direct threat to the entire operation that's been run
successfully by Putin to bring stability and an actual fight
against real terrorism in that region in connection with a series
of other terrorist threats and attempted actions around the
world.  It's almost a by the book response of this chaos
operation blowing up.
   But what we're going to discuss more today is going to be
very useful.  Mike is going to put some depth in where the world
is actually going and could be going; assuming we can solidify
this strategic shift; and why the new directionality of the
planet under the leadership of Putin, China, and allied forces is
really threatening to overturn this historical paradigm that's
crushed the world for many decades at this point.  I want to hand
it over to Mike; and we're going to get into the discussion.

   MICHAEL BILLINGTON:  OK, thanks Ben.  I'm certainly glad to
be here.  It is an incredible moment in history; it reminds me of
the opening of Dickens' {A Tale of Two Cities}, where he says,
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times …"  He
meant it, and it's true; we are in a revolutionary period,
there's no question about that.  This is sweeping the globe; it's
already largely taken over Asia, and the Brexit and the Italian
vote, the Trump vote, and so forth, indicate that people have
finally reached the limit to the power of tyranny over their
economy, over perpetual warfare.  But a revolution doesn't
necessarily have a positive outcome, and that's actually what
Dickens was talking about.  The French Revolution came soon after
the historic and wonderful American Revolution based on a new
conception of man; based upon science and technology and a new
financial system under Hamilton's ideas to defeat the power of
the British Empire which lay in their global financial empire.
But the French Revolution was taken over actually by the British;
but turned into chaos.  It's what Schiller said was "a great
moment [in history] has found a little people."  So, instead of a
great republic, you ended with the guillotine; you ended up with
Robespierre saying the revolution has no need for science, and
ultimately this led to the emergence of the first fascist —
Napoleon.
   So, we cannot be complacent; we have a tremendous victory in
the defeat of Obama and his clone, Hillary, and their British
operation.  But we certainly cannot sit back and cross our
fingers and hope that Trump is going to do the right thing.  It's
going to be up to us.  We should reflect on how the American
Revolution succeeded.  It succeeded because it was focussed on a
tremendous sense of history and philosophical thought; the
Founding Fathers put together the {Federalist Papers}, the
writings of Alexander Hamilton, which we've recently published.
If you read these, these are not easy; yet this was the basis on
which the so-called common men and women studied and came to the
conclusion that in fact this small group of leaders were leading
them in the right direction, and had created a future.  It was
based on poetry.  In fact, Schiller was known as the Poet of
Freedom and was treasured for 100 years after the American
Revolution as the poet of the American Revolution; despite being
German and writing in German.  But this was known to the American
people.  The music; the great {Messiah} by Handel was composed in
1741 — it was known.  Our Schiller Institute just performed a
phenomenal version of this great work — the {Messiah} — at the
Co-Cathedral of St. Joseph in Brooklyn last week in an extremely
moving ceremony.  These are the kinds of ceremonies that took
place at that time; that lifted people to a higher sense of their
humanity, of the dignity of man, and of creating a future.
   So, which of these two paths are we going to be taking
today?  Well, it's obvious which way Obama was going; we've made
that very clear.  His intention was war; not only the perpetual
wars in the Middle East, but leading to a war with Russia, a war
with China.  These are not completely resolved, but as Ben said,
we're a long way away from that horror, which was facing us had
we not defeated that in this final election.  But the result of
these 16 years of Bush and Obama can be seen in what's happened
to our own country; not just the Hell that's been taken to the
Middle East and other parts of the world.  We now have a decline
in life expectancy for the first time in our nation's history.
We have a drug epidemic in which 1 out of 15 Americans are
addicted to heroin or its substitutes; 1 out of 15 Americans.
This is not a problem; this is a disaster, a collapse of
civilization which is not only tolerated and supported openly by
our President, who promotes legalizing drugs and who is doing
everything in his power to stop the emergence of a war on drugs
in the Philippines, which I'll come back to.
   So, on the other hand, we see that Russia, under Putin's
direction, has intervened to stop this series of regime-change
operations.  What's happened in the tremendous victory in Aleppo
against terrorism, is that Putin has demonstrated that if you
work hand-in-hand with sovereign nations, with their leaders, you
can defeat terrorism.  And he basically exposed the fact that
Obama — like Bush — was on the side of the terrorists; under
the guise of fighting terrorism, was openly working with the
Saudis and the British, who were arming and creating these
terrorist movements to overthrow regimes who refused to follow
their dictates — the so-called "regime-change" movement.  That's
been probably crushed; this is not completely solved, but what's
happened in Aleppo not only stops the disintegration of Syria,
but it should — if properly pursued — mean the end of the
regime-change criminality of both Bush and Obama once and for
all.
   I'm going to read to you — today happened to be the day
that Putin gave his annual end of year press conference.  I think
just reading one section of part of that, and paraphrasing a few
others is important.  It's important for people to watch Putin;
it's done with an English voice-over.  It's useful to watch to
see why it is that the oligarchy is so terrified of this man.
I'm just going to read you — actually it was a question that
came from a man named Yevgeny Primakov.  It turns out that he is,
indeed, the grandson of the great Yevgeny Primakov who died
recently; but who was the original architect of the idea of
China, Russia, and India collaborating to form a new core of
nations that could appeal to America to join them.  Which is, of
course, what has to happen, as a basis of reversing the imperial
decline of the human race; and which led to the BRICS, it led to
the New Silk Road.  So, his grandson asked a question which said,
"Mr. Putin, Barack Obama, who is still your official colleague,
said that 37% of the Republicans sympathize with you.  And
hearing this, Ronald Reagan would have rolled over in his grave."
So, he says, "Our western colleagues often tell us that you have
the power to manipulate the world, to designate Presidents and to
interfere in elections here and there.  How does it feel to be
the most powerful person on Earth?  Thank you."  So, with that
humorous, but very insightful question, Putin said the following:
   "The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic
Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside
factors¦…
   "We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the
presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans
have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also
in control. Did we, or I also do that?…
   "It seems to me there is a gap between the eliteâs vision of
what is good and bad and that of what in earlier times we would
have called the broad popular masses¦… [A] substantial part of
the American people share similar views with us on the worldâs
organization, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats
and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people
who sympathize with our views on traditional values because this
forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two
such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build
them on the basis of our peoplesâ mutual sympathy.
   "¦… I'm not so sure who might be turning in their grave
right now. It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his
partyâs people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory
of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public
mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards
to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could
win.
   "The outstanding Democrats in American history would
probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly
would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and
world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the
Great Depressionâs bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during
World War II. Todayâs administration, however, is very clearly
dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for
either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the
President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the
nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four
for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all
fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I
think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is
important to know how to lose gracefully."
   Helga LaRouche commented when I read this to her, that this
is a call not only to the Democrats in America, but to the
oligarchs throughout the world who are acting as if this
revolutionary change is not taking place; as if they still have
the power to dictate policies, and who are hysterical about what
is happening in America.  Putin concludes this way; he says:
   "But my real hope is for us to build business-like and
constructive relations with the new President and with the future
Democratic Party leaders as well, because this is in the
interests of both countries and peoples."
   So, this is leadership; what we so sorely miss here in the
United States.  There's much more; more will be made available in
the {EIR}.
   Now let me turn to Asia. Asia today should — in fact China
in particular, but not just China — be seen as the model which
America must follow if we are to pull ourselves out of the morass
that we're in today. We've discussed this in this program and in
our publications many times: the entire Silk Road development,
the development of corridors. I want to put some maps up, and
just very quickly review some of the incredible development
projects that are going on, virtually every single day.
   This [Fig. 1] is a map published just in the last few days
by something called MERICS [the Mercator Institute for China
Studies]. They have a competent article on the whole Silk Road
process. They've marked in this red graphic where some of the
corridors are; they're not all there. Of course you have the
original corridor, which was the Trans-Siberian Railroad; which
was developed with consultation and advice from Henry Carey and
the American System, who worked with the Russians to replicate
what had been done in the United States with the Transcontinental
Railroad, not just to be from one end to the other, but to
develop the entire region in between.

   DENISTON: It's the black-gray dashed line of the existing
rail lines.

   BILLINGTON: Yeah, this one here, where I'm running that
thing. Now, you see the lower one that goes through China,
through Xinjiang Province, into Kazakhstan. This is the New Silk
Road, which was developed following the 1990s, with the fall of
the Soviet Union. Helga Zepp LaRouche helped organize in Beijing
a conference in 1996 on what the Chinese call the New Eurasian
Land-Bridge. Helga called it the New Silk Road even then.
   This led to the building of this rail which is now
functioning. It has several branches, both in China, and, on the
far side, in Europe, as well as branches down into central Asia.
It's being upgraded. It's not connected, it doesn't have the same
grade, most of it is not high-speed. So this is a
work-in-process.
   Now look at what's happened just in the last couple years.
This red line down here, is what's called the Pakistan Corridor.
This is a connection by rail, from China, down through Pakistan,
into Baluchistan (the southern part of Pakistan), and to the
Gwadar Port, which is being transformed into a major hub for oil
from the Middle East, for trade with India. Hopefully, if the
India/Pakistan relationship can be resolved.  Then — not on this
map — right around here in southern Iran, is the development of
the Chabahar Port, from which there are rail connections up
through Iran to Teheran, and then into Azerbaijan, and into
Russia.  Another north/south route; so, you have several
north/south routes.
   Over here, you see this red line that goes from Kunming in
southern China, through Thailand, Myanmar, and into India. This
is the old Burma Road that was built during the Second World War.
Mr. Lyndon LaRouche had a hand in building the Burma Road (or
worked along that Road). That's now being reconstructed. It will
eventually be a rail connection. And you see that this pipeline
— the black line here — is an offshoot from China all the way
down to the coast of Myanmar, where they are now taking in
shipments from Middle East oil and piping it up into China.
   Over here, this corridor. You already have rail connections
from Kunming down to the Laos border, and now the Chinese are
building a high-speed rail through Laos, down to the Thai border.
Just in the last few months, they've concluded their plans to
build a high-speed rail from the Laos border down to Bangkok. At
this point, there's only an old railroad from Bangkok down to
Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia — down here. But that will eventually
be done; and in the meantime, probably the Chinese, maybe the
Japanese, are building a high-speed rail from Kuala Lumpur to
Singapore. So, eventually, you'll have all the way from Kunming
down to Singapore.
   In Indonesia, the Chinese are building a railroad from the
capital of Jakarta to Bandung. Many of you have heard of Bandung
from the famous Bandung Conference in 1955, which was the first
meeting of Asian and African leaders who had formerly been
colonized, meeting without their colonial masters — the
so-called Asia-Africa Conference that was organized by Sukarno
and Nehru and Chou En-Lai (from China), and others. So that's in
the process; other developments there.
   If you look at this part of the Africa map [Fig. 2], these
are some railroads that have already been constructed. Go to the
next map of the two Africa maps. Okay. This [Fig. 3] is
from{EIR}'s report "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge". This shows, on this side, the existing rail
structures as of a few years ago. You see that basically there's
no way to get from one capital to another. You can only get the
raw materials from the mine out to the port, where it was shipped
off to Europe and America. That's all the colonial powers cared
about in developing Africa.
   What you see here, is a general map of the kind of
commitment that the Chinese have made to {connect every capital
of Africa} with high-speed rail, several cross-continental
railroads. The Chinese need raw materials, just like the
Europeans did, but they're paying for it; they're {building
nations}. They're building nations that have industry,
agriculture, water, power, education, using a model which we used
to call the American System, but which we've deserted in our
country.
   The same in South America. You can go to the next map [Fig.
4] here. This is also from our report. It's not quite accurate
for what is in the process now, actually, because the Chinese are
talking about building {two} trans-oceanic railroads: one that
goes from Peru directly into Brazil and to the coast; one that
goes south of that through Bolivia. The Bolivians, of course,
want that railroad to go through Bolivia.
   So, again, transforming the world in a way which, of course,
the U.S. long ago ceased to do; becoming more of a British-style
colonial power which looted the raw materials, imposing huge
amounts of debt, and then using that debt as a weapon to keep the
countries in a state of backwardness.
   Now, I'm going to look at two other aspects of Asia: the
Philippines and Japan — where huge transformations are taking
place. Most of you have seen — either in our material or just in
the daily news — about Rodrigo Duterte, the new [Philippine]
President who took office in June of this year, who has {totally
transformed} the Philippines, with massive, massive support from
the population, estimated at more than 80%. Why? It's because he
took on the reality that the country had been destroyed. The
history of the Philippines, in brief, was that in the 1970s and
'80s, they were viewed by the rest of Asia — including Korea, by
the way — as {the} model for development, under Ferdinand
Marcos. They had built the first nuclear power plant. They had
made the country self-sufficient in rice, by direct support for
infrastructure for agriculture. They had built 11 major
industrial infrastructure projects. They had built rail and road
infrastructure. Imelda Marcos, whom most of you know only because
she supposedly was wildly extravagant and had millions of pairs
of shoes. Well, the reason she had the shoes was because {she
built a shoe industry in the Philippines}. She brought in Italian
shoemakers; she shipped in cattle from Australia, for the
leather; she created a shoe industry. And those who produced the
shoes in the Philippines were so grateful that they gave her the
first pair of any new shoe they developed. That's the reality,
contrary to the "fake news" that we received back in the 1980s,
when the neo-cons, under George Schultz and Henry Kissinger and
others decided to overthrow Marcos, to make a horrible example of
him; that they would not allow Third World countries to have
nuclear power, to be self-sufficient.
   The result is, that what was once the greatest rising power
in Southeast Asia, has become the basket case of that region. And
this is what Duterte is acknowledging. He's saying, "We've been
destroyed by the so-called big-brother, who looks down at the
little brown brothers in the Philippines." And he said, "We're
not going to tolerate it anymore. We're going to crush the drugs
that have been brought into our country and are destroying our
children. And we're going to reject the U.S. domination of our
economy, where all they want is our raw materials, and to use our
bright young people who graduate from college who have no jobs as
engineers or scientists or teachers, or nurses or doctors, even,
but who can only work all night long in call-centers, answering
calls from the master back in the United States who has a problem
with his computer or his banking code." This is how the country
was destroyed.
   So, he's turned to China; he's turned to Russia. His Defense
Minister, Delfin Lorenzana, has gone to Russia; he's going to
China. They're going to build that country. They're going to end
this drug epidemic. And for that, he's being told he's going to
be taken to the International Criminal Court for extra-judicial
murders, for human rights violations, by the fact that drug
dealers who fight back are being killed.  Well, this is rather
hypocritical, I would say. If you count the tens of thousands,
hundreds of thousands of people that Obama has killed through
extra-judicial murder — no court, no due process, no proof. Just
the king decides: "This is my list of people to kill this week";
he and John Brennan, Director of the CIA. This is rather
hypocritical. What's really behind it? {The British don't want to
stop drugs}. The banking institutions in London and New York are
{drug dependent}, meaning they're drug-money dependent, in
addition to the fact that many of the bankers are high on cocaine
and heroin. They're drug dependent in the sense that the biggest
business in the world is propping up these bankrupt Western banks
who do nothing but speculate. This is the reality of this.
   And of course, the main thing is that they don't want to see
this war on drugs brought home. One out of 15 Americans addicted
to heroin; this is mind-boggling! And they know that the American
people, if they're given a sense, like we did with our War on
Drugs policy under LaRouche's direction back in the '80s and
'90s; that this could capture the American people.
   Lastly, let me mention Japan. The British-American strategy
for containing China and Russia in the Asian side, has always
been South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia. And
Singapore is in there someplace. Many of you know Korea's in
total upheaval. The President who started off wanting to work
with Russia and China, and was somehow completely taken over by
Obama, turned against the collaboration with Eurasia; agreed to
bring in these U.S. THAAD missiles, supposedly to protect them
from North Korea. But these are missiles that go up into the high
altitude. North Korea is 30 miles away from Seoul. You don't need
this for Korea! You need them for China and Russia, for war. They
were in the process of turning the Philippines into a massive
U.S. military base, under an agreement with the former
puppet-President.
   In the Korea case, the President is now being impeached.
She'll probably be out in April or so. The Opposition wants to
stop that THAAD deployment. The Philippines we know; we've just
discussed it. Just in the last week, Duterte repeated that he's
probably going to absolutely cancel the strategic agreements with
the United States. "We don't need foreign soldiers in our
country," he said. "We're not going to have a war with China."
   Now, Japan. Lyndon LaRouche has always said that there are
two Japans. There's the Japan that came out of feudalism with the
Meiji Restoration, which was highly influenced by the American
System.  Key people who brought in the work of Henry Carey,
Friedrich List, which gave rise to this great industrial
explosion in Japan; which turned them into the leading nation of
Asia at that time, that superseded the 5000-year old culture and
tradition in China in terms of its strength.  But there was also
the Japan of the British Empire; the British came at the same
time, and basically said, "Look, Japan, you're an island nation
like we are.  You need to get raw materials, you don't have them
in your own country.  The only way you're going to get them is by
having a mighty military and colonizing; taking over countries
and taking their raw materials like we have — the great British
Empire."  Without going through all the details, as you know,
this eventually won out in the sense that Japan adopted a
militarist policy and unleashed the horror of the Second World
War, which started long before Pearl Harbor.  It started with the
invasion of China and the looting of China; but then led to the
destruction of China and other countries and ultimately to the
destruction of Japan.
   So, President Shinzo Abe represents both of these things.
He has had his problems with China; he has wanted to remilitarize
to get out from under the Constitution in Japan, which basically
forbade them to fight war — a Constitution worked out after
World War II with General MacArthur's collaboration.  And he
wants to be what he calls a "normal nation".  But, he also
recognizes that he's gotten nothing from the collapsing Western
financial system; and he sees the future of Japan in the real
development of Russia and China, of Asia; and not by taking it
over this time, but by collaboration through the New Paradigm,
through the New Silk Road.  Through the collaboration especially
with Russia.  His grandfather, who was a prime minister, and his
father, who was a politician, were committed to developing good
relations with Russia; and he is now on course.
   So, what's happened this year?  It's an extraordinary
transformation taking place.  It began with his visit with Putin
in Sochi in May; at which point he laid out an eight-point
program for the development of the Russian Far East using
Japanese technology and resources and financing.  Also, in May,
there was a meeting of the G-7 in Japan.  Russia wasn't there,
because they threw Russia out of the G-8; it became the G-7
again.  So, he didn't meet Putin there; but at that event, Abe
basically said to the other G-6 leaders — including Obama —
that we were on the brink of a horrible financial breakdown
crisis — worse than 2008.  This was absolutely rejected.  Obama
said "No, we're in a recovery; it might be too slow, but it's
going well."  He didn't say this, but because there's lots of
money being printed to keep the speculation going in the banks;
there's lots of drugs flowing everywhere, things are going fine.
   So, Abe was crushed on that; the final communiqué didn't
mention what Abe had said, but everybody knew.  Then, in
September, he went to Vladivostok for a conference organized by
Putin on the development of the Far East; and they went further
ahead with these development projects.  And then, finally this
month, Putin came to Japan; and he went to Yamaguchi, Abe's
hometown; he then went to Tokyo.  He visited the karate teacher
that had Putin one of the great black belts.  But at that, they
knew they would not be able to overcome the still-festering
problem of the territorial issues of the so-called Northern
Territories, or the Kurile Islands.  At the very end of the
Second World War, the Russians had come in to help with the war
in Japan; had taken the Kuriles, which had been back and forth
throughout history.  These are basically four islands north of
Japan.  Both sides claim sovereignty; the Japanese want them
back.  But, what they agreed to was that they would go with a
policy that had first been put forward in 1956 to divide the
islands two and two, which had been stopped by the US.  The
Dulles brothers came in and said, "Don't you dare; you must
demand all of these islands back from the Russians, or else we
won't turn Okinawa back to you."  So, the Japanese backed away
from that deal, and after that, the Russians said, "OK, that's
it.  You're not going to get any of them back."  So, now Putin
has said, "OK, we can start joint development of these four
islands.  Joint development.  And over time, we can go back to
the 1956 agreement and come to a settlement; meaning that we'll
be able to finally have a peace settlement to World War II by
probably 2018."
   But in the meantime, huge development projects.  They made
agreements for $2.5 billion of infrastructure projects throughout
the Russian Far East; ports, rail, agriculture, nuclear,
pharmaceuticals, education, cultural exchanges, $1 billion joint
fund which can be leveraged into more, and this framework for
peace.  So, just as Putin has largely unified the entire Middle
East — he's even now talking to Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis;
because he's in charge.  Obama and the British game is largely
defeated.  So, they're basically creating a common policy of
common interests of all these nations.  And in the same way in
Asia; the China Silk Road process, the new financial institutions
are bringing all of these nations together.  There are still a
few problems, but it's a new world; it's a new world which the
United States can and must join.  It's the only option.
   And again, I'll repeat that while Obama's Pivot to Asia is
dead, the TPP is dead, the regime-change policies are largely
dead; but don't just sit back and say, "Yahoo! Trump's going to
do it for us!"  Because that is not the case.  This is going to
be done by us; we created the environment in America and around
the world which made it possible for these revolutionary changes
to take place.  It's the power of ideas that moves history; it's
Lyndon LaRouche and Helga LaRouche and this institution who
fought for these ideas before they became popular.  In other
words, we fought to bring these ideas into circulation; which
made it possible for the emergence of people who recognized the
truth of those ideas and have begun to take them up.  This is
doubly true now; we're at a moment which is going to go one way
or the other.  It's going to depend on you and me; on making sure
that we take this fight now at a crucial moment — what Schiller
called a great moment — and make sure that {we} define a future
that uplifts people to a level of the dignity of their true
humanity through activating the creative powers that they have by
the right of being human beings created in the image of God.
   This is our task, and this is where we stand today; and it's
a great time to be celebrating Christmas, but you should be
thinking about George Washington leading the fight across the
river on Christmas Eve.  That's the way we have to approach the
fight that we have on our hands today.  A good fight; one that
gives us reason to be happy, but which is deadly serious.  Thank
you.

   DENISTON:  I think that was excellent, Mike; and I liked
your concluding point.  We're seeing a lot of horrific, awful
things being removed; but I think Helga Zepp-LaRouche's focus on
this being the potential transition to a new historical paradigm
centered around a new positive conception about the truly
creative nature of mankind, is our mission, is our unique task
today.  As our viewers know, Mr. LaRouche defined New York City
as a critical point of intervention on that level; to really
revive that true American spirit and true American insight and
understanding into this historical unifying mission for mankind
that we're talking about.  So, I know Diane was part of our
discussions with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche earlier today, and she was
raising some of the critical aspects that we have to focus on in
terms of getting the American people to realize that you're not
just passive observers in this process.  Like you were saying,
we're not just going to sit back and root for who we think might
do this or that.  We have a critical leadership role — including
our audience, everyone involved with us — to actually take this
fight to this higher level.  So, I think that Diane has some
remarks on that; I know she would like to contribute here.

DIANE SARE:  Mrs. LaRouche said something this morning that I
think is very important, which is that in a period where
everything is stable, then the subjective factor is not as
crucial.  That is, if everybody gets all worked up over a
particular celebrity's drug addiction problem, or various fads,
various emotional things that people get tangled up in; but when
you have a moment like this, which on the one hand, I'm really
glad that Mike just went through what he did, because I think
most Americans have absolutely no idea of this incredible picture
of what's happening in the world.  And also, should reflect a
little bit on where these countries are coming from; what did
China look like 45 years ago, for example, compared to how they
look now?  You'd get a sense that there is no reason, except a
subjective reason of the mindset of the American people, why our
nation cannot similarly be self-transformed to a completely
different domain, a completely different culture.
   I'll say here this past weekend, we had another musical
intervention.  The Schiller Institute chorus, which I helped to
organize and direct, sponsored by the Foundation for the Revival
of Classical Culture in a performance, a unity concert in
Brooklyn of African-American spirituals, the Bach {Wachet Auf}
cantata, and Handel's {Messiah}.  But what was so striking about
this particular performance is, my sense was that the musicians
were completely engaged.  In other words, it wasn't like a stuffy
thing that you go to at Lincoln Center, where everyone is going
through the motions; and of course, the tuning is way too high
anyway, so their voices are strained and they need all kinds of
electronic adjustments and things like this.  But the thing
really was from the heart; and there's clearly a potential where
Americans have a sense, they want something substantive.  Who
actually doesn't want their life to have had a purpose?
   What we have right now, is a moment of extraordinary
opportunity; it is also dangerous, because as you said, Ben, at
the beginning, Obama issued these threats, this intent to kill as
LaRouche put it, a week ago today at his crazy press conference
and interview on NPR.  Saying, with no evidence whatsoever that
Russia had any involvement in hacking, that we will retaliate at
a time and place of our choosing.  Those are murderous words, and
therefore, we're not at a moment of stability; and it requires
from us, as Schiller would say, a certain sublime quality of
thinking where we look down on the world as if from above, and
consider what are the common aims of mankind and what mankind can
do together.  And the potential that we have, given that the
defeat of Hillary Clinton was really a defeat of Bush and Obama;
it was a defeat of a 16-year legacy of evil.  It doesn't
guarantee — as Mike said — that what comes in under Trump is
going to be good; that is for us to determine.  It just indicates
that there is a tremendous potential for this, as we see with the
communication between President-elect Trump and Vladimir Putin;
that's very promising.  There are other aspects of a potential
with China that are very promising, and then there are some
appointments that are not so promising.
   It is definitely a moment for each of us to consider our
responsibility to future generations; because we have a moment,
hopefully a revolutionary moment where we have not found a little
people, but a people who will grow into the situation and will
take the actions that LaRouche has outlined.  Specifically, the
Four Laws; beginning emphatically with Glass-Steagall, but not
ending with Glass-Steagall.  The fourth law is not an end, but is
really a beginning; which is the development of mankind on the
imperative of exploring the Universe, of mastering thermonuclear
fusion and getting ourselves out of this Solar System.  I think
that's the challenge: To objectively address where we are; to not
get flustered by every piece of crap that gets put in the
mainstream press, which is a bunch of propaganda designed to make
everyone hysterical; and to really fight for the direction that
is required.

   DENISTON:  Another thing that does lie in that issue of the
creative development of mankind, and I was also struck in some
recent discussions with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.  Helga was
making the point that what we're seeing now is really the
realization of this World Land-Bridge perspective that she and
Lyn had fought so hard for.  We were discussing how this really
should be seen from the standpoint of Mr. LaRouche's unique
insights into the fundamental nature of human creative progress
and human creative revolutions.  And in a sense, what we're
seeing — what Mike just presented — what's being led by China,
the potential for that to expand globally with the United States
jumping on board, really is a certain potential culmination of a
certain platform of development for the entire planet.  What that
sets the base for, is the next leap for the expansion into space
and the creative development of nearby space first; as Krafft
Ehricke had been one of the leading visionaries for as a basis
for the expansion further into the Solar System.  I think this
idea of continually defining the next levels of creative leaps,
creative developments is absolutely critical; because it's not
that we are completing some process of some steady state level of
development, but it's the fact that mankind is always
participating in creative revolutions.  Every generation should
be focussed on a complete revolution in the very nature of
mankind.  The very understanding of mankind's existence is
continually being reshaped, recreated on higher and higher
levels.  That's the positive principle of this New Paradigm.

BILLINGTON:  What Diane referred to that Helga said this morning
about certain moments in history in which the subjective becomes
crucial, is a reflection of what Percy Shelley said in his "In
Defense of Poetry" which we've quoted often.  He develops the
concept of great revolutionary moments in history, at which he
says, in his describing why the poet is the legislator of history
in moments of great crisis like this.  But he describes how in
such moments, the common person who normally doesn't have to
think about profound ideas, is suddenly capable of understanding
very profound concepts about man and nature — both about society
and about scientific reality of the Universe.  That's clearly
where we stand; where we've reached a point at which there's
nothing holding back any human being.  Perhaps he's been drugged;
perhaps he's been degraded; perhaps he's been left unemployed,
driven out of the workforce.  But nonetheless, it's a moment in
history in which everybody can, in fact, bring themselves up to
those creative capacities that they were blessed with by being a
human being.  To activate that now, in learning huge amounts of
things in a very short period of time, is possible and necessary.

   DENISTON:  I think that definitely defines our mission for
the next coming year — 2017.  This can be the year of the shift
of the United States under the leadership of what we're doing.
   So, I think we gave people a very good overview of where the
world stands today, and what the challenge is before us.  So,
unless Diane you want to have any additional ending comments, I
think we're coming to the conclusion of our discussion today.

   SARE:  I would just like to encourage people over this
holiday period, as we're about to enter a new year, which could
be a very different year, to protect your mind and not engage in
degraded cultural activities.  But take advantage of the LaRouche
PAC website, which has phenomenal educational material.  You can
choose to study the Four Laws of Mr. LaRouche; read the papers of
Alexander Hamilton; watch the video on Operation Phoenix — the
reconstruction of Syria.  There's just an abundance of material
here that, if you set your mind to it, to determine that between
now and the beginning of next year, to be a more ennobled human
being, and more able to articulate these profound ideas and
organize your friends and neighbors; then we'll be off to a very
good start.

   DENISTON:  With that, I think we have our mission defined
before us.  We thank you for joining us, and we will be back next
week for the next Friday webcast; and we'll be sure to be
delivering some material for you between now and then.  So, thank
you for joining us.

Medierne svirrer med historier om, at den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin hackede de amerikanske valg. Vi får kommentarer fra Lyndon LaRouche om hele denne larm, og vi hører fra et medlem af Efterretnings-veteraner for Sund Fornuft (VIPS), tidligere senator fra Alaska, Mike Gravel, om disse beskyldninger, samt om, hvad vore relationer med Rusland og Kina bør være. Dernæst bevæger vi os ud i rummet, med overvejelser over behovet for fælles, internationalt samarbejde om forsvar af Jorden mod sådanne kosmiske trusler som vildfarne asteroider og kometer, samt diskuterer den moralske forpligtelse over for fremskridt og videnskabelig opdagelse, der i sig har potentialet til at forene nationer på basis af et nyt grundlag for internationale relationer mod fælles, menneskelige mål!     

Engelsk udskrift:

We Need To Develop a Platform of Economic Activity that Makes Mankind an Active Force in the Solar System!

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, December 16, 2016

        JASON ROSS:  Hi there!  It's December 16, 2016, and you're
joining us for our Friday LaRouche PAC webcast.  We're recording
today at 3:30 in the afternoon.  My name is Jason Ross; I'll be
the host today.  I'm joined in the studio by Ben Deniston and via
Google Hang-outs by Kesha Rogers, member of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee.
        So, the world has presently undergone a tumultuous
sea-change in its orientation; away from the trans-Atlantic world
of wars, of economic stagnation.  We've seen this recently in
such votes as the Brexit vote in England, which was a repudiation
of that orientation; we've seen it in the election of Donald
Trump in the United States, which certainly a repudiation of what
Obama had represented and what Hillary was seen as being sure to
continue.  Instead, we're seeing something much better come about
in potential, which is the war avoidance strategy from Russia and
the economic cooperation being put forward by China through the
Belt and Road initiative; which is the Chinese policy initiative
which has come as a result of decades of organizing by Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche and their associates for a policy which they had
called the Eurasian Land-Bridge and which has now become the New
Silk Road, and as China calls it, the Belt and Road initiative
for cooperation on economic projects internationally.
        This isn't something that the trans-Atlantic financial and
military power is taking lying down.  Instead, the use of war, of
murder, of destabilization to prevent such cooperation has been
put into place; as we've seen with the disastrous military policy
of Obama, for example, and of George Bush before him.  Over the
past few weeks, this has taken a turn with an increasing drumbeat
of stories about Russia hacking the US election; of stories
coming out, not backed by hard evidence, but by hearsay and by
appealing to the words of authorities that we can presumably
trust, that Vladimir Putin threw the election to Donald Trump by
hacking the DNC and the emails of John Podesta, and I suppose
controlling the thoughts of everybody who voted for Donald Trump.
This has been going on since the summer; this is when the DNC
first announced that its email system had been compromised.  At
that time, in discussions around this, the Secretary General of
NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said "A severe cyber-attack may be
classified as a case for the alliance — NATO.  Then NATO can and
must react.  How?  That will depend on the severity of the
attack."  So, putting it on the table that cyber-attacks can be
met with military responses by NATO.  In October, the famous
James Clapper, who said that the US was not wittingly collecting
material on millions of Americans when asked by Senator Wyden,
Clapper — along with the head of Homeland Security — said in
October that "we believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of
these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could
have authorized these activities."
        Over the past weeks, we've seen front-page articles in the
{New York Times}, the {Washington Post}; for example, last Friday
the {Washington Post} without naming any sources or pointing to
any specific facts, wrote that "The CIA has concluded, in a
secret assessment, that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to
help Donald Trump win the Presidency, according to officials
briefed on the matter."  So, no named sources.  On Monday, plans
were announced to have the Electors of the Electoral College
briefed by the intelligence agencies on foreign interference in
our elections; basically trying to call into question the
election itself and the laws governing Electors.  Just yesterday,
on NPR's "Morning Edition", President Obama said, "I think there
is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the
integrity of our elections, that we need to take some action.
And we will; at a time and place of our choosing.  Some of it may
be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.  But Mr. Putin
is well aware of my feelings on this, because I spoke to him
directly about it."  That's what Obama had to say yesterday; he
spoke about it more at his final press conference at the White
House today.
        So, we reached Lyndon LaRouche for comment about this, this
morning; and I'd like to play for you his response:

        LYNDON LAROUCHE [recording]:  Those words in his mouth are,
as far as they're there, that's a threat to murder people; to
murder people of importance.  Because this is the way Obama's
stepfather taught him, and the way that Obama operated in killing
people on Tuesdays during that episode period.  So, the point is,
the threat is murder; and the best thing to do is say, publicly,
that the nations of the planet are now threatened by Obama's plan
for mass killing of people.  And that has to be said; because
that's what that guy has always done, since his stepfather
trained him.  Obama is a killer; and therefore, he's not going to
let things get by peacefully.  Obama will kill, unless somebody
stops him.  That's the reality here.  All the details and so
forth, and things of your back and forth, really don't amount to
much right now.  Many of the people who are leading the effort
of developing the world program don't need to be stirred up.
It's only Obama's crowd that are dangerous; and they will kill.
Therefore, it's important for those who are waiting for their
opportunity but are not going to ask for it; that's where the
problem comes in.  Once Obama, with his crowd, starts killing
people, that's going to be a bloody mess; and that's going to be
the kind of thing that threatens the people of the United States
and others right now.  He's made it clear; the signals are all
there.  Obama is still going for a kill against the people of the
United States and others.

        ROSS:  So, there you have LaRouche's views on the expected
response for Obama to take his usual course of killing to get his
way on things.
        Now, on Monday, the VIPS group — the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity — released a memo called "Allegations
of Hacking the Election Are Baseless", in which they gave their
reasons for coming to that assessment.  We interviewed a leading
member of the VIPS group, former Senator Mike Gravel — former
Senator from Alaska — to get his take on this; and we can play
that for you now.
        Mike Gravel is one of the signers of a letter that was
released by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity a
couple of days ago in response to the {New York Times} and the
general media tumult around Russia hacking the elections, Russia
denying Hillary Clinton the Presidency; that she deserved as a
gift from God.  So, I'd like to ask Senator Gravel, who is a
former adjutant top-secret control officer for the Communications
Intelligence Service, and a special agent of the
Counterintelligence Corps; and in addition being a former Senator
from Alaska.  Senator Gravel, could you tell our viewers what you
think of this notion that Russia hacked the election and
determined the outcome of our Presidential election here in the
US?

        SEN. MIKE GRAVEL: First off, it's ridiculous! It's
far-fetched ridiculous! We know — and here we can be grateful to
Edward Snowden — that the United States' capability, along with
their partners in Britain, have the capability of vacuuming up
{every single communication in the world}. That means that the
NSA has {all} of Hillary's emails; has {all} of the
communications between the US and Russia. And so for the
government to come out and say via the intelligence community,
that this is all instigated by Russia, is just part of the
demonization that we've seen taking place about Putin and Russia,
as part of a plan in the United States to have regime change in
Russia.  Believe it. We're seeing what's happened in Syria with
regime change, which is hundreds of thousands of people displaced
and killed. And now we know that it was the US that financed the
coup in Kiev, that unseated Ukraine's duly-elected President, who
was favorable to Russia; which, of course, is normal, since they
are neighbors and were essentially one country at one point. And
so we destabilized that, and that was admitted to by the Under
Secretary, Victoria Nuland, who's still there; was there under
Clinton. She admitted that the United States had spent $5 billion
over a 10-year period, to destabilize the government of Ukraine.
We succeeded.
        Then, of course, as a reaction to that, when Russia had to
continue its fresh-water port, which is Sevastopol, which became
under threat, they protected it by annexing — {re}-annexing,
let's put it that way — because it was part of Russia before. It
was given away by Nikita Khruschev several years ago.
        So, in point of fact, we have all the knowledge in the NSA.
Maybe the NSA doesn't talk to the FBI, or doesn't talk to the
CIA. I don't know. We've had this problem in 9/11, with nobody
connecting the dots; and may have that same problem right now.
But there's no question that the United States government does
more activity in the cyber world than {anybody else}. Russia is
probably a distant second. China is a distant second. But there's
nobody that holds a candle to what we're capable of doing.
        So, for our government to turn around — or {elements}
within our government let's put it that way — to turn around and
say that the Democratic Party was hacked and these hacks were
given to WikiLeaks who then released them; well, it seems odd
that the American government would have to be partners of
WikiLeaks to let this stuff out. What seems more likely, is that
somebody within the government, whether rogue or intent, saw this
as an ability to try and embarrass Russia; embarrass Putin, and
to save face for Hillary, who was promptly losing the election
with her skullduggery.
        As a result of this, we now see the {New York Times} — and
this should not surprise us — the {New York Times} and the
{Washington Post}, the two major national newspapers of note,
have done a lot of disinformation over the years, and I think
this is just one more instance of that disinformation coming out
of the {New York Times}. Keep in mind it's the {New York Times}
that ginned up the war to invade Iraq. You can take your credits
from there, as to what they're capable of doing when they put
their mind to it.
        So, that's essentially what I think is the case. Here too,
we have enough people with skills and knowledge, particularly
with our group, the former intelligence officers in the
government, very senior intelligence officers — because none of
us are spring chickens — to be able to question what has been
put out, and say that this doesn't seem accurate, and doesn't
make sense.

        ROSS:  So, that interview took place on Wednesday; the same
day the {New York Times} ran a front-page story — "Hacking the
Democrats: How Russia Honed Its Cyber-power and Trained It on an
American Election".  So, it's half the front page; four full
pages inside.  That same day, Sam Biddle at the {Intercept} put
out what had been amassed as all the public evidence that the
Russian government was behind the hack; pointing out that it's
not enough evidence.  Comparing it to earlier invasions, such as
when people working with the Chinese PLA hacked American
industrial firms, the Department of Justice put out a 56-page
report detailing all the specifics of how it happened; or when
North Korea hacked Sony, the evidence was put forward.  This
time, though, it's just the say-so of intelligence officials.
        All of this might look like it's a bunch of flailing around
to explain the electoral defeat by blaming anybody except for the
terrible candidate that the Democrats had, but it's much more
than this.  You have to remember, this isn't just domestic
theatrics; the case is being made for — as Obama put it — a
revenge attack or some kind of answer being made to Russia in
some way or another.  That is, threatening a nuclear-armed nation
over allegations that have not been backed up with any specific
evidence and frankly, of accusing Russia of things that the US
admits to doing all the time.  So, we asked Senator Gravel, what
was the intent; why the anti-Russian hysteria?  Is this just
about the election?  What's the push for this?  This is what he
had to say:

        SEN. GRAVEL: The intent is to sabotage the potential new
relationship [with Russia]. That's what the intent is. But here
too, I think Trump has his own areas of expertise in this regard.
And the new Secretary of State designate, Rex Tillison, he also
has a great deal of experience with the Russian leadership. And
so, as a result of that, they're going to dictate their own
policy.
        What we see right now, is the last regurgitation of a failed
policy, one that was very dangerous. In demonizing Putin the way
we've done in American media, Western media, and then turning
around and levelling the charge at them that they are trying to
destabilize Western and Eastern Europe, is ridiculous. I know of
no instance — and I would question anybody to quote an instance
— where Russia has threatened anybody in the last decade in
Eastern Europe and Europe proper. He sells them oil and gas; why
would he want to destabilize his customers? It makes no sense at
all. But to the neo-cons, who are intent on trying to protect the
hegemonic position of the United States in the world, {this makes
a lot of good sense for them}. They need to demonize Russia and
Putin, they need to demonize Xi and China, and assert our
military prowess in the world. We have a significant economic
position in the world, and these militarists feel they've got to
shore that position up, with militaristic policies that make no
sense at all.
        What they should be doing, is joining with China in the Silk
Road (One Belt, One Road) to raise the economic level of the
world to a higher level, and that would be the biggest
contribution we could make to the well-being of people around the
world, and to the issue of having world peace. That's what we
should be doing. But that's not what's happening. What's
happening is what we learned from the study of the Thucydides
Trap, where the power which is the global power — which is the
United States — is now facing the problem of an ascending power
like China moving in and surpassing us. Well, our egos may not be
able to take that, but certainly the people of the world could
take it; because it would mean greater economic activity, on the
part of China.
        So, it's all mixed up with this insanity that exists within
the American government, by a group of people called neo-cons.
They start with Cheney. They go from Cheney/Rumsfeld, that crowd,
into the present group of neo-cons. Here you have a person like
John Bolton, who's being considered for the Number Two man at the
State Department. I can't think of a person who's more idiotic,
as a neo-con, than John Bolton. I think Bush is just wantonly
picking people, hither and yon, to satisfy the conservatives.
        I think what they're going to find is when these
conservatives attempt to assert policy positions that are at
variance from Donald Trump, they're going to find they're
short-lived. He'll fire them. He's done that on TV and he's used
to that. "Give me the wrong advice, you're fired." That's what
you're going to see from a President who's going to be tweeting.
He's going to be tweeting his policies to the American people and
the world, all by himself, in his room, with his little computer.

        ROSS:  You know, if you have time for one more question, I'd
like to ask you about China, which you brought up.  One of
Trump's recent appointments was the former governor of Iowa,
which is a state that President Xi Jinping of China has close
ties to, having lived there for years, studying agriculture when
he was a lower-level figure in the government.  You brought up
the One Belt, One Road as a potential for the US to be involved
in.  It's currently something that, under the Obama
administration, the US has been opposing.  The US did not join
the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; the US urged other
nations not to join it as well.  What would you see as the proper
or the best — what should the US role in the world be?  What
should US relations with China in particular be with regard to
this program?

        SEN. GRAVEL: Well, the U.S. role should, first and
foremost, rests upon economic activity — raising the quality of
life for the people in the United States and for the people in
the world. That's the goal that China has set with respect to its
One Belt, One Road.
        We oppose that because we are refusing to accept the fact
that China is the ascendant power, and that within a couple
decades, will be the Number One economic power in the world; but
not the military power. If you just look at the amount of money
they're spending, they spend about 10% of what we do on our
defense posture. As a result of that, it demonstrates they have
no interest in becoming the military predominant power in the
world. They're ceding that to the United States.
        But that, of course, is not all that attractive, as you saw
in the Pivot to Asia. Thank God that we have a new President,
Duterte, in the Philippines, who is now creating a rapprochement
to China, which is the most enlightened thing they could do.
Their future is not with the United States; their future is as a
player in the economy of South Asia. That's what a rapprochement
with China portends — that both the Philippines will be the
recipient of extensive One Belt, One Road financing to raise the
standard of living in the Philippines, which used to be superior
to many of the other countries in Asia, and is now in the lower
brackets.
        My recommendation is the United States and the new
administration would be
Trump negotiating his "deal." And the deal he can negotiate is
that, yes, the United States will join with China, and will raise
the economic threshold of the world.

        ROSS:  That sounds like an excellent direction for the US.
I was wondering, do you have any other final thoughts you'd like
to leave for our viewers?

        SEN. GRAVEL: No, not at all, except to thank the LaRouche
organization for doing good work in advancing the cause of peace,
and in advancing the cause of economic growth. The only way we
going to bring about world peace is when we raise the standard of
living of the people throughout the world. Again, thank you for
the good work in that regard.

        ROSS:  Senator Mike Gravel, thank you very much.

        SEN. GRAVEL:  You're welcome.

        ROSS:  While keeping up front that assessment from LaRouche
that Obama the murderer is not going to take this transition,
take this shift lying down, and the use of the Russian hacking
business as an opportunity from their perspective to create
conflict, let's switch gears and discuss more about what that
better future ought to be; what our positive policy is.  I'd like
to turn it over now to Ben Deniston.

        BEN DENISTON:  Thanks, Jason.  This should serve as a useful
counterpoint, I think, to everything we were just discussing
here.  In the recent weeks, we've had some discussions with
Lyndon LaRouche about the prospect of bringing the principle of
the SDI — Strategic Defense Initiative, or in its modern form,
the Strategic Defense of Earth; bringing that principle back onto
the table in this potential new strategic environment where,
assuming Obama doesn't get his way and doesn't start
thermonuclear war before the next President even has a chance to
take power, we could see a new alliance emerging between the
United States, Russia, and China.  And setting aside this insane
geopolitical framework of viewing these nations as our
adversaries and doing everything we can to undermine their growth
and development and rise to world prominence.  Mr. LaRouche was
very supportive of this being a time in which the Strategic
Defense of Earth policy can come back as a real pillar of a new
security architecture for the planet; which was also a focus that
Helga Zepp-LaRouche had when we were discussing it with her
earlier in the week as well.  This can be a critical pillar for
how the security, the defense, the military institutions of
nations in this new era, coming together and cooperating on the
new challenges, the common threats and issues that face all
nations.  The reason why I say this is a principle, is because
we're in a new — I would really say for the past couple of
generations — a new historical phase for mankind in this
thermonuclear age.  We've reached the point where if we continue
a geopolitical, imperial policy where a leading power tries to
maintain control at all costs, you're at the point where if that
goes to full-scale war as it has in past periods, past centuries,
you're talking about the annihilation of mankind.  You're talking
about a new phase of mankind, where full-blown warfare now has
the ability to wipe out civilization as we know it.  That's been
an historically new environment that mankind has been dealing
with in the past generations.  Now, we're seeing the potential
for a build-up around that kind of war to be put off the table;
put on the back burner around a new administration.  But what
we're talking about with this Strategic Defense of Earth and in
the context of the broader exploration of space, the joint
development of space which Kesha will have some comments on in a
little bit.  This needs to become a central positive issue that
we rally nations around; it can't just become "Let's not have war
or conflict because it's bad"; but "Let's have a positive,
truthful conception — a real principle — of what are the issues
that face all nations together, that we should be rallying around
in cooperation."
        That was LaRouche's SDI originally; {LaRouche's SDI}, not
necessarily the program that got implemented to some degree.  But
LaRouche's idea of the SDI, which was a joint open cooperative
program with the Soviet Union; sharing technologies and
capabilities, and jointly developing new capabilities to — as
Reagan said — "render the threat of thermonuclear weapons
impotent and obsolete."  We'd actually be working with the
Soviets to do this; and Mr. LaRouche recruited Dr. Edward Teller,
President Reagan around this idea.  These were not hippie,
flower-wielding peaceniks; these are not people that just ran
around saying "No war.  War is bad."  These are pretty serious,
staunch conservative Cold Warriors to a certain degree; but they
recognized the truthful validity of what LaRouche was developing
around his idea of the SDI.  Mankind had reached a point where we
needed positive, collaborative, joint development of these kinds
of capabilities for the common aims of nations.  Mr. LaRouche
came incredibly close, in collaboration with Reagan, Teller, and
others, to really overturning the strategic framework back in the
'80s with that program.
        But that hasn't really gone away.  We've discussed this on
shows in the past, but it's worth just reminding people that in
the '90s, right in the aftermath of the attempt to get the full
SDI program, there was kind of a re-emergence of the same idea
around the defense of Earth.  The recognition at that time — in
the early '90s — that the Earth is actually incredibly
vulnerable to asteroid strikes, comet strikes; and we should
actually be looking at what the heck we can do on this planet to
defend the planet from these kinds of potential disasters.  That
was something that Dr. Edward Teller, in direct collaboration
with other veterans of the SDI and their direct counterparts in
Russia, took up as a major focus in the '90s.  You had a whole
series of conferences and investigations, and proposals really,
for the same type of joint open cooperation between the defense
institutions and related institutions in the United States and
Russia for cooperation around this common threat of the defense
of Earth from not only missiles, but missiles coming from the
Solar System; these asteroids.  Unfortunately, it didn't fully go
through at the time.  We had the continuation of this
geopolitical framework, which has obviously continued through
Bush and now Obama.  But this issue has come back up again.  It
was in 2012 that the Russians refloated the offer, and it was
named the Strategic Defense of Earth in some of the news
coverage.  Direct, explicit opposition to the US and NATO
advancing their missile defense systems towards Russia's borders
into Eastern Europe.  They said, why don't we have a joint
cooperative program for a Strategic Defense of Earth against the
threats of asteroids and related issues?  Now, today, again with
the prospect of a real shift in the United States, assuming we
can contain Obama and he doesn't return to his murderous streak
and orientation as Mr. LaRouche has warned, we could actually see
this principle emerge and become a central pillar of a new
historical era today.
        So, we thought it would be appropriate today, kind of as a
counterpoint, to start to put some of this issue back on the
table.  I wanted to start just by illustrating some of what these
threats are; what we're facing in terms of the threats to the
Earth from these objects in our Solar System.  If we go to the
slideshow, we have a first graphic [Fig. 1] illustrating just the
reality that these impacts happen; and they happen quite frankly
a lot more frequently than people probably tend to realize.  In
the animation, you can see the famous, very well-documented,
surprise Chelyabinsk impact over Russia.  Which we had no warning
about; we did not know was coming.  This frankly very small
asteroid came in and impacted with such a high speed — which is
characteristic of all of these collisions in the Solar System.  A
lot of the energy release is due to the fact that these speeds
are incredibly fast.  When you get an impact of two orbiting
bodies in the Solar System, you tend to get massive energy
releases, explosions.  Here you had a very small object
intersecting the Earth; slamming into the atmosphere and
releasing the energy of a small nuclear explosion as it hit.
This, I think, awakened a lot of the world to the reality that
these kinds of things do happen, and we have no defense.  One, we
didn't even see this one coming; and two, if we had seen it
coming, we have no demonstrated, developed capability to defend
the Earth from these kinds of challenges.  I'd like to point
people to on this graphic additionally, from some data that's
been released in the relatively recent period, we can see in this
map of the world, an illustration of many smaller meteor impacts
into the atmosphere that have occurred just between 1994 and
2013.  The Chelyabinsk impact was the largest in this time range;
these all were smaller than the Chelyabinsk impact, but these
were still large explosions in the upper atmosphere.  You can see
that they've painted the entire Earth over the course of this
time period; just to illustrate the fact that these impacts are
constantly occurring.
        Just to give another sense of defending the Earth from these
asteroids, here is a schematic of the inner Solar System [Fig.
2].  You can see Jupiter's orbit as the farthest orbit out there;
obviously then comes Mars, and Earth's orbit is a little bit
darker than the other orbits.  All of these blue lines —
assuming you have high resolution to see the details of this
visual — this blue haze you might see is actually composed of
over 1400 orbits of asteroids that are specifically classified as
particularly hazardous asteroids.  That is, asteroids whose
orbits cross the Earth's orbit at some point and create the
potential for there to be an intersection where the asteroid is
at the intersection at the same time as the Earth, and you have
an impact, a collision.  You can see here how crowded the inner
Solar System is.
        Fortunately, among these that we know of, none of these are
expected to hit in the next century or any foreseeable timeframe
as far as we know.  This alone looks pretty dense, pretty packed
in the inner Solar System here.  What people should really get
their mind around is, this is a tiny fraction of what we expect
to be out there.
        We can see here, if we take a little bit more complicated
graphic [Fig. 3] and break it down, there are literally hundreds
of thousands to millions of asteroids of the size of the
Chelyabinsk meteor or bigger that we have not discovered.  Based
on our understanding of the distribution of asteroids of
different sizes, we know that they're out there; we just don't
where they are.  We don't know which ones might impact, which
ones might not.  We don't know when the impacts would be.
        Here is a depiction [Fig. 4], you can see the relationship
between, on the horizontal axis in a logarithmic scale, different
sizes of near-Earth asteroids.  On the far right, you can see the
very large ones in the range of kilometers across in diameter,
all the way down to sizes of meters.  On the vertical axis, you
can see the expected estimates of the distribution, the number,
of near-Earth asteroids of those sizes.  You can see for the very
large ones, we believe there are not very many; but as you start
to get to smaller sizes, you get a geometric growth in the number
of near-Earth asteroids of these different sizes.  You can also
see depicted the scale of the damage that would be inflicted on
the Earth if it were to hit over an unlucky location.  The
Chelyabinsk impact being pretty much the smallest size that would
not — kind of representing a lower limit on what doesn't do huge
amounts of damage.  But if it were just a little bigger, that
could have caused really catastrophic effects for Chelyabinsk,
Russia — that region.  In this range, what people sometimes call
a "city-killer" range; the size of object that would release the
energy of a large thermonuclear explosion, we've discovered maybe
1% of the near-Earth asteroids in this size range.
        While NASA has done a good job of finding and discovering a
number of the larger objects which can do damage over a large
fraction of the Earth if not effect the entirety of the Earth;
we've found a good number of those for the asteroids in
particular.  But as you start to go to these smaller sizes, we've
barely scratched the surface.  As dense as you think this
previous graphic is in terms of the number of bodies out there,
there are orders of magnitude more that could do serious damage
that we just don't know about.  Again, the first step is knowing
where they are and when they might hit; the second step is
actually having a defense capability.  We've not really done
anything besides general studies and theoretical investigations
on that front.  So, this is still an open, unanswered challenge.
But this is kind of just the first step in a real defense of the
planet Earth from these types of cosmic challenges.  As people
are probably aware, you also have the issue of comets.  This
really grabbed people's attention in the mid '90s when mankind
sat on the planet Earth, looked to Jupiter, and watched a massive
comet that had broken apart into a series of fragments as you can
see in the upper graphic [Fig. 5] there, collide with Jupiter.
In the moving animation, you see the explosion of one of these
fragments as it impacted Jupiter's surface.  The other bright
object is one of Jupiter's moons; but this is an image in the
infrared where you can see the effects of these energetic types
of activities more clearly.  In the purple image, you can clearly
see the effects of the impact on the surface of Jupiter after the
impact had occurred.  These impacts let marks the size of the
planet Earth on Jupiter's surface.
        So, this was a big wake-up call in the mid '90s.  This was
comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was one of the designations for it.
Before this period, it wasn't widely accepting that we had to
think about these types of impacts.  When this occurred and they
found this stream of comet fragments about a year before it
actually hit; they looked at its orbit and said, "Wow!  This is
going hit Jupiter."  So, everyone was sitting there watching, as
this thing went up.  We had the Hubble telescope, all these
telescopes pointing; we saw this thing as well as we could from
all over the world.  This really was a major wake-up call to the
fact that these impacts really do occur.  They can come from
asteroids, which you saw in the illustration of the inner Solar
System, but they can also come from comets; which represents a
qualitatively different challenge, as we'll see in the next
animation. [Fig. 6]
        This should give you a sense of this greater, more difficult
challenge posed by comets.  This is a particular case of a comet
name C1996B2; and this was discovered in January 31, 1996.
That's when we first knew this comet even existed.  As you can
see in the animation which is based directly off of the orbital
data from NASA, we discovered this comet at the beginning of this
animation when it was just out past the orbit of Mars.  Within
two months, it made a close pass by the Earth.  We had no idea it
was out there until two months before it makes of close pass by
the Earth.  Whereas the object that hit over Russia — the
Chelyabinsk impact — was measured at about 20 meters in
diameter; this object is estimated to be about 5 kilometers in
diameter.  That's about half the diameter of the comet that's
believed to have taken out the dinosaurs.  As we let the
animation play out, we see something very interesting that's
characteristic of this distinct nature of the challenge of
comets.  Look at its orbit.  The circular orbits you see here are
the outer planets; that's Neptune's orbit.  So, this has an
extremely elliptical orbit that takes it far out into the depths
of the Solar System.  When these comets are out there in the far
reaches of the Solar System, they're incredibly difficult to see.
So, we only see them when they're starting to come into the inner
Solar System.  Again, as this case demonstrated, we saw this one
two months before it made a close pass.  If that had been on an
impact trajectory, there would have been nothing we could have
done.  When we're talking about that size of an object with these
comets, we're talking about something that can wipe out
civilization.  That is a global catastrophic impact, an object of
that size.  We're not talking about the local scale damage of the
asteroids we were talking about a second ago; we're talking about
catastrophic effects across the whole planet.
        So, this is another depiction [Fig. 7] of where we think
these bodies are.  Based on the orbits of these comets —
sometimes technically referred to as long period comets; it's
believed that many of these comets reside in the farthest
outreaches of the Solar System.  Far, far beyond the outer
planets.  This is a logarithmic scale, so you can see that this
distribution of comets — sometimes referred to as the Oort Cloud
— begins over tens of times past where Voyager has currently
reached, and extends tens times farther than that.  We're talking
about the very outskirts of the gravitational hold of the Sun.
It's believed, again, we haven't seen this region — but based on
the orbits of comets we see coming in just in the short time
period mankind has been able to make these observations — it's
believed that this is a very large population of bodies out in
this outer region of the Solar System.  Because the gravitational
effect of the Sun is so weak out there, it doesn't take much to
perturb their orbits and potentially send some into the inner
Solar System.  Again, with our current capabilities, we're
creating scenarios when we only see them months, maybe if we're
lucky a few years, before an impact.  Certainly not enough time
to do anything about it with our current capabilities.
        Now, I just want to end on kind of an interesting note, that
there are some studies — although the data is limited —
indicating there might be certain cyclical natures to these large
comet impacts.  Some people even believe it could relate to how
the Solar System moves through the galaxy; which raises some very
interesting questions about how this outer region of comets could
get perturbed on a periodic basis and send in what they call
"showers" — cometary showers of many comets coming into the
inner Solar System, creating a scenario where it's much more
likely that Earth or the other planets might get hit with an
impact as Jupiter got hit in the '90s.
        I think it's just worth noting that one of the leading
astronomers in this whole field, Eugene Shoemaker, who
unfortunately passed away in the late '90s, had pioneered much of
the work in this field.  And for whom this comet that impact
Jupiter is named; him and his wife, who discovered it together.
He himself believed that it is likely that we are currently in
the period of a comet shower; that was something that he
published in the late '90s.  Based upon the types of crater
records and other evidence, he said it's not certain, but it
could be the case that we're currently in the middle of what on a
human time scale is a long period in which there's an increased
frequency of cometary entries into the inner Solar System and an
increased likelihood of impacts occurring.  Whether this directly
accounts for his hypothesis or not, it was only last year that we
found out that a relatively dim star had actually passed through
the Oort Cloud about 70,000 years ago; which is one of the kinds
of scenarios that can perturb many of these bodies.  Again, since
these things are so far away, it can take 70,000 years for these
things to reach the inner Solar System.  The point is, this is
still incredibly preliminary knowledge of this region — of the
Oort Cloud; of the region between the Oort Cloud and the inner
Solar System.  There could be a long period comet that's only ten
years out, that's been travelling for 50,000 years from the Oort
Cloud, or even longer; and it's now only ten years away and it's
on a direct impact course with the Earth, and we wouldn't even
know.  It could be just in the outskirts of the outer planets
region of the Solar System; not even in this far, far depths
region.  Again, we're talking about things that can devastate
civilization completely, globally as we know it.
        This discovery of this dim star passing through the Oort
Cloud, we just found that out a year ago.  How many other bodies
are out there that might have had close passes in the
geologically recent past that could be doing similar effects?
The point is, our knowledge is incredibly miniscule for something
that threatens the entire planet; and our defense capability
doesn't exist.  This typifies just one of the issues; and I think
there's a lot more we're going to get into in coming shows.  But
this typifies one of the issues that is front and center for this
principle of the SDI, the SDE to re-emerge and center around.
These are threats that don't recognize national borders; they
don't recognize cultural boundaries.  They challenge the entire
planet and they're outside of our current capabilities.  If we're
going to have a sane and principled relationship for leading
nations in the planet, then it has to return to these kinds of
challenges.  Addressing these common aims and threats as Dr.
Edward Teller had spoken of, as Mr. LaRouche put on the table
with this whole SDI proposal.
        The point that I think we should really end on, and maybe
discuss a little bit in conclusion, is that — and this is
something that we've been discussing with Mr. LaRouche over the
recent weeks — this isn't a separate, isolated issue.  This is
part of mankind becoming a Solar System species.  This is part of
mankind expanding to a new level, developing a platform of
economic activity that makes mankind a presence, an active force
in the Solar System.  We can come up with specific scenarios
where you can deflect one asteroid or maybe a particular
telescope that can help us see some of these things; and we
should be discussing and looking at those things.  But the
fundamental issue is, how do we expand mankind into the Solar
System as a much more active and capable presence where we can
handle these kinds of challenges?  How do we engage other nations
in cooperation and collaboration, instead of hiding our
technology and hiding our capabilities because we want to have a
leg up over China or Russia?  How do we jointly develop the
fundamental science and technologies mankind needs to defend the
planet Earth in an open, cooperative way?
        If we're going to seriously, actually get into that, Mr.
LaRouche has been emphatic; that takes us right to the work of
Krafft Ehricke, his collaboration with Krafft Ehricke, and these
early space pioneers who really worked out the fundamental
principles of mankind's development of the Solar System.  I think
that is fully integrated with this Strategic Defense of Earth
perspective.  I think Kesha might have more to say, but that's
going to be a critical part of this new space paradigm that we've
been discussing in recent weeks.

        KESHA ROGERS:  Very good.  I wanted to go back and really
take up this conception of what it really means to advance the
cause for peace.  Because first of all, we have to end the
perpetuation and acceptance of a big lie, a murderous lie that
human beings cannot have access to that which is truthful.  This
is what the fight really is.  When you're talking about the
murderous policy of Obama, it's not a matter of opinion or
whether or not you have a belief or non-belief, or like or
dislike this President.  This President is acting on behalf of
the same factions which are indicative of what Bertrand Russell
actually represented.  He set back the cause of human progress in
society.  To say that if you make enough people believe that snow
is black, or you perpetuate a lie enough; then enough people will
believe it.  But now, we're seeing that that's not working
anymore.  That the cause that Bertrand Russell and those who were
against the genius of Albert Einstein that mankind can have
access to that which is truthful, that system is being destroyed;
it's losing out, and there is a new era, a new system of mankind
emerging that is being represented by what the United States has
the potential to become if we break with the lies that have been
perpetuated and say, "No more!  Obama must be thrown in jail
now."  Anybody who's pushing this policy that we have to be at
odds with nations such as Russia and China, are continuing to set
back the progress of mankind.  This is not just about waiting for
the next election and saying OK, well we dealt with Obama and
hopefully we can survive this next few weeks or so.  The question
is, that people who continue to allow for this murderous policy
to dominate the thinking and the direction of our nation, cannot
be tolerated.
        I think it's important to really look at what it is that
this President has done in setting back the course of human
progress by his dismantling and attacks on the manned space
program.  What you're really dealing with right now is that we
have to look at the advancement of the space program as a new
evolutionary leap in the progress of mankind.  To look at the
advancement of the space program not just as a discretionary
budgetary matter for internal US relations, but as Mr. LaRouche
said at the onset of this election when Mr. Trump was elected,
you now have a new system of international relations emerging.
The United States has to join with that.
        But when you're talking about advancing the cause of peace,
it's expressive of the fight that Mr. LaRouche, his wife Helga,
and this organization have been advancing and leading for a very
long time.  Then you talk about Mr. LaRouche's policy of the
Strategic Defense Initiative; a lot of people tried to lower that
to a scale of just missile defense and defense of nations acting
against the appearance of nuclear weapons from other nations, or
just on a small scale.  But what you're talking about, is the
advancement of an evolutionary leap in the progress of mankind
throughout the Solar System, throughout the Universe.  And
mankind understanding how to come together for a common aim of
mankind; to submit to the development of the whole of the Solar
System, which is going to increase our understanding of how to
advance mankind both here on Earth and off the planet.  This is
what has been missing.  The way people think about human economy,
the way people think about relationships to the advancement of
mankind in the Universe, is based on these small scale relations;
but it has to be completely changed at this point in time.  What
Krafft Ehricke discussed in terms of an extraterrestrial
imperative in his third law, was really taking the lid off on
human progress; that mankind was an expression of unlimited
potential.  He says in that third law that by expanding through
the Universe, man fulfills his destiny as an element of life
endowed with the power of Reason and the wisdom of moral law
within himself.
        The problem is that we have lost that sense of moral law
within mankind to act for the betterment of human beings and
human progress.  And have lost that power of Reason because we
refuse to fight for that which is truthful.  That has to end;
that has to be stopped now.  I think the fight going forward, has
to be centered around this basis; that we are going to uplift
human society out of the depths of despair, and actually organize
around a new commitment to human progress that has been missing
for far too long.
        I just wanted to say that because I think that we are on the
verge of a new era for mankind right now, but people have to get
a sense of it.  It's not going to happen unless you fight for it;
unless you fight to bring it into existence.  The starting point
of that is that we have to develop a new system of international
relations, working with Russia, with China; not as enemies, but
working together to end this threat to human progress that has
been going on for far too long.

        ROSS:   Absolutely!  I think that ties it also with that
other major leap that's needed in humanity of Lyndon LaRouche's
fourth law of his "Four Laws to Save the USA Now"; which is the
breakthrough to get fusion power.  Like this need for adopting a
platform that allows us to have a control over space, that let's
us really have this region of the Solar System; something that's
within our power, within our reach, within our ability to
interact with and intervene on if something is about to kill us
all.  The essential to make that happen is fusion power.  No
matter how efficient a windmill you design, or no matter what
breakthroughs they make in building solar panels, those aren't
ever going to be at all useful for moving into space.  You're not
going to go to Mars with a windmill.  What we are going to do
that's going to transform our relationship to nature — I think
this idea that we must grow; it's the characteristic of the human
species, this moral law that you spoke of, Kesha.  This law that
we have to answer to is that it's been the nature of the Universe
to develop; we've seen it with the creation of the Solar System.
We've seen it with the development of life on this planet into
increasingly higher forms; not in a purely qualitative way, but
also through some specific quantitative measures adopted by
Vladimir Vernadsky, for example.  Where he looked at the increase
of concentration of energy in forms of life; where he looked at
the increasing range of chemical elements that were used by life;
an increasing power and density of energy flow through the
biosphere.  That's really up to us at this point.  The Universe,
in a real way, depends upon us for those next levels of
development that are the fruits of our minds.  To create things
in nature that have never happened before.  Just like
multi-cellular life, that was a new thing that hadn't happened
before; chlorophyll — life going extraterrestrial to get the
power of the Sun to feed on.  That was something that hadn't been
seen before.  Now, it's the kinds of things that we do:
electromagnetism; the breakthroughs that we have available to us
with nuclear science, with fusion power.  This is the calling
that we have to respond to; this is something that we can come to
in resonance with other nations around the planet and really
cooperate on as a real basis for international relations.  Not
maintaining supremacy, or maintaining the power of a bloc; but
having a serious mission that is common to all people to
collaborate on and to move forward.

        DENISTON:  It's maybe a minor point relative to everything,
but I couldn't help noticing when Mr. Gravel mentioned that we
spent $5 billion over 10 years to destabilize Ukraine; that's
more per year than our fusion budget by a fair amount.  That's
$500 million a year; our fusion budget for magnetic confinement
has been significantly less than that.  Just in terms of a
particular reflection of the totality; we're spending more to
overthrow Ukraine, to mess with Russia, than we're spending on
what could be infinite power for mankind for centuries to come.

        ROSS:  Priorities, huh?

        DENISTON:  Yeah.

        ROSS:  All right.  I think that was a good discussion; we
hit on a lot of topics today.  I think if we keep ourselves
focussed on getting these Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche
implemented and preventing the hullaballoo now around this
Russian hacking, etc.  In these last periods of the current
administration, they're attempting to create some sort of
possibly irreversible conflict with Russia; that has to be
stopped, and the foundation for a new system of cooperation among
nations and people has to be put into place.  That's something
that we're very uniquely situated to do.  So, I look forward to
your help in making that a possibility and seeing you next time
on larouchepac.com.  Good bye.

Matthew 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.

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast November 18, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Dette er ikke noget, der kun er vigtigt for den nationale scene; men dette er i færd med at udforme et paradigmeskifte, som i øjeblikket finder sted på den internationale scene. For to uger siden så vi det dramatiske skift, hvor Filippinerne, med præsident Dutertes besøg i Kina, ændrede sin kurs til at komme på linje med Kinas; hvor han siger, at han nu ændrer sit lands kurs i overensstemmelse med den ideologiske strømning i de eurasiske, allierede lande, der nu er i færd med at skabe et nyt, økonomisk paradigme. Vi så dette meget tydeligt i en tale, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin holdt ved Valdai-diskussionsklubbens årlige sammentræf 2016 i Sotji, Rusland. Vi vil gå nærmere i detaljer med dette, men Putins understregninger er meget klare, og jeg mener, at de omfatter nogle af de spørgsmål, vi vil diskutere i aften. For det første, faren ved NATO’s/Obamas holdning, der nu har bragt os i farlig nærhed af et udbrud af Tredje Verdenskrig; en krig, som ingen på den russiske side søger, som Putin gjorde det meget klart. Og ligeledes det presserende nødvendige, totalt nye, økonomiske paradigme for at slå bro over svælget mellem et lille antal meget rige Wall Street-spekulanter, og et meget stort antal fattigdomsramte, ikke alene mennesker, men hele nationer; og desuden, at bringe teknologisk fremskridt til alle og gøre dette til paradigmet for relationer nationerne imellem.

Matthew Ogden: Jeg tror, vi kan sige, at vi befinder os ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt i verdenshistorien, og ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt for vores nation. I løbet af de seneste uger har vi, som I har kunnet følge på LaRouchePAC’s webside, mobiliseret en national mobilisering for at sætte hr. Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske program på dagsordenen, under betegnelsen ’De Fire Hovedlove; de Fire Nye Love til USA’s økonomiske genrejsning’, og disse love er baseret på Alexander Hamiltons fundamentale principper og hans arbejde med at etablere en videnskab om økonomi, der opbyggede USA. Vi har lanceret en kampagneside for mobilisering, og jeg vil direkte fremhæve, at det er vores dagsorden at bringe det amerikanske folk ind i denne mobilisering for at gøre jeres forståelse af, hvad det er for økonomiske principper, som Hamilton skabte, dybere; og hvad det er, som hr. LaRouche har inkorporeret i disse Fire Love.

Dette er ikke noget, der kun er vigtigt for den nationale scene; men dette er i færd med at udforme et paradigmeskifte, som i øjeblikket finder sted på den internationale scene. For to uger siden så vi det dramatiske skift, hvor Filippinerne, med præsident Dutertes besøg i Kina, ændrede sin kurs til at komme på linje med Kinas; hvor han siger, at han nu ændrer sit lands kurs i overensstemmelse med den ideologiske strømning i de eurasiske, allierede lande, der nu er i færd med at skabe et nyt, økonomisk paradigme. Vi så dette meget tydeligt i en tale, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin holdt ved Valdai-diskussionsklubbens årlige sammentræf 2016 i Sotji, Rusland. Vi vil gå nærmere i detaljer med dette, men Putins understregninger er meget klare, og jeg mener, at de omfatter nogle af de spørgsmål, vi vil diskutere i aften. For det første, faren ved NATO’s/Obamas holdning, der nu har bragt os i farlig nærhed af et udbrud af Tredje Verdenskrig; en krig, som ingen på den russiske side søger, som Putin gjorde det meget klart. Og ligeledes det presserende nødvendige, totalt nye, økonomiske paradigme for at slå bro over svælget mellem et lille antal meget rige Wall Street-spekulanter, og et meget stort antal fattigdomsramte, ikke alene mennesker, men hele nationer; og desuden, at bringe teknologisk fremskridt til alle og gøre dette til paradigmet for relationer nationerne imellem.

Vi vil komme ind på disse spørgsmål, men først og fremmest spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall; nødvendigheden af at nedlukke det, der nu tydeligvis er det bankerotte Wall Street-regime, og spørgsmålet om, hvad der nødvendigvis må efterfølge denne nedlukning. De Fire Love efter Hamiltons principper, som hr. LaRouche har udarbejdet, er nu helt klart på dagsordenen, mener jeg. Jeg vil bede Jeffrey Steinberg lægge ud med en kort briefing om nogle af de spørgsmål, som vi har drøftet med hr. LaRouche i løbet af de seneste 24 timer, og dernæst kan vi fortsætte med en diskussion over implikationerne af disse udviklinger.

Jeffrey Steinberg: Der er fire eller fem ting, som jeg gerne vil sætte fokus på mht. signifikante, nye udviklinger blot siden sidste fredags webcast. For det første, som Matt netop påpegede, så holdt præsident Putin en meget magtfuld tale under den afsluttende session af Valdai-konferencen, der fandt sted i denne uge i Sotji, Rusland. Tilstede var repræsentanter fra hele verden, inkl. i hvert fald flere folk fra Kina. Jeg mener, at det, som præsident Putin gjorde, ikke så meget var at bryde ny jord, som det var at gøre det meget klart, at Rusland, og han selv, fuldt ud har helliget sig til at gå fremefter med samarbejdet med Kina og de andre BRIKS-lande om at virkeliggøre et nyt paradigme for relationerne nationalstaterne imellem. Dette nye paradigme er baseret på en politik for klar forebyggelse af krig, opbygget omkring kooperative økonomiske investeringer i store projekter – inklusive betydelige fremskridt inden for videnskab, som inkluderer fremme af menneskets herredømme over rummet. På en vis måde forstærkede Putin det, vi så på BRIKS-topmødet for statsoverhoveder for nylig i Goa, Indien. Rusland er helt med her, og han pointerede meget klart, at det vestlige finanssystems kollaps er den hovedfaktor, der driver verden hen imod en ekstraordinært farlig situation, hvor der kunne komme et udbrud af en verdenskrig – endda en atomar verdenskrig – som følge af provokerende handlinger, der er affødt af desperation. Jeg mener, at dette er et af de elementer af det, der virkelig er forandret i løbet af denne seneste uge.

Jeg har tilbragt de seneste 48 timer – onsdag og torsdag i denne uge – med at deltage i en årlig konference i Washington, D.C., i det Nationale Råd for Amerikansk-arabiske Relationer. Der var omkring 1000 mennesker til stede dér, og der var stort fremmøde fra det diplomatiske samfund, især det arabiske, diplomatiske samfund; og fra den amerikanske erhvervssektor, der handler med Golfstaterne. Ved slutningen af konferencen, torsdag aften, var der en afsluttende hovedtale af general David Petraeus – tidligere chef for Centralkommandoen, og tidligere direktør for CIA. Han fremlagde en række meget dristige forslag, som desværre meget præcist faldt i tråd med den slags ting, vi har set komme fra Hillary Clinton og Clinton-kampagnen i hele denne præsidentvalgkamp. Det, som general Petraeus krævede, var både oprettelsen af sikkerhedszoner på suverænt, syrisk territorium, skabelsen af en flyveforbudszone over en stor del af syrisk territorium, og han opfordrede til, at USA skulle bruge både sø- og landbaserede krydsermissiler til at tilintetgøre det syriske luftvåben. Se, han sagde meget henkastet, at dette selvfølgelig fremkalder faren for en krig med Rusland; men det fejede han til side og sagde, at Vladimir Putin responderer til magt, og responderer til alvorlige trusler om magtanvendelse. Putin vil derfor, konfronteret med denne form for handlinger, trække sig, sagde Petraeus.

Vi taler her om, at amerikanske og russiske aktiver fra luftvåbnene, der engagerer sig på en meget afgrænset skueplads for handling, hvor vi hidtil har undgået en betydelig hændelse, der kunne have ført til generel krig, pga. en aftale om dekonfliktion (fælles forholdsregler, der skal sikre, at en optrapning pga. fejlberegninger eller misforståelser ikke finder sted, -red.), som heldigvis stadig er i kraft mellem den amerikanskledede koalition på den ene side, og Rusland på den anden. Men det, der her foreslås, er en total omstødelse af denne politik. Vi ved, at dette er præcis, hvad Hillary Clinton kræver i sine egne taler i præsidentkampagnen. Der har været nylige undersøgelser, fremlagt på vegne af Clinton-kampagnen af Centret for en Ny Amerikansk Sikkerhed og Centret for Amerikansk Fremgang, der udtrykker noget nær den samme ekstremistiske holdning, som general Petraeus udtrykker i sine udtalelser. Faren for krig kan slet ikke undervurderes; og faktum er, at præsident Putin – i sin Valdai-tale – var meget klar omkring denne fare.

Se, med hensyn til det overordnede spørgsmål om, hvor umiddelbart forestående, nedsmeltningen af det transatlantiske finanssystem er, så sidder alle virkelig på kanten af deres stol over det faktum, at det amerikanske Justitsministerium og Deutsche Bank stadig befinder sig i en afparering frem og tilbage og endnu ikke er nået frem til en beslutning omkring den foreslåede bøde på 14 mia. euro for Deutsche Banks kriminelle aktivitet under krisen omkring værdipapirer med sikkerhed i ejendomspapirer, som var forløber for krisen med nedsmeltningen i 2008. Deutsche Bank befinder sig på randen af kollaps; dette anerkendes bredt. De førende, tyske finansmedier, med Handelsblatt i spidsen, skriver om dette stort set hver eneste dag. Vi ved, at det italienske banksystem også befinder sig på randen af nedsmeltning, med lån, der ikke giver afkast (insolvente lån), til nominelt 360 mia. euro på regnskaberne i de store, italienske banker. Så det er absolut sandt, at vi befinder os på den yderste kant af en potentiel finansiel nedsmeltning, der er langt værre end Lehman Brothers i 2008.

Det er i denne sammenhæng, at, mener jeg, det er meget vigtigt at mærke sig den kendsgerning, at Donald Trump tidligere på ugen holdt en tale i Charlotte, North Carolina, hvor han udtrykkeligt krævede, at man implementerede en Glass-Steagall for det 21. århundrede. Han advarede også om, at, hvis Hillary Clinton bliver valgt til præsident, vokser chancerne for, at vi meget snart vil stå over for Tredje Verdenskrig, enormt; og han nævnte begivenhederne i Syrien, som jeg allerede har omtalt, som en slags hovedelement i denne situation. Mange mennesker klør sig i hovedet og siger, hvor kom dette fra, mht., at Trump pludselig går ind for Glass-Steagall? Det er kun 12 dage før præsidentvalget, at han kommer med denne tale.

Jeg fik mulighed for at tale med nogen, der har været involveret i Washington-politik som en slags insider i meget lang tid; og det var hans anskuelse, at han havde forventet, at noget i denne retning ville komme fra Trump-kampagnen, fra Donald Trump. Det kunne have været mere effektivt, hvis det var sket i september, men hvad enten han er opportunistisk, eller han reelt mener det alvorligt, så er det en kendsgerning, at spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall nu er blevet gen-indsprøjtet i præsidentvalget i en afgørende form for nedtælling til den 8. november. Og der er faktisk ingen ulemper forbundet med dette; uanset, hvad resultatet af valget bliver, så er Glass-Steagall et afgørende, politisk spørgsmål, der omgående må implementeres. Det er første skridt i hr. LaRouches Fire Hovedlove, udtrykkeligt baseret på de fire hovedrapporter til Kongressen, som Alexander Hamilton skrev, da han var finansminister. Vi søger altså tilbage til en politik, der har en mangeårig historie for beviselig succes. Donald Trump udbrød ikke bare lige pludselig, »Lad os få Glass-Steagall«. Ifølge beretninger fra mennesker, der fulgte denne tale på tæt hold nede i Charlotte, så var dette den mest gennemkomponerede og velorganiserede tale i hele hans præsidentkampagne. I et Tv-interview med Fox den næste morgen bekræftede Wilbur Ross, der tilhører en gruppe af »milliardærer«, som udgør Trumps økonomiske hovedrådgivere, den pointe, som Trump kom med dagen før i Charlotte. Her følger et kort uddrag af ordvekslingen mellem Fox News’ Maria Bartolino og Wilbur Ross:

Bartolino: I går krævede Donald Trump en version for det 21. århundrede af Glass/Steagall-loven fra 1933, der kræver en opdeling mellem kommerciel bankvirksomhed og investeringsbankvirksomhed. Fortæl os om dette, for vi ved alle, hvad Dodd/Frank-loven har gjort ved sektoren for finansielle tjenesteydelser; og det er blevet vanskeligere at låne penge. Det er blevet ét af spørgsmålene i denne økonomi. Fortæl mig om en Glass/Steagall-version for det 21. århundrede.

Ross var fuldstændig klar og på det rene med det, som Trump refererede til aftenen før. Han sagde:

Ross: Altså, bankerne. Det er ikke så meget det, at de er for store; det drejer sig om, at de er for komplekse. For komplekse, og for komplicerede internt. Tænk over, hvor meget storbankerne – man må kende alt til verdens geografi; man må kende hver eneste obskure form for produkt på derivatmarkedet. Det er en voldsomt stor menu for en person at absorbere. Vi mener, at det kunne være bedre for bankerne at holde sig til udlån, og, i stedet for at indføre flere restriktioner på pengeudlån, at gøre det lettere for dem at udstede lån. Tænk over det. Når man lægger sag an mod bankerne hver dag for de lån, de udstedte dagen før, så er det ikke måden at opmuntre dem til at udstede nye lån. De er i færd med at gøre bankerne pistol-sky.

Dernæst spørger hun, »Siger du, at der bør være mere opdeling?«

Ross: Jeg mener, at det, der er vigtigt, er fornuftig regulering frem for regulering for reguleringens skyld. Når man tænker efter, med alle disse bøder for subprime-udlån, kan du nævne en eneste person, der nogensinde er blevet sat ud af sit hus, som ikke rent faktisk havde et huslån, og som ikke var bagud med sine betalinger på lånet og fortjente at blive sat ud? Der er ikke et eneste tilfælde, hvor dette er blevet bevist, så det er altså strafferegulering, det er straffe-lovgivning snarere, end det er noget, der er fornuftigt.

Dette var helt klart ikke bare et slag ud i den tomme luft. Vi ved ikke, om dette er en seriøs forpligtelse til denne politik. Men vi ved, at der er massiv folkelig opbakning til Glass-Steagall. Det er derfor, det endte i både det Demokratiske og det Republikanske partiprogram. Vi ved, at der fandt en intern kamp sted i Hillary Clintons kampagne, hvor flere af hendes hovedrådgivere indtrængende opfordrede hende til også offentligt at støtte Glass-Steagall, hvilket hun nægtede at gøre. Bernie Sanders’ tilhængere, Elizabeth Warrens tilhængere, de, der er det Demokratiske Partis kernevælgere, er lige så ubøjelige mht. behovet for Glass-Steagall, som nogle på den Republikanske side.

Så spørgsmålet er, at dette nu er lagt direkte frem på bordet. Vi er i de sidste ti dage før præsidentvalget, og øjeblikket er derfor inde til at vinde dette spørgsmål, meget aggressivt, og til, at Kongressen tager dette spørgsmål op som sin første regulære forretningshandling, når den vender tilbage efter valget den 8. november, uanset udfaldet. Mandatet foreligger. Det er nu et fundamentalt spørgsmål i den præsidentielle debat i disse sidste dage. Igen, hvad enten Trump er seriøs om det her, eller det var et politisk stunt, så er spørgsmålet ikke desto mindre blevet særdeles markant indsprøjtet i denne præsidentkampagnes slutfase, og der er ingen bagside ved, at dette er sket.

Ogden: Hr. LaRouches ideer er meget magtfulde, og de står for sig selv. Hr. LaRouche responderede ikke på tidernes skiften. Han har i årevis været meget, meget klar mht. den presserende nødvendighed af Glass-Steagall og har forudsagt, at vi faktisk igen ville komme til dette punkt. Deutsche Bank er ved at nedsmelte. Det er værre end Lehman Brothers i 2008. Det faktum, at Glass-Steagall ikke blev genindført, som hr. LaRouche krævede, umiddelbart efter sammenbruddet i 2008, er det, der har bragt os til dette punkt. Kesha [Rogers] var involveret i en højt profileret kampagne til Senatet og flere højt profilerede kampagner til Repræsentanternes Hus. Andre medlemmer af LaRouchePAC Policy Committee stillede også op til valg til Kongressen for fire og seks år siden, på et Glass/Steagall-valgprogram, og gjorde dette til det afgørende, nationale spørgsmål. I det omfang, hvor der har været nogen seriøse diskussioner i denne præsidentkampagne, så har det været omkring spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall. Det blev bragt på bane i den Demokratiske debat af to kandidater – Martin O’Malley, og også Bernie Sanders; Hillary Clinton sagde »Nej!«.

Dette er nu det afgørende spørgsmål. Og som du sagde, Jeff, så viser det, at der er en overvældende folkelig opbakning: og begge partiprogrammer. Vi har nu en situation, hvor genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall i bogstavelig forstand er fremherskende i hele verden. Det ville være tragisk, hvis Kongressen ikke omgående griber til handling for at genindføre loven – vent ikke på den officielle indsættelse [af den nye præsident] – omgående, ved Kongressens tilbagevenden til Washington. Glass-Steagall må ubetinget genindføres, for, hvis vi venter, og Deutsche Bank eller én af disse andre banker nedsmelter, så kan jeg garantere jer for, at vi befinder os i en langt værre situation end den, vi befandt os i, i sammenbruddet i 2008.

Så jeg mener, at det afgørende spørgsmål er lagt frem. Nødvendigheden af de dybtgående principper efter Hamilton – som hr. LaRouche har gjort meget klart – står for sig selv. Det er ikke et spørgsmål om, at nogen har erklæret Lyndon LaRouches [love for] gyldige; spørgsmålet er, at Lyndon LaRouches ideer står for sig selv, og har udgjort de afgørende spørgsmål, og nu har nået et punkt, hvor det er et indiskutabelt verdensledende spørgsmål – og det punkt, hvorfra det ikke er muligt at vende tilbage, kommer meget snart, med mindre man handler på disse ideer.

Hele webcastet, med engelsk udskrift, kan høres/læses her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=15628

»Jeg tror, vi kan sige, at vi befinder os ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt i verdenshistorien, og ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt for vores nation. I løbet af de seneste uger, som I har kunnet følge på LaRouchePAC’s webside, har vi mobiliseret en national mobilisering for at sætte hr. Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske program på dagsordenen, under betegnelsen ’De Fire Hovedlove; de Fire Nye Love til USA’s økonomiske genrejsning’, og disse love er baseret på Alexander Hamiltons fundamentale principper og hans arbejde med at etablere en videnskab om økonomi, der opbyggede USA. Vi har lanceret en kampagneside for mobilisering, og jeg vil direkte fremhæve, at det er vores dagsorden at bringe det amerikanske folk ind i denne mobilisering for at gøre jeres forståelse af, hvad det er for økonomiske principper, som Hamilton skabte, dybere; og hvad det er, som hr. LaRouche har inkorporeret i disse Fire Love.«

Engelsk udskrift:

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 28, 2016

ALEXANDER HAMILTON'S VISION & LAROUCHE'S FOUR LAWS —
ESSENTIAL TOOLS TO SAVE THE UNITED STATES

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening, it's October 28, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us here for our Friday
evening webcast from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the studio
tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence
Review}, and we have via video, Kesha Rogers, a member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, former candidate for the United
States Congress and United States Senate, joining us from
Houston, Texas.
        I think it can be said that we are at a very dramatic
turning point in world history and a very dramatic turning point
for our nation.  Over the last several weeks, as you've been
following the LaRouche PAC website, we have mobilized a national
mobilization to put on the agenda Mr. Lyndon LaRouche's economic
program; this is under the name of "The Four Cardinal Laws; the
Four New Laws for the Economic Recovery of the United States",
and it's grounded in the fundamental principles of Alexander
Hamilton and his work establishing a science of economics which
built the United States.  We have launched a mobilization page,
and I'll say right up front that our agenda is to bring the
American people into this mobilization to deepen your
understanding of what the economic principles are that Hamilton
created; and what Mr. LaRouche has embodied in these Four Laws.
        This is not something which is only important for the
national stage; but this is shaping a paradigm shift which is
currently ongoing on the international stage.  We saw two weeks
ago the dramatic shift, the realignment of the Philippines with
President Duterte's trip to China; saying that he is realigning
his country with the ideological flow of the Eurasian allied
countries that are now creating a new economic paradigm.  And we
saw this expressed very clearly in a speech that Russian
President Vladimir Putin gave at the 2016 annual Valdai
international discussion club proceedings.  We'll get into some
of the details of that, but Putin's emphases are very clear, and
I think they include some of the subjects that we will be
discussing here tonight.  Number one, the danger of the
NATO/Obama posture which has now brought us perilously close to
the outbreak of World War III; a war that nobody is seeking on
the Russian side, as Putin made very clear.  And also, the urgent
necessity of an entirely new economic paradigm to bridge the gap
between a small number of very wealthy Wall Street speculators
and a very large number of poverty-stricken, not only people, but
also nations; and to bring technological progress to all, and to
have that be the paradigm for relations among nations.
        So, we'll get into those subjects, but I think first and
foremost, the issue of Glass-Steagall; the necessity of shutting
down what is now clearly the bankrupt Wall Street regime, and
what has to necessarily follow after that.  The Hamiltonian Four
Laws that Mr. LaRouche has specified, I think is now very clearly
on the agenda.  So, I'm going to ask Jeff to just start with a
quick briefing of some of the matters that we've discussed with
Mr. LaRouche over the last 24 hours, and then we can proceed with
a discussion of the implications of these developments.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thanks, Matt.  I think that there are
four or five things that I would really highlight in terms of
significant new developments just in the time since last Friday's
broadcast.  Number one, as Matt indicated, President Putin
delivered a very powerful speech at the closing session of the
Valdai conference that took place this week in Sochi, Russia.
There were representatives there from all over the world,
including at least a number of people there from China.  I think
what President Putin did was not so much break new ground, but
make very clear that Russia and he himself are fully committed to
moving ahead with the collaboration with China, with the other
BRICS countries on bringing about a new paradigm of relations
among nation-states; based on a policy of clear war avoidance
built around cooperative economic investments in great projects
— including major advances in science, including the advancement
of man's mastery over space.  So, Putin in a certain sense,
reinforced what we saw at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou in China;
what we saw at the BRICS heads of state summit meeting more
recently in Goa, India.  So, Russia is all-in on that, and he
made the point very clearly, that the collapse of the Western
financial system is the principal factor driving the world
towards an extraordinarily dangerous situation, where you could
have an outbreak of world war — even thermonuclear world war —
as the result of provocative actions born of desperation.  I
think that whole picture is one element of what's really changed
in this last week.
        Now, I spent the last 48 hours — Wednesday and Thursday of
this week — attending an annual conference in Washington, DC of
the National Council on US-Arab Relations.  There were about 1000
people there, and it was widely attended by the diplomatic
community, particularly the Arab diplomatic community; by the US
business sector that deals with the Gulf States.  At the very
closing of the conference, Thursday evening, there was a
concluding keynote presentation by General David Petraeus —
formerly the head of the Central Command, formerly the Director
of the CIA.  He made a very bold set of proposals that
unfortunately dovetailed very precisely with the kinds of things
that have been coming out of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton
campaign throughout this Presidential election.  What General
Petraeus called for was both the creation of safe zones inside
Syrian sovereign territory, the creation of a no-fly zone over a
large portion of Syrian territory, and he called for the United
States to use both sea-based and air-based cruise missiles to
knock out the Syrian air force.  Now, he very cavalierly said of
course this brings on the danger of a war with Russia; but he
brushed that aside, saying, Vladimir Putin responds to power, and
responds to serious threats to use power.  Therefore, in the face
of these kinds of actions, Putin will back down.
        Now, we're talking about American and Russian air assets
engaging in a very limited theater of action, where we've so far
avoided a major incident that could have led to general war
because of a deconfliction agreement that fortunately still
remains in force between the US-led coalition on the one side,
and Russia on the other.  But what's being proposed here is a
complete overturning of that policy.  We know that this is
exactly what Hillary Clinton is calling for in her own
Presidential campaign speeches.  There have been recent studies
presented on behalf of the Clinton campaign by the Center for a
New American Security and the Center for American Progress, that
go almost as extremist as General Petraeus' statements.
Basically, the war danger cannot in the least underestimated; and
the fact is that President Putin — in his Valdai speech — was
very clear about that danger.
        Now, on the larger issue of the immediacy of the blow-out of
the financial system of the trans-Atlantic region, everybody is
really on the edge of their chairs over the fact that the US
Department of Justice and Deutsche Bank are still parrying around
back and forth and have not reached a decision yet on a proposed
14 billion euro fine for Deutsche Bank's criminal activity during
the mortgage-backed securities crisis leading into the 2008
blow-out.  Deutsche Bank is on the edge of collapse; it's widely
acknowledged.  The major German financial press, led by
{Handelsblatt}, writes about this virtually every day.  We know
that the Italian banking system is also on the verge of a
blow-out with 360 billion euro in non-performing debt on the
books of the larger Italian banks.  So, it is absolutely true
that we're on the precipice of a potential financial blow-out far
worse than Lehman Brothers in 2008.
        It's in that context, that I think it's very important to
take note of the fact that earlier this week, Donald Trump
delivered a speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, in which he
explicitly called for the implementation of a 21st Century
Glass-Steagall.  He also warned that if Hillary Clinton is
elected President, the chances grow enormously that we will be
facing World War III at some point very soon; and he cited the
Syria events that I've already talked about as a kind of a key
element of that situation.  Many people are scratching their
heads and saying, where did this from in terms of Trump suddenly
coming out for Glass-Steagall?  It's only 12 days before the
Presidential election that this speech came out.
        I had the opportunity to someone who's been involved in
Washington politics as a kind of insider for a very long time;
and his view was that he was expecting something like this to
come out of the Trump campaign, out of Donald Trump.  It could
have been more effective if it had happened in September, but
whether he's being opportunistic or whether he genuinely means
it, the fact is that the Glass-Steagall issue has now been
basically re-infused into the Presidential elections at a
critical kind of countdown moment before November 8th.  And
there's really no downside to that.  Whatever the outcome of the
election, Glass-Steagall is an essential policy issue that must
be implemented immediately.  It's the first step of Mr.
LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws for how to carry out an economic
recovery; and Mr. LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws on based
explicitly on the four key reports to Congress by Alexander
Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury.  So, we're
reaching back for policies that have a long-time proven track
record of success.  Donald Trump didn't just simply blurt out
"Let's have Glass-Steagall."  By accounts of people who closely
watched that speech down in Charlotte, this was the most
thoroughly composed and well organized speech of his entire
Presidential campaign.  The next morning, in a TV interview with
Fox, Wilbur Ross, who is one of a group of "billionaires" who are
key economic policy advisors to Trump, basically reinforced the
point that Trump had made the day before in Charlotte.  This is a
bit of an exchange between Fox News' Maria Bartolino and Wilbur
Ross:
        BARTOLINO:  Donald Trump yesterday called for a 21st Century
version of the 1933 Glass-Steagall law that requires the
separation of commercial and investment banking.  Talk to us
about this, because we all know what Dodd-Frank has done to the
financial services sector; and lending has become tougher.
That's become one of the issues for this economy.  Tell me about
the 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall.

        Ross was absolutely clear and familiar with what Trump was
referring to the night before.  He said:
        ROSS:  Well, the banks.  It isn't so much that they're too
big; it's that they're too complex.  Too complex and too
complicated internally.  Think about how much the big banks —
you have to know every geography in the world; you have to know
every kind of obscure kind of product in the derivatives market.
That's an awful big menu for anybody to absorb.  We think it
might be better for the banks to stick to lending, and instead of
making more restrictions on lending, make it easier for them to
make loans.  Think about it.  When you were suing banks every day
for the loans that they've made the day before, it's not the way
to encourage them to make new loans.  They're making banks
gun-shy.

        And she asks, "Are you saying there should be more
separation?"

        ROSS:  I think the more important thing is sensible
regulation rather than just regulation for the sake of
regulation.  When you think about it, with all these fines over
sub-prime lending, can you name a single person who was ever
dispossessed from a house that didn't actually have a mortgage,
wasn't delinquent on it and deserved to be foreclosed?  There
isn't one case where that's been proven, so it's punitive
regulation, it's punitive law enforcement rather than anything
very sensible.

        This was clearly not just simply a stab in the dark. We
don't know whether this is a serious commitment to the policy.
But we do know that there is mass popular support for
Glass-Steagall. That's why it wound up in the platforms of both
the Democratic and Republican Parties. We know there was a fight
inside the Hillary Clinton campaign, in which a number of her key
advisors urged her to also come out and support Glass-Steagall,
which she refused to do. The Bernie Sanders supporters, the
Elizabeth Warren supporters, those who are mainstay voters for
the Democratic Party, are as adamant about the need for
Glass-Steagall as some on the Republican side.
        So, the issue is that this now squarely on the table. It's
the final ten days before the Presidential elections, and so
therefore, now is the moment for this issue to be driven home,
forcefully, and for Congress to take this up as their first order
of business when the return after the November 8th elections,
regardless of the outcome. The mandate is there. It's now a
fundamental issue in the Presidential debate in these closing
days. Again, whether Trump is serious about this, or this was a
political stunt, nevertheless, the issue has been injected very
substantially into the final moments of this Presidential
campaign, and there's no downside to that having happened.

        OGDEN: Mr. LaRouche's ideas are very powerful, and they
stand on their own. Mr. LaRouche has not responded to the change
of the time. He has been very, very clear for years, on the
{urgent} necessity of Glass-Steagall, and has forecast that we
would in fact reach this point again. Deutsche Bank is blowing
out. It's worse than Lehman 2008. The fact that Glass-Steagall
was not reinstated, as Mr. LaRouche called for, immediately
following the 2008 crash, is what has brought us to this point.
Kesha was involved in a high-profile Senate campaign, several
high-profile House campaigns. Other members of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee also ran for federal office four, six years ago,
on a Glass-Steagall platform, and made that the definitive
national issue. To the extent that there's been any serious
discussion in this Presidential campaign, it has been around the
question of Glass-Steagall. This was brought up in the Democratic
debates by two candidates — Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders also
brought it up; Hillary Clinton said, "No!"
        This is now the {defining} question. And as you said, Jeff,
what this shows is that there is {overwhelming} popular support:
both Party platforms. Now you have a situation in which the
reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is virtually hegemonic. It would
be tragic were the Congress not to take the immediate action to
reinstate this — do not wait for the inauguration — immediately
after returning to Washington. Glass-Steagall has got to be
reinstated, because if we wait, and Deutsche Bank or one of these
other banks blows out, I guarantee you, we are in a far worse
situation that we were, even in the Crash of 2008.
        So I think the defining question is there. The necessity for
the depth of the Hamiltonian principles — which Mr. LaRouche has
made very clear — stand on their own. It's not a question of has
somebody validated Lyndon LaRouche; the question is Lyndon
LaRouche's ideas stand on their own, and have been the defining
questions, and have now reached the point where it's undeniably
hegemonic, and the point of no return is coming very soon, unless
these ideas are acted on.

        STEINBERG: Let me throw something else in on this. I think
there's an important lesson to be learned from the
just-concluded, successful fight over the summer into September,
around first, the release of the 28 pages from the original Joint
Congressional Inquiry into 9/11; and then what followed after
that, with the overwhelming House and Senate override of
President Obama's veto of the JASTA Bill, the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act. As was the case for some time with
JASTA, the issue is that once it was going to come to a vote,
there was no question that there was overwhelming support for it.
There was a political mobilization. LaRouche PAC led that fight,
along with the families and survivors of 9/11, and others as
well, to make sure it was actually brought to a vote. The same is
true of Glass-Steagall right now. There's got to be a groundswell
of pressure on the leadership of the House and Senate, to bring
it to a vote.
        I have no doubt whatsoever that given all of the factors
that we've been discussing, that if a vote were allowed to be
taken, say on November 14-15, whatever it is the day that the
House and Senate return to Washington for the beginning of the
"lame duck" session, that should be on the table. It should be
brought to the full floor of the Senate and the House. The bills
exist in both Houses. The language is compatible. This could be
done in a very short period of time. If you look at the way that
the JASTA vote proceeded just before the recess, the whole thing
took place in the course of {one day}. There was a morning vote
and debate in the House. It went immediately to the Senate in the
afternoon; because the leadership recognized that the American
people {demanded} that this happen. There was a mobilization.
There was a sense of timing. And there is no reason in the world
that the same thing can't happen before the middle of next month
with respect to Glass-Steagall.
        As Matt just said, and as Thomas Hoenig, [vice chairman of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] has been arguing for
years, Glass-Steagall has to be put in place {before} the
blow-out, because once you get that blow-out, Congress will be
stampeded by Wall Street and London into another bail-out, and
you're going to be off to the races. It's going to be a disaster.
        This is something where the will of the American people has
to be heard. That's the context in which we're looking at the
fact that Trump chose at the last moment to inject Glass-Steagall
into his campaign rhetoric for the final countdown days before
the election.

        KESHA ROGERS: Yes. I think it's important to understand that
LaRouche "drew the line in the sand" a long time ago. He set the
standard of the Glass-Steagall representing the first step to
bringing down Wall Street, this financial speculation, and the
continued protection and defense of Wall Street, of this British
imperial system of the City of London, meant the death of the
nation and society as a whole, because we're seeing what this is
doing to impact the United States through the continued economic
collapse that's devastating the entire nation, the rate of
increase in poverty. This has all been a product of Wall Street's
total destruction of our nation.
        And so, this fight for Glass-Steagall — LaRouche has led it
in the highest terms possible, because it represents a saving of
the American people. It's the identity of what has to shape the
future for this nation. I think it's really important that, as
we've continued to have discussions with Mr. LaRouche — the
Policy Committee and others — he defined very clearly that the
issue at hand is, what is going to be necessary and the standard
set for creating a standard by which credit is defined. And this
is what he has gone back to, with implementing the Hamiltonian
standard for the United States and for the world with his Four
Laws. Representing the context by which we can instill in the
American people a standard of economic value which is not based
on money, not based on the idea that you can just pump money into
small infrastructure projects here and there. But he made very
clear that you have to have an international program based on the
principle of a credit policy as Alexander Hamilton understood —
and this is why he has been very emphatic; that the American
people have to read, master and understand the works of Hamilton
today as never before. This is what Franklin Roosevelt
understood. People are adopting and taking up the policy for
restoring Glass-Steagall which LaRouche has made a household
name. Franklin Roosevelt really understood the enemy. He
understood that this house of cards of Wall Street was crumbling,
it had to be brought down; just as LaRouche understands today.
Many people who've put their name on the docket for
Glass-Steagall have been called by Wall Street "Public Enemy
Number One," and so forth.
        How do we really look at this, from the standpoint of what
we're dealing with a population that has lost a sense — and Mr.
LaRouche really captured this today, very profoundly — of their
own mind; the ability of their own mind to actually know how to
fight this enemy and know how to create the future which they so
desperately desire and need? What you really see right now is
that they're being given an opportunity to participate in
something very profound and unique. If we look at what's being
presented by LaRouche's policies being adopted throughout the
world right now, the standard that's been set in China. The
standard for the future that's been set in Russia to defy and to
deny this policy of thermonuclear war and destruction. Of going
after the future and the youth of the nation, that the
international standard that's being set right now for a program
based on these Hamiltonian principles, can {clearly} be seen by
what China is doing and actually representing for a total
revolution, total renaissance for generations to come, in the
standards they're setting with their space program.
        Because when Mr. LaRouche said you have to have an
international program that defines an economic standard of value,
of credit, in this nation and across the planet, that's the first
thing to look at. The fact that China just launched a new
initiative, a total breakthrough putting them front and center
stage in the development of their space program; when Obama has
continued to kill the space program with the egregious budget
cuts, with the turning over our space program to the private
sector in the United States. The policy to continue to bail out
Wall Street financial speculation instead of actually giving a
national mission, as Kennedy understood was absolutely important,
is something that can no longer be tolerated.
        The inspiration is the crucial key at hand right now. People
have lost faith and confidence and inspiration in this nation, in
the system of this nation, because it has become a system of
gambling, of debt, and it has gone away from the principles which
were defined by our US Constitution. So when you look at the
inspiration you're seeing from China, with the just launching of
their spacecraft with two tyconauts from China, the Shenzhou-11
to dock with the Tiangong-2 space lab, what we have now seen
China do is to actually create an international process of
collaboration and development. Just as they've offered for the
United States to cooperate, in a win-win strategy for the Silk
Road, which nations around the world are taking up. This is
defining a new standard of value and wealth.
        Now, what's the standard in the United States? Jeff can say
more on this, because he just did a presentation that I would
encourage people to look at on the website. It's death. The drug
overdoses.  If you don't have a policy of inspiration for your
youth and for the nation, what are people going to turn to?  What
is going to be the standard and value and the understanding of
the creativity, the creative potential of their own minds?  I'll
just say, before I got on this discussion, I was speaking to a
lady 40 years old; she has a 23-year old son who she's paying
thousands of dollars to get him off of drug overdoses from
prescription medicines and pills.  Three of his friends who she
knows very closely just died within the last year of drug
overdoses from heroin.  First starting with painkillers, then
finding this heroin, just as you said, Jeff.  Because people have
been denied a future that they can have a sense of their truly
human identity; that they have a purpose and reason to live.
Wall Street can and must be brought down, because the fight that
was won with JASTA was just the beginning.  If we don't finish
off this policy of the British Empire and the Saudis funding of
terrorism and funding of drug epidemics in the United States
coming from Afghanistan, the drug trafficking, everything we've
been seeing as the destruction of this nation, then we won't have
a nation.  We're seeing that very rapidly take place; this dark
age has to be stopped.
        I think a lot of people are understanding that LaRouche is
giving them an opportunity for life and for determining and
fighting for a future.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I do want Jeff to say more about that
interview, that short statement that he posted on the website.
Let me just underscore what you just said; I think it's
extraordinarily important.  People lack the confidence in their
own mind; they lack the confidence in their own ability to
positively imagine and create and define a future.  What comes in
the void of that?  It's anger, it's fear, it's demoralization.
Our job is to give people their dignity back.  We have to give
them the confidence in themselves as meaningful human beings.  I
think that was very clearly demonstrated with what we
accomplished — the Schiller Institute along with the Foundation
for the Revival of Classical Culture — with this extraordinary
series of concerts over the weekend of the 15th anniversary of
September 11th in New York City.  This was a presentation of
Mozart's {Requiem} and four African-American spirituals at four
different venues across New York City and New Jersey.  The
confidence and the dignity that gave to people, including people
who were engaged as you said, Jeff, in the fight, the victorious
fight to declassify the 28 pages and to pass the JASTA bill and
override the White House's veto, I think speaks directly to that
point.
        Coincidentally, there's one very short passage in this
speech that Putin gave at the Valdai discussion which says almost
exactly what you just said, Kesha.  He said, "It is very clear
that there is a lack of strategy and a lack of ideas for the
future.  This creates a climate of uncertainty that has a direct
impact on the public mood.  Sociological studies conducted around
the world show that people in different countries and on
different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak.
This is sad.  The future does not entice them, but rather,
frightens them."
        So, our job is to create a potential for a future which
entices the creative dignity of people and allows them to escape
this — as you eloquently said — dark age of drug overdoses,
death, and depression.

        STEINBERG:  I think it's important to also take note of the
fact that just in the past two weeks, millions of American
households have received word that their Obamacare health
insurance premiums are going up by 20%, 30%, 50%, in some cases I
know of directly, 70-80%.  The administration was facing a
torrent of news coverage admitting that Obamacare was finished.
Insurance companies are pulling out of the pools, and Obama came
out with this completely vacuous, lying statement claiming he'll
create some kind of a federal pool so that people can get
reasonably-priced health insurance.  The fact of the matter is,
at the very outset of this whole business, Obama shut the door on
expanding Medicare for all; shut the door on any other
formulation of a single-payer plan.  The cutbacks in the amount
of money being spent on health care has meant that by Hill-Burton
standards — in other words, the physical requirements; how many
hospital beds, how many doctors, how many nurses, what kinds of
specialty care have to be made available — the physical
infrastructure of health care has collapsed under Obama, as
people are finding their rates skyrocketing through the ceiling.
Obama personally came out with another lie to cover for the
reality of what he created; namely claiming that the premium
increases for most people will be covered by increases in
taxpayer subsidies.  But what he failed to say was that the only
people who qualify for those subsidies are people who are living
at or below one and a half times the poverty rate.  So, anybody
in the middle class, anybody even barely above that 1.5 times the
poverty rate is out of luck; and they're being confronted with a
choice — health care vs. housing; health care vs. food; in many,
many cases health care vs. whether you can get your kids a
college education.  So, you've got that phenomenon that's staring
the American people in the face; it's the collapse and
disintegration of Obamacare, which is what Lyndon LaRouche warned
about and forecast all the way back in 2009 when this thing was
first started.
        Then you've got the second phenomenon.  Remember that
President Obama, during his initial campaign for office back in
2008, basically distanced himself from the Bush-Cheney Iraq war,
but took full ownership of the Afghanistan war; which he called a
war of necessity as opposed to a war of choice.  Well, we're now
eight more years into it, and the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime last week came out with a report that Afghanistan —
under US and NATO occupation — has produced a bumper crop of
opium; up 43% to 4800 tons of pure opium produced this year.  We
know the consequences of that; cheap heroin is flooding onto the
streets of the United States in every community, not just
inner-city ghetto areas, but middle-class suburbs, rural areas.
There is not a county in the United States that is not
experiencing an opioid epidemic; and that's not our words, those
are the words of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention —
"epidemic".
        You've had a major increase every year under Obama of deaths
by opioid overdoses.  It goes hand-in-glove with the shutdown of
the health system, the flooding of the country with illegal
drugs, the refusal of the Obama administration, number one, to
crack down on HSBC — the British Opium War bank that was caught
by the United States Senate as the number one drug-money
launderer for the Latin American drug cartels.  Nothing was done;
a slap on the wrist.  They've even violated the deferred
prosecution agreement, but we hear nothing about the
consequences.  Secondly, the big pharmaceutical companies and the
major drug distribution companies are flooding the black market
with oxycontin and other opioids.  This is also being done under
the watchful eye of the Department of Justice that has refused to
prosecute big Pharma and these big drug distribution companies
for the same argument that they make why they won't prosecute and
criminally jail major bankers; they're too big to jail.  The
too-big-to-fail banks, the giant pharmaceutical companies that
are pumping out these opioids; they are above the law, at least
under the policies of the Obama administration.
        So, you've got a track record of death, destruction, and
despair emanating from the policies of the White House for the
past eight years.  Now we are at a crisis point, a social and
economic crisis, a crisis of the morale of the population; yet
there are clear and obvious solutions to all of these problems.
It doesn't take brain surgery to figure out that Glass-Steagall
and the other core principles put forward by Mr. LaRouche, which
are a revised version of the core ideas on which this economy of
this great nation was built in the first place, under the
leadership of Alexander Hamilton.  So, these things {can} be
done.  One of the biggest obstacles is the fact that the collapse
of the health care system, the mass opioid addiction that's been
basically allowed to occur as an Opium War against the American
population, has reached the point where it's created a morale
crisis.  And that's got to be reversed.
        Matt just referenced the impact of the concerts
commemorating the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that took
place in the greater New York City area the weekend of September
11th.  Those kinds of things can be replicated everywhere.  We
can turn the situation around very quickly.  We can end the
scourge of Wall Street and the City of London; we can end these
wars.  You've got with Russia, with China, with India, with the
other countries in Asia — Japan, Southeast Asia; they're all
coming together around a new economic paradigm that's built on
cooperation among nations for great projects across a vast area.
The United States desperately needs to get in on this; and
President Xi Jinping's standing invitation, delivered to
President Bush face-to-face, still stands.  The United States
should join in and become part of this World Land-Bridge process;
and if you do that, then the folly of these continuing wars and
this confrontation with Putin and Russia become very obvious.
It's completely ludicrous.  We can move on and participate in
this alternative paradigm which is right there; it's not a
theoretical, it's not something in abstraction.  It's going on
every day of the week across all of Eurasia down into Africa.
China is building a trans-continental railroad across South
America.  The plans for that railroad were in place in the 1870s,
when American rail engineers who worked on the transcontinental
railroad in the United States, went down to Peru, and went down
to Brazil, and were working on those projects.  The time is long
overdue for the United States to get on board on something that
we, as a nation, forged as key concepts back during a better
period in our history.

        ROGERS:  And what you're dealing with is a cultural
transformation.  I just wanted to add that this is not something
that is up to people "Oh, this is a problem I'm having in my
family.  The drug overdose or something that I have to deal
with."  You have people who have health care premiums that are
going up to $1500-2000 per month, and then they're spending
thousands of dollars to get their kids and loved ones off of
these drugs, and you have no help from society because the
society is completely degenerating.  It's only going to be
through a cultural transformation based on the beauty that was
exemplified and continues to be exemplified by what we're
representing with these {Requiem} concerts in New York; with a
commitment towards a revival of truly Classical culture.  One
person I was talking to, who was going through such a crisis, was
saying it would just be so beautiful and so important if you can
come into my area to sing; because these people desperately need
beauty.  It's not going to just take each individual; but as
Putin recognized, you have to have a total transformation of the
culture.  I was just thinking at the very end, that Matt you
brought up a few quotes earlier of this speech, and I don't want
to read long quotes; but I think this captures what we were just
discussing very well.  At the very end of Putin's speech at
Valdai in Sochi, he said: "In short, we should build the
foundation for the future world today by investing in all
priority areas of human development.  And of course, it is
necessary to continue a broad-based discussion of our common
future, so that all sensible and promising initiatives are
heard."
        This is absolutely what has to be the standard of the United
States right now; shaping that future that must be brought into
existence.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I would recommend people read some more
extensive excerpts of this speech; it's very all-encompassing.
But at the same place where he said what you just cited, he
called for a Marshall Plan to rebuild the war-torn areas —
especially in the Middle East and North Africa; but a Marshall
Plan type of approach.  He called for a New International
Economic Order, which would make the fruit of economic growth and
technological progress accessible to all.  He celebrated the
joining together of the Eurasian Economic Union with the New Silk
Road, the One Belt, One Road policy of China, to create an
integrated Eurasian space where these kinds of massive
development projects can take place, as Jeff just cited.  He said
that the major question, the principle, has got to be how do you
develop human potential?  He said, "An important task of ours is
to develop human potential.  Only a world with ample
opportunities for all, with highly-skilled workers, with access
to knowledge, and a great variety of ways to realize their
potential, can be considered truly free.  Only a world where
people from different countries do not struggle to survive, but
lead full lives, can be stable."
        I would recommend going back and reading some of the
excerpts from Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures",
because he makes exactly the same point.  He says it's only a
world where the diverse talents of the various of your society
can be developed to their fullest potential through the
application of technology, and the availability of this on the
widest possible scale, that you can create the future potential
for the creative labor, not just the manual labor, but the
creative labor of your labor force, of your workforce, of your
citizenry, which increases the potential population density of
your nation; increases the productive powers of that labor force,
and improves the quality of the lives of all.  And only a society
like that can be defined as truly free.  In Hamilton's time, it
was the fight against slavery; it was the fight against the
manual, bestial labor of the African slaves imported to the
southern states of the United States.  In our time, it's the
fight for a Hamiltonian policy in the present period; and I think
we just keep coming back to the point.  This is the Four New Laws
of LaRouche; this is the principle of Alexander Hamilton.  It is
happening on the international stage, as Jeff said.  The One
Belt, One Road policy from China; this new economic paradigm;
these are taking place every single day.
        The defining question is:  Will the United States join that
New Paradigm?

        STEINBERG:  It's ironic that one of the cornerstones, in
light of what's going on in the real guttural side of this
Presidential campaign, one of the cornerstones of Hamilton's
concept in the "Report on Manufactures" was immigration; mass
immigration.  His policy was, bring 'em in; we'll educate them;
we'll make productive American citizens out of them, no matter
where they come from.  That idea that there's always a shortage
of precious creative labor.  I think it's another point very much
worth reflecting on; rather than thinking about walls and things
like that.  He just said, we've got to bring more people in here;
because we've got productive work for them to do to build a
nation.

        OGDEN:  Right; apropos.  I just want to read the one section
from the Putin speech where he says this specifically.  He says,
"We cannot achieve global stability unless we guarantee global
economic progress.  It is essential to provide conditions for
'creative labor' and economic growth at a pace that would put an
end to the division of the world into permanent winners and
permanent losers."
        On that note, I want to just announce to people that
{Executive Intelligence Review} is putting out a republication of
the four economic reports of Hamilton.  These will be available
in book form, hopefully coming up the beginning next week.  It's
titled, {Alexander Hamilton's Vision}, and it's a republication
of these four central economic reports; the "Report on Public
Credit", the "Report on Manufactures", the "Report on National
Banking", and Hamilton's argument "On the Constitutionality of
the National Bank".  As an appendix to that book, we also include
the full text of Mr. LaRouche's new economic laws.  That is also
the headline of a special double edition of the {Hamiltonian}
which came out at the beginning of this week — "The Four New
Laws to Save the USA Now!"  This is edition 10 of the
{Hamiltonian}, and included in this is also an elaboration of
some of the principles of the "Report on Manufactures", which I
wrote up; "The LaRouche-Hamilton Science of Physical Economy",
and there's also an article on the background of Alexander
Hamilton's fight against slavery and his establishment of a new
political order for the United States through the founding of
this science of economics.  There's also a very entertaining
cartoon which was drawn by a member of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee, Dave Christie, called "Obamandias" based on
"Ozymandias" which was a famous sonnet by Percy Bysshe Shelley.
So that's available on the LaRouche PAC website.
        So, I think we have definitely defined the fact that we are
at a turning point in the history of this country and the history
of the world.  This is certainly not business as usual; and the
hegemony of the principles that Mr. LaRouche has put on the table
as the urgent steps to create an economic recovery for this
country now, has certainly been demonstrated very clearly.  It's
our job to continue to draw people towards the mobilization page
on the LaRouche PAC Action Center; this is
actioncenter.larouchepac.com/four laws.  You can sign up directly
on that website; you will receive an email, you will become part
of our national network of activists.  You can participate in the
weekly activists calls that we hold every Thursday night — our
Fireside Chats.  You can submit reports of activities that you've
engaged in.  You can have all of the background material
available there — Hamilton's four economic reports are linked on
that page — and you can become part of this movement which is
clearly defining world history.
        So, thank you very much, and I'd like to thank both Jeff and
Kesha for joining us here today.  Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.  Thank you and good night.

Uddrag af LaRouchePAC Internationale webcast, 21. oktober, 2016.

Efterfølgende kan udskrift af hele webcastet læses på engelsk.

Matthew Ogden: Vi vil begynde med en kort gennemgang af verdenssituationen; men vi har også et særligt ’traktement’ til jer i dag, som er at give jer de redskaber, I behøver for at blive de aktivister, som I må være for at gå med i vores presserende mobilisering omkring LaRouches Fire Love.

Men til en start mener jeg, at vi kan bedømme vores situation som følger: Til trods for valggalskaben, som virkelig dominerer den gennemsnitlige amerikaners psyke lige nu, og, tror jeg, som forårsager en hel del psykologisk trauma, så er den virkelige, store historie den, at den globale omorganisering nu skrider frem. Vi ser noget, som er hidtil uset i nyere historisk tid. Denne globale omorganisering af historiske proportioner er åbenlys for alle at se. Den finder virkelig sted langs linjerne af det, som hr. og fr. LaRouche i årtier har ført kampagne for, omkring et nyt, økonomisk og strategisk paradigme for planeten. Dette sås i meget skarpe vendinger, som helt sikkert overraskede mange folk i Obama-administrationen, med den filippinske præsident Dutertes besøg i Kina; hvor han, i meget klare vendinger, meddelte, at han skiftede kurs, og skiftede Filippinernes kurs, hen imod det, han kaldte »Kinas ideologiske strømning«, og ligeledes Ruslands. Dette er blot det seneste i et mønster af lande, der engang ansås for at være solide og indiskutable, amerikanske allierede, og som skifter kurs og kommer på linje med BRIKS, det Nye Paradigme og perspektivet for den Nye Silkevej. Det skal siges, at dette ikke er et spørgsmål om, hvem, der bliver præsident om tre uger eller tre måneder; men det er i virkeligheden et spørgsmål om, hvem, der har været præsident i de seneste syv et halvt år.

Dette er, på trods af alt det, Obama forsøger at gøre krav på, i form af hans store, økonomiske successer osv., Obamas sande eftermæle på verdensscenen. Pointen er, at disse nationer, der ser den disintegration, som nu finder sted i Europa og i det transatlantiske system, samt spredningen af kaos og evindelige krige og terrorisme osv.; disse nationer har set, at der findes et alternativ derude, som nu er fremme på bordet; og det er et både økonomisk og strategisk levedygtigt alternativ, der er vokset frem. De er ved at beslutte at springe med om bord og opgive dette døde og døende system; og i stedet gå med i et nyt paradigme, som klart viser sig at være fremtidens bølge.

Det bør understreges, at dette på ingen måde er en ekskluderende, geopolitisk blok, og heller ikke er en slags forældet geopolitik i kynisk koldkrigs-stil. Som Xi Jinping gentagne gange har sagt, så er dette et fuldstændigt nyt paradigme for internationale relationer, og det er et »win-win«-paradigme; det er noget, som alle kan tilslutte sig, inklusive USA – som Xi Jinping udtrykkeligt har indbudt, under en fælles pressekonference med Obama for næsten to år siden. Obama afviste det; men det betyder ikke, at USA ikke kan gå med i dette nye paradigme.

Det er vores ansvar, og det er vores job at skabe præcis dette dramatiske skift i amerikansk politik. Det bringer os frem til denne afgørende kampagne omkring den mobilisering, som vi nu er engageret i, for at få LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love vedtaget og sat i kraft, og for at vende tilbage til Alexander Hamiltons principper, som det forklares i hans fire, banebrydende økonomiske rapporter til Kongressen. Vi vil foretage en ny gennemgang af substansen i disse rapporter; og vi vil også præsentere jer for en ny kampagneside på vores handlingscenter (på LaRouchePAC’s hjemmeside), som vil give jer redskaberne til at gå med i denne mobilisering og til at opnå den form for fast baggrund, som I behøver til at aktivere jer selv omkring.

Men før vi kommer til det, så er der et par afgørende udviklinger, der er sket blot inden for de seneste par timer – 24 timer eller mindre – omkring LaRouche-bevægelsens aktiviteter, både her i USA og internationalt. For det første, så er de første rapporter om en begivenhed i Tyskland, der stadig er i gang, ved at løbe ind; et Schiller Institut-seminar, der finder sted lige nu i Essen. Et seminar med 80 deltagere; med folk, der deltager, og med en hovedtale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, hvor hun understreger denne dramatiske omorganisering og nødvendigheden af, at Europa går med i den Nye Silkevej. Højtplacerede repræsentanter deltog i begivenheden. De navne, vi foreløbig har fået, er: en embedsperson fra den Kinesiske Ambassade i Berlin, Tyskland; en repræsentant fra en førende, kinesisk tænketank, Kinesisk Institut for Internationale Studier; en repræsentant fra Etiopien; og også nogle eksperter fra den teknologiske sektor – en ekspert i maglev-teknologi, en ekspert i laserfysik og flere andre personer af denne kaliber. Vi vil få flere rapporter om begivenheden, og en audio af begivenheden vil blive tilgængelig, forhåbentlig ved dagens slutning, som I kan lytte til.

Der har også fundet en meget spændende begivenhed sted, som foregik i går aftes i New York City; hvor Jason Ross, medlem af LaRouchePAC Videnskabsteam, var inviteret til at fremlægge en meget detaljeret gennemgang af dette Nye Paradigme, den Nye Silkevej, BRIKS-perspektivet og alle de store infrastrukturprojekter, der er i dette program, ved et møde i New York-afdelingen af det Amerikanske Civilingeniør-Selskab. Jason Ross var hovedtaler ved denne begivenhed, med en detaljeret præsentation, før middagen, af udviklingen med Suezkanalen i Egypten, og ligeledes en endnu mere detaljeret gennemgang, efter middagen, af hele perspektivet med den Nye Silkevej og dennes implikationer mht. en potentiel fremtid med Verdenslandbroen. Dette var et meget aktivt forum med nogle højt kvalificerede ingeniører, der var engageret i en meget livlig og aktiv dialog. Så videoen af denne begivenhed vil forhåbentlig også blive tilgængelig på et tidspunkt; og vi vil også have en rapport om dette.

Jeg tror, dette giver jer en forsmag på præcis den form for aktiviteter, som vi hele tiden må være engageret i; og hold jer gevinsten for øje, som er det økonomiske program med LaRouches Fire Love efter Hamiltons principper. For, vi befinder os midt i en historisk omorganisering af globale proportioner, og som vil bestemme fremtiden for den kommende menneskehed.

Jeg tror, vi kan gå over til at diskutere disse ting, og så vil vi også, på et tidspunkt i udsendelsens forløb, præsentere denne nye kampagneside.

Engelsk udskrift:

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, October 21, 2016

           USE THE ACTION CENTER ON LAROUCHEPAC.COM
            TO MOBILIZE EVERYONE — EVEN YOURSELF!

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening, it's October 21, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're joining us for our weekly
broadcast here on larouchepac.com on Friday evening for our
weekly webcast.  I'm joined in the studio by Benjamin Deniston —
my colleague from the LaRouche PAC Science Team; and via video by
two members of the Policy Committee: Bill Roberts from Detroit,
Michigan; and Diane Sare from New York City.  We're going to
begin with a brief overview of the world situation; but we also
have a special treat for you tonight, which is to give you the
tools to become the activist that you need to be to join us in
our urgent mobilization around LaRouche's Four Laws.
        But just to begin, I think we can situate ourselves as
follows:  Despite the election madness which is really dominating
the psyche of the average American right now, and I think causing
quite a bit of psychological trauma, the real story is the global
re-alignment that is now in progress.  We are looking at
something which is unprecedented in recent historic memory.  This
global re-alignment of historic proportions is obvious for anyone
to see.  It really is right along the lines of what Mr. and Mrs.
LaRouche have been campaigning for, for decades, around a new
economic and strategic paradigm for the planet.  This was seen in
very stark terms and which certainly caught a lot of people in
the Obama administration by surprise, with the recent trip by
Philippine President Duterte to China; where he announced in very
clear terms that he is re-aligning himself and re-aligning the
Philippines with what he called the "ideological flow of China"
and of Russia, too.  I think this is just the latest in a pattern
of countries which were once considered to be solid and
unquestioning US allies, re-aligning themselves with the BRICS,
the New Paradigm, the New Silk Road perspective.  It has to be
said that this is not a question of who is going to be President
in three weeks or three months; but this is really a question of
who has been President for the last seven and a half years.
        This, despite everything that Obama is trying to claim in
terms of his great economic successes and so forth, this is
really Obama's true legacy on the world stage.  The point is that
these nations, seeing the disintegration that's now happening in
Europe and the trans-Atlantic system and the spread of chaos and
perpetual war and terrorism and so forth, have seen that there is
an alternative out there that's now on the table; and it's a
viable alternative that's emerged, both economically and
strategically.  They are deciding to jump on board and abandon
this dead and dying system; and rather, join a New Paradigm which
is clearly demonstrating itself to be the wave of the future.
This should be emphasized that this is in no way an exclusive
geopolitical block, or some sort of old, cynical Cold War-style
geopolitics.  As Xi Jinping has repeatedly said, this is an
entirely new paradigm of international relations, and it's a
"win-win" paradigm; it's something which everybody can join,
including the United States.  Which Xi Jinping explicitly
extended the invitation for, at a joint press conference with
Obama almost two years ago.  Obama rejected it; but that does not
mean that the United States cannot join this New Paradigm.
        That's our responsibility, and it's our job to generate
precisely that dramatic change in US policy.  That brings us to
this crucial campaign around the mobilization that we are now
engaged in to institute Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws, and
to return to the principles of Alexander Hamilton, as was
elaborated in his four watershed economic reports to Congress.
We will be revisiting those in their substance; and we will also
be presenting you with a new campaign page on our action center,
which is designed to give you the tools to join that mobilization
and to obtain the kind of substantive background that you need to
activate yourself around that.
        But before we get to that, there's a couple of very crucial
developments that have occurred just in the last few hours — 24
hours and less — around the activities of the LaRouche Movement
both here in the United States and internationally.  First of
all, we are just now receiving the first reports of an event
which is still ongoing in Germany; a Schiller Institute seminar
which is occurring right now in Essen.  An eighty-person seminar;
people who are participating in this with a keynote speech by
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, where she emphasized this dramatic
re-alignment and the necessity of Europe to join the New Silk
Road.  There were very high-level representatives participating
in this event.  The names that we have so far, are: an official
from the Chinese Embassy in Berlin, Germany; an official from a
leading Chinese think tank, the Chinese Institute on
International Studies; a representative from Ethiopia; also some
experts in terms of the technology sector — an expert in maglev
technology, an expert in laser physics, and several other people
of that caliber.  We will be receiving more reports on that, and
the audio of that event will be made available, hopefully by the
end of the day today, for you to listen to.
        Also, we had a very exciting event that happened just last
night in New York City; where Jason Ross, a member of the
LaRouche PAC Science Team, was invited to present a very in-depth
overview of this New Paradigm, the New Silk Road, the BRICS
perspective, and all of the great infrastructure projects that
are coming out of that program, to a meeting of the New York
division of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  Jason Ross
was the featured speaker at this event, with a pre-dinner
presentation in detail on the Suez Canal developments in Egypt,
and also an after-dinner more in-depth overview of the entire New
Silk Road perspective and what this implies in terms of a
potential future with the World Land-Bridge.  This was a very
active forum, with some very highly qualified engineers engaging
in a very excited and active dialogue.  So hopefully, the video
of that will also be available at a certain point; and we will
have a report on that.
        But I think that just gives you a flavor of exactly the kind
of activities that we need to keep engaged in; and keep our eyes
on the prize around this Hamiltonian-LaRouche Four Laws economic
program.  Because we are in the midst of an historic re-alignment
of global proportions, which will define the future of humanity
to come.
        So, I think we can have a little bit of a discussion on
that, and then we will also present this new campaign page which
I mentioned, at a certain point during this broadcast. We're going to
begin with a brief overview of the world situation; but we also
have a special treat for you tonight, which is to give you the
tools to become the activist that you need to be to join us in
our urgent mobilization around LaRouche's Four Laws.
        But just to begin, I think we can situate ourselves as
follows:  Despite the election madness which is really dominating
the psyche of the average American right now, and I think causing
quite a bit of psychological trauma, the real story is the global
re-alignment that is now in progress.  We are looking at
something which is unprecedented in recent historic memory.  This
global re-alignment of historic proportions is obvious for anyone
to see.  It really is right along the lines of what Mr. and Mrs.
LaRouche have been campaigning for, for decades, around a new
economic and strategic paradigm for the planet.  This was seen in
very stark terms and which certainly caught a lot of people in
the Obama administration by surprise, with the recent trip by
Philippine President Duterte to China; where he announced in very
clear terms that he is re-aligning himself and re-aligning the
Philippines with what he called the "ideological flow of China"
and of Russia, too.  I think this is just the latest in a pattern
of countries which were once considered to be solid and
unquestioning US allies, re-aligning themselves with the BRICS,
the New Paradigm, the New Silk Road perspective.  It has to be
said that this is not a question of who is going to be President
in three weeks or three months; but this is really a question of
who has been President for the last seven and a half years.
        This, despite everything that Obama is trying to claim in
terms of his great economic successes and so forth, this is
really Obama's true legacy on the world stage.  The point is that
these nations, seeing the disintegration that's now happening in
Europe and the trans-Atlantic system and the spread of chaos and
perpetual war and terrorism and so forth, have seen that there is
an alternative out there that's now on the table; and it's a
viable alternative that's emerged, both economically and
strategically.  They are deciding to jump on board and abandon
this dead and dying system; and rather, join a New Paradigm which
is clearly demonstrating itself to be the wave of the future.
This should be emphasized that this is in no way an exclusive
geopolitical block, or some sort of old, cynical Cold War-style
geopolitics.  As Xi Jinping has repeatedly said, this is an
entirely new paradigm of international relations, and it's a
"win-win" paradigm; it's something which everybody can join,
including the United States.  Which Xi Jinping explicitly
extended the invitation for, at a joint press conference with
Obama almost two years ago.  Obama rejected it; but that does not
mean that the United States cannot join this New Paradigm.
        That's our responsibility, and it's our job to generate
precisely that dramatic change in US policy.  That brings us to
this crucial campaign around the mobilization that we are now
engaged in to institute Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws, and
to return to the principles of Alexander Hamilton, as was
elaborated in his four watershed economic reports to Congress.
We will be revisiting those in their substance; and we will also
be presenting you with a new campaign page on our action center,
which is designed to give you the tools to join that mobilization
and to obtain the kind of substantive background that you need to
activate yourself around that.
        But before we get to that, there's a couple of very crucial
developments that have occurred just in the last few hours — 24
hours and less — around the activities of the LaRouche Movement
both here in the United States and internationally.  First of
all, we are just now receiving the first reports of an event
which is still ongoing in Germany; a Schiller Institute seminar
which is occurring right now in Essen.  An eighty-person seminar;
people who are participating in this with a keynote speech by
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, where she emphasized this dramatic
re-alignment and the necessity of Europe to join the New Silk
Road.  There were very high-level representatives participating
in this event.  The names that we have so far, are: an official
from the Chinese Embassy in Berlin, Germany; an official from a
leading Chinese think tank, the Chinese Institute on
International Studies; a representative from Ethiopia; also some
experts in terms of the technology sector — an expert in maglev
technology, an expert in laser physics, and several other people
of that caliber.  We will be receiving more reports on that, and
the audio of that event will be made available, hopefully by the
end of the day today, for you to listen to.
        Also, we had a very exciting event that happened just last
night in New York City; where Jason Ross, a member of the
LaRouche PAC Science Team, was invited to present a very in-depth
overview of this New Paradigm, the New Silk Road, the BRICS
perspective, and all of the great infrastructure projects that
are coming out of that program, to a meeting of the New York
division of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  Jason Ross
was the featured speaker at this event, with a pre-dinner
presentation in detail on the Suez Canal developments in Egypt,
and also an after-dinner more in-depth overview of the entire New
Silk Road perspective and what this implies in terms of a
potential future with the World Land-Bridge.  This was a very
active forum, with some very highly qualified engineers engaging
in a very excited and active dialogue.  So hopefully, the video
of that will also be available at a certain point; and we will
have a report on that.
        But I think that just gives you a flavor of exactly the kind
of activities that we need to keep engaged in; and keep our eyes
on the prize around this Hamiltonian-LaRouche Four Laws economic
program.  Because we are in the midst of an historic re-alignment
of global proportions, which will define the future of humanity
to come.
        So, I think we can have a little bit of a discussion on
that, and then we will also present this new campaign page which
I mentioned, at a certain point during this broadcast.

        DIANE SARE:  Good.  Well, I'll just add that what's come out
in the last days is the question of the Obama administration's
obsession with Lyndon LaRouche, through various of the Hillary
Clinton emails that have recently been released.  One, LaRouche
is mentioned over 40 times in these emails; in particular around
the question of Obamacare, which is just in its complete meltdown
phase.  I think they're trying to cover over the meltdown by
having doctors do 20 times more paperwork than they've already
been saddled with for their Medicare patients.  The whole thing
is insane; and what LaRouche had identified was that this was a
program like Adolf Hitler's T4 program to target these so-called
"useless eaters".  Ezekiel Emmanuel, Rahm Emmanuel's brother, who
was key in drafting the bill, in some of his writings made it
very clear that in his mind it was a real question; if a person
could not become a fully participating member of society, if they
were suffering dementia or other terminal illnesses, whether it
really was worth trying to save them at all financially, from a
dollar standpoint.  What happened — I'll just say to the credit
of the American people — is that in 2009, people may remember,
everybody came out with their pitchforks to skewer their
Congressmen; you had all of these completely raucous town hall
meetings in which the Congressmen were calling the police to
escort them home, because they were so afraid.  You had a quality
of fight.
        We also saw again a certain quality of fight around the
question of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
[JASTA], where the American people, led particularly by the
LaRouche Movement and the 9/11 Families, made it very clear that
there just are certain things that we are not willing to
tolerate; namely, the cover-up of who was responsible for
murdering Americans on that date, and the death toll in the
aftermath.  But I bring that up, because as Matt referenced early
on, there is enormous frustration, fear, and anxiety about the
fact that we have arguably the two worst candidates that we have
ever had in the history of this country; and we've had some
pretty bad ones.  People are thinking, "Well, how is this going
to work?  This is a disaster."
        I think people should also look at themselves, because: 1)
Had Bush been impeached when that was being discussed and was put
on the floor by Kucinich, and Nancy Pelosi took it off the table.
Had Cheney and Bush been impeached for all of their crimes — the
illegal wars, torturing people, and so on — you never would have
had an Obama administration.  The fact that Obama has not yet
been thrown out of office, when every single Tuesday he is still
holding meetings to decide who he is going to assassinate with
drones; and somehow this is not considered grounds to throw him
out and frankly put him in prison or put him in the criminal wing
of a mental institution or something.  In other words, that's the
cause of this crisis, not the so-called people who are before us
now in the elections.
        What we've seen in Manhattan is a shift; I think it's
dawning on people that perhaps if they want to change things,
they should start by changing themselves and changing the level
of their understanding and their thinking about what it means to
be a citizen in the United States.  We've started reading
Alexander Hamilton's original papers, which are posted now on the
website: "Report on Public Credit"; "Report on a National Bank";
"On the Constitutionality of a National Bank"; and "Report on the
Subject of Manufactures".  [We’re doing this] as a way of
qualifying ourselves to shape the policy of the nation.  This is
very important, because the United States in this way is
relatively unique; that is, the citizens of the United States do
have an enormous amount of power, which is not the same as what
you have in parliamentary systems.  The citizens are able, if
they are informed, to cause policy to be changed.
        That's why Obama's and Hillary's advisors were so freaked
out about Lyndon LaRouche.  Because LaRouche has demonstrated a
capacity through what he termed "the power of reason" to move the
American people.  We saw that with the concerts on September 11th
in memory of the 9/11 attacks; and we're seeing that now.  So, I
think this is a very important factor not to be left out of the
equation in terms of the shift which is occurring globally in the
direction of the BRICS.  Probably Bill or someone will something
[to say] about the situation in the Philippines, which I think is
remarkable in that regard, but we are absolutely I think in a
pre-revolutionary situation in the United States; and it's up to
us to put it in the proper domain.

        BEN DENISTON:  Because it's coming up now, I think it's
really worth just emphasizing for our viewers, for our
associates, for our activists that this issue around Mr.
LaRouche's role in the Obama campaign is just typical of what
makes Mr. LaRouche and our movement so unique.  Mr. LaRouche
acted in the future; he didn't respond, he didn't wait for the
kill lists to come out.  He didn't wait for Obamacare to be fully
demonstrated as it's being demonstrated now with people's rates
going up; the care people are getting is collapsing.  Even Bill
Clinton, who's been completely shackled under the Hillary/Obama
policy, came out saying this thing is insane and then backed down
from that when he was asked about it; but it's on video, you can
see it.  [LaRouche] didn't wait for that; he came out right way
and didn't just say it was going to be bad.  He said, "This is a
Hitler policy."  He forced the issue {before} it came up.  And
the reason why we put the Obama administration on its heels from
Day One, is because Mr. LaRouche took the lead; and didn't say,
"Oh, well this is the first black President, so we have to be
polite.  He's a Democrat, so we have to be polite."  He said,
"No, we can see now, this guy's going to implement a killer
policy, so we're going to call him out on the principle, on the
hardest level of the reality of what he's doing. This is a Hitler
healthcare policy. We're going to force the issue, and take the
fight to him right up front." That's what makes our Movement
effective. We act in the future, we don't wait for events to
come, and respond to them. We act on what the future is going to
be and what it needs to be.
        I think that's a really important precedent for what we're
facing right now, again, in this insanity around the "election
process," this Jerry Springer Show repeat of these "debates."
We're not responding to that. We're responding to the future, to
reality, what we're talking about with the world {shifting},
completely towards China's leadership on this New Paradigm, on
the absolute necessity for LaRouche's Four Laws for this
Hamiltonian program to save the United States.
        Those are the issues that are going to shape the future, not
responding to how ridiculous these debates are, who's saying
what. [With] the level of insanity going on in the United States
right now, it's worth instilling in people a sense of how you
actually fight to change history. It's this kind of process. It's
taking the lead, based on where history is moving, where society
is moving, what are the actual underlying principles driving the
process forward? — and acting on those, acting on the future,
not responding.
        Mr. LaRouche is mentioned in the Hillary Clinton emails.
That's no surprise. He came out, right out front, and forced the
issue, and drew the line, and that's been a critical factor in
ensuring the Obama administration didn't go full-scale Hitler
policy, even though they've gone that [way] to a very large scale
across many domains — healthcare, foreign policy, etc. But
that's leadership! That's what we're doing. That's why people
need to drop everything and work with our Movement more closely
and really get involved in our campaign, especially on this
Hamiltonian program. Because that's what's going to matter. Not
who has the best commentary on what's happening today, or
yesterday, or last week, but who's got an idea for where we need
to go and how to make that happen.

        OGDEN: The other thing that you can measure, in terms of
what the Obama Presidency has been, is how much closer to World
War III are we right now, than we were when Obama entered office.
If you look at the progression of history since the overthrow and
killing of [Libya’s Muammar] Qaddafi, and the spread of that
policy throughout North Africa and the Middle East, and the
attempt to do the same thing in Syria and elsewhere, {how much
closer we actually are}, right now, to an eruption of what would
become, in a very short period of time, thermonuclear war. And
this is being acknowledged by {everybody}, I mean [former
President of the Soviet Union Mikhail] Gorbachov, Kissinger,
people who you would not necessarily expect. It's a very
dangerous prospect.
        Americans should {resent} the fact that they're really being
{set up} by this election campaign, where there is a new
McCarthyism almost which is being instituted against the American
people, where if you question the no-fly zone [proposal for
Syria] or this Russia bashing propaganda or any of these
policies, then you are automatically classified as "Oh well, you
must be a Trump supporter," which is a ridiculous. Americans
should {resent} that kind of situation, and should say, "No!
Absolutely not. Not in our name. We do not accept being used and
manipulated into this kind of new Cold War, but really World War
III kind of program." It must be said that over the last 7-1/2
years, we have gotten perilously close to that threat. Again, Mr.
LaRouche was quite outspoken and quite explicit on that from the
very beginning. As soon as the Libya invasion happened, and as
soon as the death of Qaddafi occurred, Mr. LaRouche was on record
saying this is taking us down the slippery slope towards World
War III.

        BILL ROBERTS: I would also emphasize that there have been
important Presidential elections. There have been Presidential
figures who were effective such as Franklin Roosevelt, largely
because their Presidential campaigns were actually used to create
a current of real leadership in the population to be ennobled and
encouraged to fight. We haven't had an election like that for
years. There hasn't been a figure like that running for
President. Mr. LaRouche ran, literally, all of his [Presidential]
campaigns in this way, to educate and build up a constituency for
policies.
        Obviously [the current] election process is the complete
opposite. It's a psychological warfare operation on the
population. But we have an opportunity to create and educate the
kind of current of citizenry that can actually win the policy
fight, despite how insane this election is. This should be one of
the lessons of what Putin has effectively done, what Xi Jinping
[has done], this entire BRICS process. We have to actually build
up a capacity within the population to respond, now, on the basis
of knowing exactly what to do, to implement an economic solution.
        That's the Fourth Branch of government. That is the sense in
which Mr. LaRouche actually has been the Presidential figure
during this period. These emails, the process that's been
unleashed in the BRICS, has largely come out of Mr. LaRouche's
and Helga's life's work to educate the world on the principles of
economics, real economic development. Americans just have to be
encouraged to locate their responsibility and their duty in
something which is much, much higher that just voting in an
election. That doesn't require any courage at all. The fight for
ideas {does} require a little bit of courage, because we have to
challenge people to face their fears and confront the crisis that
requires specific qualities of ideas.

        OGDEN: Along the lines of exactly that "quality of ideas,"
our last two webcasts, here, the previous two Fridays, have been
focused around Mr. LaRouche's Four Economic Laws, and Alexander
Hamilton's four economic reports. We've really encouraged you, as
Diane said I think very correctly, "to qualify yourself as a
leading citizen in this campaign." And the way that you can
"qualify yourself" is to use that material to educate yourself
and to also engage in a mass-education process of the rest of the
American people.
        The average American citizen of that time, who Benjamin
Franklin proudly referred to as the "Latin farmer," was a very
literate, classically educated individual, who understood the
essential questions of the revolution, and prided themselves in
that. Hamilton educated those Americans about his ideas. He used
{The Federalist} letters. He used the media of his day — the
print media and otherwise.
        We're using the media of our day to do exactly the same
thing. That's what the LaRouche PAC website has been. It's been a
hub for that kind of self-education, and mass-education. The
community coming together around that kind of process,
nationally, is carried in the LaRouche PAC Action Center. On the
Action Center, we are proud to announce the launch, today, of a
new tool for you to use in that regard, and we're going to have a
little bit of a guided tour led by Ben Deniston, of this new
campaign page on our Action Center. This is on the
LaRouche-Hamilton Four Laws. We're going to walk you through that
here, but we also encourage you to immediately, on your own, get
onto this website, to sign up, and to be an active participant in
this new educational hub.

        DENISTON: We should be able to pull up the webpage for
people directly, so they can see it. What you'll see, if you're
newly visiting to the site, is right at the very top we have a
banner, advertising this new campaign page Action Center. This
could be, as Matt said, the hub, the mobilization center, to get
this policy through. If you don't see this banner, we will have
it featured in many other ways, including LaRouche's 4 Laws under
Our Policies. You can see this takes you immediately to a new
page, which is the landing page for this new campaign. Right
away, we're encouraging people — yourself, if you haven't done
so already, but if you have, encourage your friends, your
colleagues, your neighbors to do so — to sign up, to join the
mobilization. If you know LaRouche PAC, we're not just a news
service to throw things out to you; we're not just a commentary
service; we're a political {action} committee. We're putting the
emphasis on {action} in political action committee, and we're
asking {you} to make sure you get involved.
        We're doing stuff all around the country. Manhattan is a
major center of activity. We're leading the fight. But we also
have activity from around the nation, getting congressmen, labor
unions, state legislators, whatever groups, farm groups, all
kinds of organizations, on board in support of LaRouche's
economic reform program. We're asking you to get involved in that
process. Help make it happen, take action yourself. And its
starts here — on this page.
        If you return to the page, we can see that, right away,
there are three main sub-pages to this main landing page. On the
far left we see What You Can Do. If you simply click on that,
again, we're encouraging people to sign up, because the most
effective action activity is going to be in coordination with us,
nationally and, really, internationally. Again, we're running a
top-down coordinated campaign on this.
        But there's a series of measures that are being taken around
the country, and we're asking you to take also. There's a major
push to get elected officials on board with this, obviously.
There are bills to reinstate Glass-Steagall in both the House and
the Senate. That is a very straight-forward and easy task that
you can get your congressman to do — sign on to those bills, and
then push them to go farther, to understand the whole Hamiltonian
campaign. We'll get into that in a second. Intervene into local
meetings. Write a "Letter to the Editor." Under Print and
Distribute, we're going to feature, here, some leading material
which you can print out and take to these meetings and organize
with. So, these are some of the many things you can do.
        If you return back to the landing page, on the right side,
we're encouraging people to engage in a real social dialogue
around your activities. So, Report Back. We're going to be having
some breaking reports coming in, in just the coming days and
week. We've got some of the activity that Jason Ross was involved
in, which will be featured here, as was reported earlier. There's
other activity from Kansas, on major support from the Kansas
State Cattlemen's Association, in support of Glass-Steagall, and
LaRouche's program. Which is just a good illustration. If you go
out and organize these groups, people recognize that we need this
kind of reform, and we can bring these kinds of organizations on
board in support of this. So here is going to be our location to
report back, to comment on reports, to engage in discussion about
the campaign and the activity you are doing.
        Essential to this whole thing is the relevant background and
material you need to understand this campaign and to organize
around it. So, as you'll see, linked all over this page and the
sub-pages, including right here on the main landing page, the key
document is Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws paper. If you haven't read
this yet, this is a priority to read. You can access it directly
from here. It is a relatively short, very dense, very
well-composed presentation of the necessary program, in its
entirety. And it's the source of these Four Laws, four
components, but as Mr. LaRouche presents it.  If you understand
the necessity of this program, it's not four separate elements;
it's one policy, rooted in one scientific understanding of
economics.  Something rooted in Hamilton's work and developed
further by Mr. LaRouche in his work.  This is obviously the
central document to this entire campaign; and you can find it
linked all over the page.
        If you want more background, we have plenty of resources on
"Know the Full Story".  Some background on the crisis; again, Mr.
LaRouche's Four Laws paper linked multiple times.  And then
relative background on each of the Four Laws.  So, some of the
background needed for Glass-Steagall, for example; information
about the bills that currently exist in the House and the Senate.
Other resolutions and support for Glass-Steagall from all over
the country and internationally; if you haven't seen that, it's
quite impressive — the whole level of support already.  And
other relevant background, including some of the Obama campaign's
lies about Glass-Steagall; their Wall Street lies that it has no
relevance to the crash.  Something you've properly heard spread
throughout the media.  We debunk these kinds of things.  The
fraud of the Dodd-Frank issue, etc.  So again, relevant material
for people who are really organizing around this.
        Regarding the second policy point of Mr. LaRouche's Four
Laws — a Hamiltonian national banking system, again, we have
relevant background information for you here.  Mr. LaRouche's own
writings on the subject of national banking and credit, here and
featured in other locations, we have Alexander Hamilton's own
four reports to Congress; which as was mentioned by Diane and
Matthew, are a major focus of educating the American people on
the needed program today.  So again, we encourage to go directly
and actually read these reports; study them.  If you have
questions, or you want to get more information, engage with us.
The point is, we need people to understand the real roots of
American economics as Hamilton developed it and presented it; as
it was the founding core of our nation; and as Mr. LaRouche has
developed it to further degrees in the present period.  This is
what's needed in its entirety today.  Additional background on
how this Hamiltonian program has been brought to bear at multiple
points in the history of the United States: under John Quincy
Adams; under Abraham Lincoln; in certain degrees, under Franklin
Roosevelt operating under the constraints he could work in at the
time.  It's no secret to people who really know American history,
that this policy has returned repeatedly in any period of
economic recovery or upsurge.  That's what's needed today.
        Regarding the role of credit as Mr. LaRouche defined it,
specifically for the increases in the productive powers of labor
and the increases of energy flux density, we have some relevant
background material to understanding Mr. LaRouche's science of
physical economics and the role of credit in increasing these
critical metrics of real human economic progress.  So,
understanding Mr. LaRouche's concept of energy flux density,
understanding Mr. LaRouche's concept of the productive powers of
labor, this information is all available here for you to study;
some in video format, some in written form.  I would even
highlight Mr. LaRouche's own 1984 economics textbook, {So, You
Wish To Learn All About Economics?}; which is an excellent source
to understand the real science of economics as it is needed to be
understood today.
        And the fourth point, Mr. LaRouche highlights a science
driver program for fusion power and space exploration.  Again,
some background work from Mr. LaRouche directly on these
subjects; relevant material on fusion power; the role of a fusion
driver program for the economy — why this is critical.  And
similarly with space; why the space program is a critical
component to driving the economy forward.
        So, I would just restate that while we break down here
relevant background material for each of these four laws, these
four components, it is one program as Mr. LaRouche presented it.
What we're doing here is presenting you with secondary, tertiary
background material to understand all the elements.  But the
challenge we have before us is this Hamiltonian conception; we
have to educate the American people on this Hamiltonian-LaRouche
conception of real economics.  Most people probably know —
especially viewers of our channel, our website — there is major
support for Glass-Steagall out there; it's massive.  It's moving
forward; it's been moving forward, and that's critical.  But that
along is not enough.  Just Glass-Steagall alone is an absolutely
indispensable step, but it's only a step; it's a component of the
whole program.  We need to cut off Wall Street; we need to
separate speculation from the financial system; we need a stable,
regulated commercial bank system.  But, we need to actually
utilize that with a Hamiltonian program, with a National Bank,
with public credit to actually drive increases in the economy.
If we don't do that, we're not going to make it as a nation.
Glass-Steagall alone will not do that; it requires the
understanding that Hamilton understood.  We need to increase the
productivity of the labor force; we need to increase the energy
flux density of the economy as a whole; and people need to know
the science underlying these policies.
        I think we have a multi-faceted, but unified campaign here;
leading with Glass-Steagall as the first step, but then building
support among these people who support these reforms around a
real science of what it's going to require to grow again.  We
need real growth; we need real leaps in the productivity, the
value created by the US economy, by the US labor force.  We have
a wide-open opportunity to join with China, Russia, other
nations, in collaborating around those kinds of programs; but
it's going to require that shift in the United States to
recognize that's where we need to go.
        So, we have this new campaign page; it's an Action Center
location, it's a place for you, the activist, the members of the
LaRouche PAC to get involved in making this full Hamiltonian
program known to the American people.  Make it so you understand
all the elements integrated in their totality yourself, and you
can organize other leaders in your community — from regular
citizens all the way up to Federal elected officials around this
program.
        Just to reference back to some of the discussion, we're
acting in the future; this is what needs to happen in the future.
This is what you need to take action on now to shape where this
country goes; not responding to the insanity that's currently
called the news cycle, but getting active in shaping the future
of the country.  That's what makes this movement unique; that's
what gives us the chance to save this country at this late hour.
We would encourage you to get on these pages, to share these
pages; to get intimately connected to them and understand them.
And to get more involved in this campaign.

        OGDEN:  To accomplish this, we need to create the qualified
leadership.  This is not something where you can depend on
somebody else to do this; you can't depend on the "political
class" — so-called — to accomplish this.  We are going to need
to create a citizens' intelligentsia; and there is work that
needs to be done.  As Ben just went through, all the tools are
available to you.  You can attend these Congressional town hall
meetings; you can set up with your Congressional offices in the
districts and in Washington.  You can write letters to the
editor; this is a very important institution in the United
States.  Share your ideas with a mass-based readership of your
local newspaper, or national newspapers; and communicate the
substance of these principles — the Four Laws and the
Hamiltonian economic reports.  You can set up house meetings to
read Hamilton's papers in their entirety.  We've already begun
that process in Manhattan; there are weekly meetings now, every
Saturday, where some of the leading activists and leading
citizens in Manhattan come together and read these Hamilton
reports and discuss them, and discuss their implications for
today.  What's wonderful is that these are largely the same
activists who were involved in the presentation of the Mozart
{Requiem} on the anniversary of 9/11.  We are witnessing the
creation of this citizens' intelligentsia — a qualified
leadership for this country who are going to take the
intellectual responsibility to develop the knowledge they need to
exert the kind of leadership that's necessary.
        I might invite Diane to just say a little bit more about
this process of these weekly readings in Manhattan, as a model
for what can happen elsewhere in the country.

        SARE:  I know some people have discussed organizing such
readings; and I think that would be absolutely appropriate,
because that is in a sense, how the American Revolution was
organized.  In small circles of people discussing ideas; and it
is how Alexander Hamilton organized the republic with his
{Federalist Papers} with his collaborators John Jay and others.
I also just want to say, because part of the attempt to
intimidate and demoralize the American people is this big
promotion of this nonsense about Obama's great popularity and his
brilliant legacy of — as he himself puts it — "the greatest
economic recovery ever to happen in memorable recorded history of
mankind and civilization in general".  Which no one is
experiencing whatsoever.  And as far as his great surge in
popularity, the override of his JASTA veto in the Senate was 97 –
1; I would not say that 1 out of 100 constitutes a great spike in
popularity.
        I do think this case of the Philippines, I want to bring it
up because it's significant.  The Philippines, as people may
know, is not a particularly large or powerful nation. It's had a
special relationship with the United States, which had been
better when Douglas MacArthur was living.  The President has just
said to the US, "No, I am shifting our relationship to China.
We're not going to have a special relationship with the US
anymore; it's going to be with China, and with Russia."  What can
the United States do about this?  Absolutely nothing; we have
nothing to offer.  All we have is a lunatic who is having his
Vice President on his behalf and on behalf of the dying British
Empire, make threats about covert cyber-war attacks on Russia.
Of course, Ed Snowden asked the relevant question — maybe
someone should explain what "covert" means to these idiots.  I
think Americans should really take heart.  There is no reason for
you to be suffering, except a decision to go along with this
crap.  As we inform and educate ourselves as to what the Founding
Fathers actually intended with our republic, which is that
knowledge which is the bedrock of Lyndon LaRouche's life's work;
which he has taken to even higher levels in the realm of physical
science and physical economy.  That's our power; that's our
strength.
        And in these last two weeks before this dreaded election,
when it's clear to everybody that we are the best hope of the
United States, we should just be organizing.  I think that
webpage looks fantastic; that is a great resource.  So, we should
make use of it; everyone watching should forward it to all your
friends and neighbors.  Take this material and get on the warpath
a little bit.  There's no need to sit back and take this.  And by
all means, you certainly don't have to vote for either one of
these idiots.  So, I think it's a great moment of opportunity;
and the shift is being led right now by Putin and Xi Jinping and
Lyndon LaRouche.  We are the leaders of that in the United
States; and that's really your role and our role right now.

        OGDEN:  Wonderful!  So, I think that's sufficient for today.
Again, please become an active member of this new community that
we've set up with its hub on the LaRouche PAC Action Center.
There will be a free flow of ideas; report back, there's a field
there where you can type in your reports.  We want to share these
with as many people as we can to just sort of inspire people as
to what are the kinds of things that can be done.  There's
probably new ideas out there that haven't even been thought of
yet, but there's a lot that can be done right now.  All of the
material is available; this is something that you can use to pull
your friends into this orbit and lift people up out of the swamp
of this psychological trauma of this election period.  You can
inspire people and say, "No.  Don't become cynical; don't become
demoralized."  We have a lot that we can do.  This is an historic
and potentially wonderful time in human history; it is a
pre-revolutionary kind of situation on a world scale.  This is
your tool in order to become an active part of that.
        So again, it's on the LaRouche PAC Action Center, there's a
big banner right on the top of the larouchepac.com website right
now.  You can access it right there.  Please, sign up.  You will
receive updates and become part of the network; you can join the
Thursday Fireside Chat activists' calls; share your ideas, ask
questions to leading members of the LaRouche Political Action
Committee.  You can receive daily emails; you can receive the
weekly updates from LaRouche PAC in your email inbox.  You can
subscribe to both the LaRouche PAC Live and the LaRouche PAC
videos YouTube channel.  Just get everything that you can, and
become an active member.  You can expect some reports, I think,
from this historic seminar that occurred today in Essen, Germany
that was sponsored by the Schiller Institute; so please stay
tuned to the LaRouche PAC website for that, and for that numerous
other developments that we don't even know yet to have occurred.
But I'm sure that there will be a lot that will change over the
coming days and weeks.
        Thank you very much for watching today.  We look forward to
seeing you on the LaRouche PAC Action Center.  Stay tuned to
larouchepac.com, and good night.

Hr. LaRouche har leveret den klare recept, såvel som løsningen. Vi begyndte at forklare dette sidste fredag med vores særlige webcast med Paul Gallagher (dansk: Glass-Steagall: Det presserende første skridt); men vi er gået videre med at forklare dette spørgsmål. De Fire Økonomiske Love efter Hamilton, som Lyndon LaRouche udarbejdede for næsten to år siden, og som begyndte med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall, men som omfatter en recept, der er en meget præcis og videnskabeligt funderet fremgangsmåde for, hvordan man totalt skal reorganisere og genoplive ikke alene USA’s økonomi, men også skabe et helt nyt, økonomisk paradigme for det transatlantiske system, i harmoni med det, der allerede stråler ud fra Eurasien. I sammenhæng hermed har hr. LaRouche prioriteret de fire, økonomiske rapporter, som blev skrevet og forelagt Kongressen af vores første finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, i 1790’erne ved selve den amerikanske republiks fødsel. Disse fire rapporter er: »Rapporten om statslig kredit«; »Rapporten om statslig bankvirksomhed«; »Argumentet for forfatningsgrundlaget for Nationalbanken«; og »Rapporten om varefremstilling«. https://larouchepac.com/20161013/alexander-hamiltons-four-economic-papers

Engelsk udskrift:

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 14, 2016

HAMILTON'S FOUR REPORTS AND LAROUCHE'S FOUR LAWS —
BASIC NECESSITIES FOR MANKIND'S CONTINUED EXISTENCE

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it is October 14, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're watching our weekly Friday
evening webcast here from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the
studio today by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team; and we're joined via video by Kesha Rogers from Houston,
Texas; and Michael Steger from San Francisco, California.  Both
of whom are leading members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.
        Now, I just want to begin our broadcast here today by
re-emphasizing exactly what Mr. LaRouche has been emphasizing
every single time we've spoken to him this week.  That it cannot
be said enough that the American people scored a major victory
against Obama with the defeat of his treasonous veto of the JASTA
bill and the overwhelming veto override that was delivered as the
final act of the United States Congress before they left for
their districts.  This only demonstrates what the American people
are capable of when they overcome whatever fear, whatever
intimidation has come from this Barack Obama administration; and
we can see that it's been a force for seven and a half years to
try to intimidate the American people out of taking their country
back and acting in their own self-interest.  But Obama's decision
to ally with the British-Saudi treason terror faction and to veto
this JASTA bill, demonstrated who he was; it demonstrated his
true colors.  And the American people drew a line in the sand and
said, "Enough is enough!  No more of this."
        You can look at what has happened in the weeks following
that event.  We are now directly involved through missiles and
bombing in the war in Yemen; this is the decision by Barack Obama
to become involved in yet another unnecessary foreign war.  We
are siding with the genocide and war crimes of the Saudi regime
there in Yemen.  The lies and the propaganda that are coming out
of the Obama White House against Russia, and the actions that
Russia is taking in alliance with the Syrian government in
attempting to defeat ISIS and the terrorists in Aleppo are
unprecedented; along with the completely unfounded propaganda and
lies about so-called Russian cyber warfare and hacking and all
the rest.
        You can see the utter denial of the fact that we are right
on the verge of a complete blow-out of the entire trans-Atlantic
financial system.  All you have to do is read the headlines of
the major financial press to see that even {they} are admitting
that Deutsche Bank is more leveraged than even Lehman Brothers
was at the time of its collapse; and that Deutsche Bank could, in
fact, be the next Lehman.
        So, all of these three items combined should show you, as we
emphasized earlier this week on the Policy Committee show on
Monday, that you would have to be completely out of your mind not
to see how close we are to the combined threat of a complete
blow-out of the financial system and the very real threat of the
eruption of a nuclear war.  Even Mikhail Gorbachov is saying we
are closer to a Third World War than we have ever been before.
This is the remaining months in office that Obama has.
        What Mr. LaRouche has delivered as the prescription, as the
solution, is very clear.  We began to elaborate this last Friday
during our special webcast with Paul Gallagher; but we've
continued to elaborate this question.  The four Hamiltonian
economic laws, drafted by Lyndon LaRouche almost two years ago,
which begin with the re-institution of Glass-Steagall, but
contain a prescription which is a very precise and scientifically
grounded approach to exactly how to completely reorganize and
revive not only the United States economy, but to create an
entirely new economic paradigm for the trans-Atlantic system in
accord with what's already emerging out of Eurasia.  In
conjunction with this, Mr. LaRouche has put a premium on the four
economic reports that were written and submitted to Congress by
our first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, in the 1790s at
the very birth of the United States republic.  These are:  the
"Report on Public Credit"; the "Report on National Banking"; the
"Argument for the Constitutionality of the National Bank"; and
the "Report on Manufactures".
        So, as a key component of our show today, Ben and I in
conjunction with Kesha and Michael are going to elaborate a
little more on what is the contents, what is the substance of
those reports from Alexander Hamilton; and then, how do they
translate today in the four economic laws of Lyndon LaRouche,
with a major emphasis on how a breakthrough in terms of man's
exploration of space and everything that that entails in terms of
the great economic leap and scientific revolution for mankind, is
the application of the Hamiltonian principle for today.
        But before we get to some of that more detailed discussion,
I think we should just revisit a couple of the urgent points in
terms of the current mobilization.  The channeling of the spirit
of the JASTA victory into the mobilization for the re-institution
of Glass-Steagall and the proceeding toward the entirety of the
four LaRouche economic laws.

        BEN DENISTON:  Plenty can be said, but I would just
emphasize — you said it already, but I think given the state of
our nation today; and I hate to mention the elections, but this
is really a form of psychological warfare.  This is not an
election; this is a Jerry Springer episode, this is insane.  But,
as Matthew cited, look at what we did with JASTA.  That did not
require either of these candidates to do anything on that; that
was an action demonstrating the institutions of the United
States, the republican system of the United States.  The
integration between the work that we've been leading and the work
the 9/11 victims' families have been leading on the ground,
working with various institutions, various regions of the country
as a totality came together and slammed Obama, slammed the
British, slammed these degenerate Saudis on this issue; in spite
of the insanity leading the Presidential election process.  So,
that's the spirit we need to take right now to the current
Glass-Steagall fight.  This financial system is collapsing; as
was said, you can see that in any major press at this point.
There is no solution left in the monetarist framework the way
these guys are playing it.  Bail in; bail out; QE; they've been
playing these games for years now, and they're reaching the end.
This can't keep going; we need a reorganization of the system.
If we're not going to have a Presidential candidate who's going
to take the lead on that, that doesn't matter; we need to make it
happen.  We're not going to wait 'til after the election; we're
not going to wait for one of these ridiculous fools to take the
lead on this.  We're going to make it happen.  That's what we did
with JASTA; that happened.
        So, people who are cynical out there — we did it!  That
happened.  It can happen again, and it needs to happen again.
Glass-Steagall is going to completely cut off Wall Street; this
is going to be a massive revolution in the United States, a
massive shift of power in the United States away from the
interests of Wall Street and international finance back to the
sovereignty of the United States.  It is the necessary
indispensable first step for opening up this full recovery
program.  But I think people need to have the urgency of getting
this through now.  Again, don't let your friends, your
associates, the people you're talking to, fall into this cynical
pessimism; which is really being pushed at this point, with the
Jerry Springer show — aka these debates.  These things can
change; we can get these laws through.  There's already huge
momentum around the country on Glass-Steagall; there's growing
recognition of LaRouche's Four Laws as the necessary next steps.
So, I think the message to take away at this critical time is go
out and move!  This is the time to make this happen.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Yeah, I think that's right.  I think it's
important to take a look at a couple of things in the context of
this Hamilton question. Because it was about two years ago that
Mr. LaRouche launched the Manhattan Project with the key focus of
Alexander Hamilton at the foundation of that, as well as a
commitment towards a Classical renaissance.  And what we saw in
the process of these last two years, was the mobilization of a
key part of the American population — the New York City area;
because of the questions of Glass-Steagall and of Wall Street
implicitly, and the question of 9/11.  There was a mobilization
of that population around an optimistic vision of the country,
both through Hamilton's policies, really the foundation of
Hamilton setting forth the most advanced conception of human
economy as a scientific practice that has been conceived yet.
Mr. LaRouche said this  himself, that what he took as the Four
Laws was essentially a patenting of what Hamilton had set forth
in these documents.  Both the power of the Federal government,
and the means and mechanisms by which you can develop and foster
a perpetual growth of the human species.  But I think it's also
important — because I think this is something that too many
Americans overlook, either voluntarily, but more so
involuntarily, because of the black-out in the media; that in
June of 2014, we saw consolidated what Xi Jinping had put out as
an international policy at the end of 2013, which was the New
Silk Road perspective.  In June 2014, that was consolidated by
the BRICS; and largely what we've seen, given the attempts to
undercut Brazil and South Africa, but we've seen an increasing
level of coordination and collaboration between Russia, China,
and India, that has fundamentally shifted world history.  We are
talking about a fundamentally new economic system; one that looks
at the very policy Mr. LaRouche laid out beginning in the 1970s.
At the core of that, is the question of an International
Development Bank; or what the BRICS have entitled the New
Development Bank.  Or as a LaRouche-Hamiltonian conception of a
new international credit system; that is there.
        Now, not only is that economic perspective there; it is
recruiting nations like Japan, the Philippines, Australia,
Canada.  Many nations joined the Asia Infrastructure Investment
Bank; nations like Egypt, and Iran.  But there is also a very
clear strategic component; we see this specifically in Syria.  We
see what Russia has done to confront Obama's war agenda.  Then
the coordination between Russia and China, India, and increasing
numbers of other nations throughout Eurasia.  This is a unique
opportunity for the American people to create a new Presidency
that looks to realign with Russia, China, and these major
nations.  All of the propaganda against Putin, all the attacks,
the lies, the mass of lies against Putin coming out of the Obama
operation right now in the Presidential election is a mass
cover-up of what really exists for the American people; which is
a chance to go back to a LaRouche-Hamilton perspective in
economic policy in the United States with very key collaborators
internationally.  That really is shaping the intervention we made
around JASTA, both the Manhattan Project and this Russia-China
intervention.  The BRICS is larger, but those nations most
specifically.  We really have a unique opportunity to shut down
this London-Wall Street financial system, which for 50-60 years
and longer, essentially, but since the end of World War II has
been a mass genocide program in Africa, in South America.  Forced
sterilizations; imposed famines; scientific frauds like global
warming, the ozone layer, or human overpopulation; all of these
things have been concocted as ways of undermining and destroying
the human economic growth potential.
        And we now see a potential today to change that.  An
intervention by the American people like we saw with JASTA,
around this LaRouche-Hamilton perspective is absolutely key.  But
I think this global perspective is essential to that, to
understanding why we can be so optimistic today.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I think that if you go and look at what was
presented last week, Paul Gallagher presented a clear picture in
terms of the proximity of the complete breakdown of this
financial system; and the causes for that, the reason for that.
The insanity of 0% interest rate QE bail-in, bail-out regime that
has reigned since 2008; but really since the repeal of
Glass-Steagall in 1999.  The fact that what would be a productive
economy has been completely drowned and suffocated by a shark
tank — as he characterized it — of this just robbery, looting,
criminal practices and complete insanity as it reigns in terms of
economics.  The fact that Mr. LaRouche is on the scene, and has
for 50 years what has now been adopted in part by several major
nations on this planet — I think most clearly evidenced by the
policies of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New
Silk Road projects coming out of China.  We have the ability to
bring Alexander Hamilton's principles to bear on this current
situation.  The vacuum of leadership in the face of this total
meltdown of the financial system gives us a great opportunity for
optimism.  In fact, through reasoned leadership of the type that
was exerted in the midst of this fight for JASTA, but which was
really a fight against the entire imperial apparatus that has
dominated this country since 9/11; you can in fact create a
policy revolution of a type which has not been seen for a long
time, especially since John F Kennedy with his commitment to the
space program.  But really not since Franklin Roosevelt in the
full extent of that kind of economic approach.
        I think we should revisit these four economic principles of
Mr. LaRouche before getting a little bit more deeply into the
content of the Hamilton economic reports. We begin with [No.1]
the principle of Glass-Steagall, re-instituted exactly as
Franklin Roosevelt did it. It proceeds directly from there, that
through a restored actual commercial banking system in which you
have the Treasury of the United States restored to its original
intended role, as Alexander Hamilton created it; the power of the
Presidency, as Abraham Lincoln demonstrated very clearly through
his use of the Greenbacks and also his national banking bills of
1863 and 1864, can reorganize this banking system, from the top
down, to restore it to its original intent; that it should be
used for the productive investments of productive enterprise in
the United States and the improvement of productive enterprise.
        But that's not enough! What you have to have from that
standpoint, is [No. 2] a scientifically-grounded and principled
understanding of how credit, through the mechanisms that were
provided by Alexander Hamilton, must be directed to {increase}
the productive powers of your labor force. [No. 3] What are the
specific projects? What are the specific investments? What are
the specific cutting-edge discoveries that must be pursued that
in a scientifically provable and knowable way that will increase
the productive powers of your labor force, both individually and
as a whole? And that has to be defined from an understanding, as
Mr. LaRouche has uniquely developed it, of the principle of
energy-flux density, not a one-to-one labor power, as manual
labor per individual member of your society, but the application
of technology and ever-higher forms of technology, to create the
increases of productive powers of labor, upon which progress in
your society depends.
        And then, No. 4, what are the specific future-oriented
drivers that express the unique character of man? What makes man
different from a beast? How is mankind, as Vernadsky would define
it, a unique and distinct species, distinct from all other forms
of animal and other kinds of life? And, what is our imperative,
as that sort of species? I think it is no better expressed than
in the space program, as it was conceived and elaborated, as
Kesha has emphasized, by Krafft Ehricke, who Mr. LaRouche
directly mentions in that "Four Economic Laws" paper of two years
ago.
        So, that was elaborated on the webcast last week. We've got,
I think, a little bit more specificity for especially that third
economic law, but I think between what Ben and I have, and then
the discussion with Kesha and Michael, you can see the resonance
between what Mr. LaRouche is addressing in these four economic
laws, and what Alexander Hamilton originally laid out in the
content of those four economic reports that he drafted to
Congress in the 1790s.

        BEN DENISTON: You had some quotes from those reports that
you want to read?

        OGDEN: Sure, we can start with that.

        DENISTON: Okay.

        OGDEN: Let me bring up on the screen the first slide from
these Hamilton reports. [Slide 1] I'm going to focus mainly on
the "Report on Manufactures." This was written in December 1791,
but, as I mentioned earlier, this is merely one out of four, and
in the "Report on Manufactures," actually, Hamilton refers
repeatedly to his other three reports, "On the National Bank,"
"The Defense of the Constitutionality of the National Bank," and
"On the Public Debt," or, "On the Public Credit."
        I think the "Report on Manufactures" is a very important and
useful place to start, because it really is nothing less than the
study of the science of how the human mind, through its
application by means of technology, can in fact increase the
potential population density of any given economy or any given
nation. This is the way that Mr. LaRouche came at this, but in
fact it's very much demonstrated and laid out, explored, in an
exploratory way, in this "Report on Manufactures."
        Quickly, the context of the "Report on Manufactures" — you
could really call it Hamilton's "Defense of Manufactures," in the
context of what was becoming a prevailing but fraudulent
argument, coming from circles such as Thomas Jefferson circles
and others. That the United States, as a new nation, should
merely be an agrarian economy, an agrarian economy in one form or
another — landlords and peasants — or just an infinite
extension of agricultural lands westward, and just depend on the
product of the soil as the driver of the economy. Hamilton said,
this is false, this is a fraud, this must be addressed, and he
wrote the "Report on Manufactures" to address this.
        What Hamilton elaborates is that in fact an economy which is
dependent merely on agriculture will be able to support far less
people at a far lower standard of living and a far lower density
of population, than an economy which also includes manufacturers,
science, technology, and the application of that, through
technology. A kind of argument generally used, said that anybody
who was not farming and was doing something else, like
manufacturing, would be producing less food, and so we would have
fewer people; we would be able to support fewer people. Hamilton
destroys this argument, saying in fact that it's the other way
around: the more division of labor that you have, if two people
are just doing agriculture, they can only support themselves. If
instead one of them is engaged in agriculture and one in
manufacturing, not only can they support the two of them, but
they can support themselves and others.
        Let me go back to that first slide, with that quote.
Hamilton says, the purpose of this report is "to evince that the
establishment and diffusion of manufacturers have the effect of
rendering the total mass of useful and productive labor in a
community greater than it would otherwise be." So, you can see,
he's very clear in what the purpose of this study is.
        Next slide. [Slide 2] He says "It may be inferred that
manufacturing establishments not only occasion a positive
augmentation of the produce and revenue of the society, but that
they may contribute essentially to rendering them greater than
they could possibly be without such establishments." So, without
the use of manufacturing, the ability of the economy would be
lesser than it would be with manufacturing establishments.
        He says there are seven reasons for this. I'm not going to
elaborate all seven, but you can see on the screen on the next
slide [Slide 3] the seven reasons he has listed: "(1) The
division of labor." I touched on that briefly. "(2) An extension
of the use of machinery." We'll elaborate on that a little bit
more. "(3) Additional employment to classes of the community not
ordinarily engaged in the business." "(4) The promoting of
emigration from foreign countries." That's an apropos point. "(5)
The furnishing greater scope for the diversity of talents and
dispositions which discriminate men from each other." We'll touch
on that a little bit more. That's an important one. "(6) The
affording a more ample and various field for enterprise." And
"(7) The creating in some instances a new, and securing in all, a
more certain and steady demand for the surplus produce of the
soil." This one is actually often overlooked, but Hamilton says
this is the most important one, and I think it will be
appropriate for what Ben's going to get into.
        Let me elaborate just a couple of these ones. We're going to
take a look at No. 2: "An extension of the use of machinery."
Here's what Hamilton says about that. This is the next slide.
[Slide 4] Alexander Hamilton says, "The employment of machinery
forms an item of great importance in the general mass of national
industry. 'Tis an artificial force brought in aid of the natural
force of man; and, to all the purposes of labor, is an increase
of hands; an accession of strength,{unencumbered, too, by the
expense of maintaining the laborer}. He's saying you have an
increase of hands, almost artificial labor, and you don't need to
feed that labor.
        Next slide. [Slide 5] [Hamilton continues,] "May it not
therefore be fairly inferred, that those occupations, which give
greatest scope to the use of this auxiliary, contribute most to
the general stock of industrious effort, and, in consequence, to
the general produce of industry?" So, that's the use of machinery
in manufacturing.
        Let's take a look at the next slide. [Slide 6] This is where
he elaborates the point [No. 5] "As to the furnishing greater
scope for the diversity of talents and dispositions, which
discriminate men from each other." He says, "It is a just
observation, that minds of the strongest and most active powers
for their proper objects fall below mediocrity and labor without
effect, if confined to uncongenial pursuits. And it is thence to
be inferred, that the results of human exertion may be immensely
increased by diversifying its objects. When all the different
kinds of industry obtain in a community, each individual can find
his proper element, and can call into activity the whole vigor of
his nature. And the community is benefitted by the services of
its respective members, in the manner, in which each can serve it
with most effect."
        Next slide please. [Slide 7] He continues, "If there be
anything in a remark often to be met with — namely that there
is, in the genius of the people of this country, a peculiar
aptitude for mechanic improvements, it would operate as a
forcible reason for giving opportunities to the exercise of that
species of talent, by the propagation of manufactures."
        OK; next slide. [Slide 8] In this one, he's elaborating his
point [No. 6] about "affording a more ample and various field for
enterprise." This is quoted, but I think it's very important. He
says, "To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind,
by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least
considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation
may be promoted."
        Next slide. [Slide 9] He continues, "Even things in
themselves not positively advantageous, sometimes become so, by
their tendency to provoke exertion. Every new scene, which is
opened to the busy nature of man to rouse and exert itself, is
the addition of a new energy to the general stock of the effort."
        Next slide. [Slide 10] He continues, "The spirit of
enterprise, useful and prolific as it is, must necessarily be
contracted or expanded in proportion to the simplicity or variety
of the occupations and productions, which are to be found in a
society. It must be less in a nation of mere cultivators, than in
a nation of cultivators and merchants, less in a nation of
cultivators and merchants, than in a nation of cultivators,
artificers and merchants.
        Next slide. [Slide 11] I want to put special emphasis on
this one, because I think it opens up the point that Mr. LaRouche
was exploring in his Four Laws paper about physical chemistry.
Alexander Hamilton says under this one [Point No. 7], the heading
of "As to the creating, in some instances, a new, and securing in
all a more certain and steady demand for the surplus produce of
the soil." Hamilton says, "This is among the most important of
the circumstances which have been indicated. It is a principal
mean, by which the establishment of manufacturers contributes to
an augmentation of the produce or revenue of a country, and has
an immediate and direct relation to the prosperity of
agriculture."
        Next slide. [Slide 12]  "It is a principal mean by which the
establishment of manufactures contributes to an augmentation of
the produce or revenue of a country."
        Next slide [Slide 13] After elaborating a little bit why
it's advantageous to have a domestic market rather than just
depending on foreign markets for your produce and products, he
says:
        "It merits particularly observation that the multiplication
of manufacturies not only furnishes a domestic market for these
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 considerable 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."
        Then, jumping forward quite a bit, I just wanted to go to
Hamilton's conclusion of the entire paper, after discussing
public credit and national banking. [Slide 14]  He says:
        "In countries where there is a great private wealth, much
may be affected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic
individuals.  But in a community situated like that of the United
States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private
resource.  In what can it be so useful as in promoting,
prompting, and improving the efforts of industry?"
        So, just before Ben picks it up, I just want to emphasize
that what Alexander Hamilton is exploring, is the science of how
the human mind can increase the productive powers of labor and
through that, by means of the application of technology and
principles that were hitherto unexplored or undiscovered, can
increase the potential population density of a nation or an
economy.  I think this seventh point, which he puts the most
premium on, is the role that manufactures can play in spurring
the discovery of resources that we didn't even know were
resources before.  What had been previously considered just rocks
or otherwise, become the most valuable resources — minerals,
fuels, coal, oil, uranium; the most valuable resources for your
economy.  I think Alexander Hamilton would be particularly
excited if he knew about the potential of the Moon to be mined
for a resource that I'm sure they did not have any conception of
in 1791 — helium-3 — as a source of fuel for nuclear fusion,
for example.  So, I just wanted to give a little bit of actual
content of Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures; and maybe
we can use that to contextualize a little bit of what Ben's going
to present here.

        DENISTON:  People should know, we are making these — in
their totality — available on the LaRouche PAC website.  This is
admittedly some pretty heavy material for some of our viewers,
but this is really what's needed right now.  I would just
emphasize looking where we are in the United States right now,
and again, a lot of people know Glass-Steagall needs to happen; a
number of people have a sense of having some sovereign control
over our money supply.  But what Hamilton understood and what
LaRouche understands, is what is the science of growth.  You can
have sovereign control of your money, you can cut off destructive
speculation like Wall Street; you can throw that in the trash.
But how do you create growth?  How do you actually create a more
productive economy in totality?  That is what Hamilton
understood; that a true credit system can facilitate these
increases in the productive power of labor.  That's what the
American people need to understand right now; that's what we have
a chance of joining internationally with what's going on around
the world.  But it's going to require that the United States
return to our understanding of these core principles.  I wanted
to just take a second and pull a little bit out of what Mr.
LaRouche defined as his Third Law in his policy document; and
just go through a couple of historical examples to put a little
bit more of a picture on this relation of the actual
understanding of the productive powers of labor and the critical
role that Mr. LaRouche has defined in his work furthering
Hamilton's own understanding to a new degree.  Mr. LaRouche's
work on what he defines as "energy flux density".
        But if we can go back to the slides, I have the full quote
of Mr. LaRouche's Third Law up there.  [Slide 15] Again, the
policy document as a whole is available on our website.  I just
wanted to read this and then go through a couple examples.
Again, the First Law being Glass-Steagall; the Second Law being a
national banking system, as Hamilton had defined.  And then he
presents a Third Law with this national banking system:
        "The purpose of the use of a Federal credit system, is to
generate high-productivity trends in improvement of employment
with the accompanying intention to increase the physical economic
productivity and the standard of living of the persons and the
households of the United States.  The creation of credit for the
now urgently needed increase of the relative quality and quantity
of productive employment must be ensured this time once more, as
was done successfully under President Franklin Roosevelt or by
like standards of Federal practice used to create a general
economic recovery of the nation, per capita.  And for rates of
net increases in productivity and by reliance on the essential
human principle which distinguishes the human personality from
the systemic characteristics of lower forms of life; the net rate
of energy flux density of effective practice.  This means
intrinsically a thoroughly scientific, rather than a merely
mathematical one; and by the related increase of energy flux
density per capita and for the human population when considered
as each and all as a whole.  The ceaseless increase of the
physical productivity of employment, accompanied by its benefits
for the general welfare, are a principle of Federal law which
must be a paramount standard of achievement of the nation and the
individual."
        I think really, again, illustrates Mr. LaRouche's work
furthering this scientific understanding of economy really rooted
in the work of Hamilton and those who continued this American
System tradition; but applying a new scientific understanding to
it.  If we go to the next slide [Slide 16], I wanted to highlight
a study that was done under Mr. LaRouche's direction back in the
'80s.  Mr. LaRouche has a long history of trying to educate the
American people and institutions about real economics.  I thought
this was just one example, but I think it may be a helpful,
specific case study to try and put some depth to the idea of the
productive powers of labor and the relation of energy flux
density to the productive powers of labor.
        So, what do we mean by that?  This is one expression of
that; this is a measurement of the productivity of iron
throughout the history of the United States up to 1975.  Iron
being by weight the most-used element by mankind as a whole.
Obviously, it's the main component of steel, so this is a major
part of any modern economy, is iron production.  This is a rather
fascinating study, where Mr. LaRouche said, don't just look at
tons produced; don't just look at people employed.  Look at the
relation between productivity — how productive is your average
laborer producing iron — and energy flux density; what's the
actual energy density per time used in the actual manufacturing
process of blast furnaces?  If you examine this historically, you
get this very fascinating and clear demonstration of what Mr.
LaRouche is talking about in terms of energy flux density and
productivity.  You see a consistent increase in the tons produced
per average iron worker per year in this case is the actual
number being used; measured against the energy flux density of
the production process.  The energy per area, per time; so the
concentration and density of energy used in the blast furnaces to
produce this iron.  And you see a dramatic, many-fold increase in
how productive each individual worker is as a direct function and
relation of the increasing energy flux density of the productive
process.
        More interesting, you see this kind of comes in successive
waves; and each of these waves is associated with — you'll get a
rise for a certain period, and then the productivity increase
will tend to level off.  Then, you'll get a new technological
revolution; you'll move to a higher energy density fuel, for
example.  Moving into better forms of coal was one example of
this; types of coal that have more energy per mass, per weight.
Or moving to coke — a derivative of coal that can operate at
higher temperatures and enable higher production rates.  Or
moving to higher technologies in the more recent period of
injection of pure oxygen into the process to create even more
heat and a more intense productive process.  There are various
technologies associated with each of those steps; you have
increases in technology, increases in the energy density of the
fuel producing the process.  You can kind of measure that
together as expressed in energy flux density; and you can see
that to really understand progress — but also these qualitative
shifts in progress; these leaps that occur, these are the kind of
metrics we want to look at.
        When you talk about this idea of — it's not a question of
the number of people you have employed; it's a question of what's
the capability of your labor force to produce the goods needed at
higher rates or efficiency, etc.  So, I think it's just one
useful case study to give some concept of the relationship
between the productive powers of labor and energy flux density.
It doesn't show it in this graphic, but as I think many of our
viewers wouldn't be surprised, these metrics have gone down
significantly since 1975; since we really settled into a
post-industrial economy which has led us to this collapse process
— the abandonment of this real industrial, forward-oriented
economic policy.
        If we go to the next graphic [Slide 17], it's just another
illustration of the same thing from the same study; but it's also
just interesting to note that with each of these successive
leaps, you also get higher rates of productivity per amount of
energy.  So, this is literally the productive output of iron per
amount of energy put in.  This idea that energy as a scalar value
in and of itself means something is not true.  The amount of
energy you're using does not necessarily tell you what your
economy can do, how productive you can be; but it's an issue of
energy flux density.  Higher energy flux densities, the same
amount of energy measured in just scalar, quantitative terms
becomes much more productive; because you're employing it with
higher technologies and at higher energy flux densities.
        This is just one example.  Similar studies can be done in
various sectors of the economy; but this is the type of process
that enables the productive section of your economy to continue
to — as Mr. LaRouche said in the concluding section of this
Third Law:  "[T]o continue this process of ever increasing the
productivity and ability of your labor force to produce more
goods, higher quality goods, that are needed to support society."
Those are the metrics that we need to understand that the credit
must facilitate and go to.
        I just wanted to highlight one other illustration of this
energy flux density issue, but on a national scale.  If we return
to the slide [Slide 18], you can also see this in terms of the
economy as a whole.  This is a study that we developed in the
Basement Team looking at the history of the United States;
looking at what you could consider one metric for the energy flux
density of the nation as a whole.  Now, we're looking at the use
of power per capita; not just what any one individual uses, but
everything that goes into all forms of transportation,
manufacturing, agriculture.  You take the net energy investment
in totality across the entire nation, average it per capita.
Then here we have it divided by power sources.  You can clearly
see the history of the growth of the United States very clearly
expressed in the increasing energy flux density of the nation.
You clearly see the Great Depression illustrated by a significant
drop in the energy flux density — measured in per capita terms
— of the nation.  You see a dramatic rise in Franklin
Roosevelt's mobilization coming out of the New Deal programs into
the World War II mobilization; you clearly see that reflected in
this graphic.  What's the next dramatic rate of increase?  Well,
it's certainly associated with Kennedy's space program, starting
there in the early '60s you see a dramatic leap in rate of
increase of energy flux density of the nation as a whole.
        Then what do you see since then?  This leveling off and
collapse, which is directly associated with the collapse we're
seeing now today in the United States; expressed in these
physical metrics.  You see that what should have been an
explosion of nuclear fission power was suppressed to just that
tiny, red segment there.  If you could see it — you might not be
able to at all — there's a little green tiny layer on the very
top there which is wind, solar, geothermal all combined.  So, if
you think you're going to support the US economy on Green
technologies, you're living in a fantasy.  All of the massive
subsidies and investment and propping up these things has barely
done anything to contribute to our actual net energy flux density
for our country as a whole.
        This is where we are today; this is one expression of the
collapse.  This is the process we have to reverse.  Maybe just to
illustrate one last example, I think it's really worth comparing
this with the next graphic [Slide 19]; which was the forecast by
the Kennedy administration in the '60s.  It was forecast that
this process would increase; and the next major component would
be the rapid expansion of nuclear fission power.  You'd get this
interesting process of these waves of fuel sources being used and
then surpassed as society moves to the next level.  The gray on
the far right, if you haven't read it yet, that's mostly
wood-powered; in very early times, wood was the main energy
source.  That was superseded by coal, as you can see in the
brown.  That began to fall off as other fossil fuels — namely,
gasoline, diesel, and natural gas — became a major component of
the economy.  As you can see, under a healthy orientation, it was
understood in the early '60s by the Kennedy administration, that
that should then fall off, and we should see a rapid expansion of
nuclear fission power as the next wave.  So, this is what a
healthy growth process would have looked like.  This is the kind
of process we need to return to; and as Mr. LaRouche says,
increasing the energy flux density of the nation, of the
productive powers of labor, of the labor force, these are the
kinds of metrics we need to be looking at.  Today, that means
fusion power.  It's not illustrated in the graphic here, but if
we're going to overcome those 30-40 years of stagnation, if we're
going to overcome the dramatic collapse in the productive
capabilities of our labor force; we can't just continue what was
done before.  As you've seen in all these historical examples, we
need to go to the new leaps in technology, the new leaps in
energy flux density, to drive the greatest increase in the
productive capabilities of the labor force.
        Then you have a system that will work; then the Four Laws
will work.  Now, a national bank will work; now, Glass-Steagall
will work, because it will facilitate this physical growth
process.  As we've talked about, this means fusion power, this
means the space program.  It's no accident that in those graphics
we were looking at, the period of the space program is very
clearly expressed in both of those; driving the increase in the
productive powers of labor, even in industries not seemingly
related to the space program.  But you see that driver program
reflected in this iron production, for example; you see it
reflected in the totality of the national energy flux density.
        Which brings us to Mr. LaRouche's Fourth Law; a fusion drive
program.  As he's increasingly emphasized, that is truly
integrated with a real space program.  So that has to be the
front end of a recovery program.  That'll come with all kinds of
things:  rebuilding our infrastructure; rebuilding the national
transportation system; power systems; all kinds of soft
infrastructure.  But it has to be understood as unified around
this increase of your productive capabilities; that's how an
economy works.
        That's what Hamilton understood, as Matthew showed us.
Smash the idea that we should be just agrarian, or should we be
manufacturing?  If you take people away from the other — a
complete lack of understanding of the synergistic relation of
actual human revolutions in technology; revolutions in the very
nature of mankind's relation to the environment more generally,
which are driven by real creative discoveries, creative thought,
real unique human growth.  This is the message, the unifying
conception that the American people need to understand and rally
around, if we're going to get out of the mess we're in now.  It's
not going to come from any form of monetarist jiggering of the
system; it has to be rooted in a real understanding of the true
science of human growth, of human progress.
        I know that might be a lot to throw at our viewers today,
but this is the historical challenge that we're facing.  We have
it in our history; we have it in Hamilton; we have in Lincoln; we
have it in Franklin Roosevelt.  We have it in a more developed
form than even them, with Mr. LaRouche's work.  But it's on us to
bring this to bear now as the revolution needed in the United
States.

        ROGERS:  Before we close out, let me just add one principle
from the standpoint that the underlying principle at the
foundation and at the core of Hamilton's four Reports and
LaRouche's Four Laws gets right at the heart of formation of our
US republic and the formation of Union as Hamilton saw it.  It is
what is defined directly in the US Constitution, but more
directly in the Preamble to the Constitution; the idea that
Hamilton was instrumental in developing.  This conception that
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the General Welfare, and
secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of
America."  What's at the core of that is the principle of the
General Welfare; which is directly under attack right now by the
actions of Obama.  That is explicitly shown in the attacks on not
only the General Welfare of the nation, but attacks on this very
principle of the increase of the productive powers of your
society, and on the creative and productive powers of the human
mind.  You can see this most explicitly in the insane recent
announcement by President Obama advocating the United States go
to Mars under the direction, should we say, and direct support of
private industry.  But in a recent conference President Obama was
in — the White House Frontiers conference — the key person he
was there with was a man by the name of Atul Gawande.  This is a
person who's been promoting the idea that the population doesn't
need health care, we need to cut healthcare; we need to kill off
more people.  That's what's at the core of the attack on the
General Welfare of our nation, is this idea of population
reduction — killing off of the population.
        When you look at what it was that was understood by
Alexander Hamilton on this question of advancing the productive
powers of labor, that was most directly expressed over a century
later after the death of Alexander Hamilton, with the birth of a
great pioneer by the name of Krafft Ehricke.  Krafft Ehricke's
understanding of the increase in the formation of a more perfect
union and the productive powers of labor, came with the
understanding that it was not until mankind left the confines of
one small planet — Earth — and actually went out into the far
reaches of our Solar System and developed the Solar System.  He
called explicitly for developing the Solar System through the
increase in the productivity of society, the increase of
manufactures, and the increase of everything that Ben just went
through very thoroughly in his remarks.
        I think what we get back to again, which was very clearly
understood by Alexander Hamilton, as Mr. LaRouche in the
foundation of his policies on physical economy, and by Krafft
Ehricke, is at the heart of this is the conception of, and the
principle of, the human mind.  The human mind in the power of
reason.  What I wanted to do is just read a quick quote from
Krafft Ehricke on this conception of the reasoning of the human
mind at the foundation of this very principle of what increases
the productive powers of labor in our society — or throughout
our universe.
        He says:  "We are cosmic creatures by substance; by the
energy on which we operate, and by the restless mind that
increasingly metabolizes information from the infinitesimal to
the infinite.  And on the infrastructure of knowledge, pursues
its moral and social aspirations for a larger and better world
against many odds.  Through intelligences like ourselves, the
universe — and we in it — move into a focus of
self-recognition.  Metal ore is turned into formation-processing
computers, satellites, and deep space probes; and atoms are fused
as in stars.  I cannot imagine a more foreboding, apocalyptic
vision of the future than a mankind endowed with cosmic powers,
but condemned to solitary confinement on one small planet."
        He goes on to take the principle which Alexander Hamilton
had defined in his four Reports, in his Report on Manufacturing,
and applies that to the development of space; particularly to the
development of our sister body, the Moon.  He says that the
manufacturing and the development of the process which would
organize the increase of society, the formation of a more perfect
union, off of the planet, would actually start with the
development of the Moon.  And he says:  "Lunar industry should be
viewed as an organism that over time evolves to progressively
more complex capabilities and generates sufficiently strong
foundations for expansion.  Lunar industry must be broad-based
and diverse if it is to last.  The need for economic feasibility
and early returns will require a skillful interplay between
market, consumer-oriented products and services, and
infrastructural investments such as transportation, energy, and
surface-space installations that expand food production and
diversity in industrial productivity."
        So, I think what is essential to understand is that
Hamilton's conception was not something that was confined to one
period in time, one period of history.  It wasn't confined to one
planet.  It was actually organized — as was later understood by
Krafft Ehricke — to the idea that man cannot be confined to one
planet.  If we are going to truly form a more perfect union, we
have to get off the Earth and develop the entirety of the Solar
System and universe we live in.  And only the human mind can do
that.

        OGDEN:  Well said. I think Hamilton would concur with that
one.  We can only encourage to do your own reading of these four
Hamilton Reports; and as Ben said at the beginning of the show,
we did make those four available on the LaRouche PAC website.
There's a big picture of Hamilton; you can click on it.  It's got
links to the four separate reports by Hamilton; each one is a
nicely formatted pdf.  You can print them out and read them on
your own.  I would also just emphasize that
larouchepac.com/fourlaws is the place where you can find
LaRouche's paper from close to two years ago, as you can see on
the screen.  This contains the four principles of LaRouche.  Put
those two together, and I think if you can do the work, we can
create the educated citizenry that's necessary to put these
policies into practice.
        So, the urgency of the mobilization for Glass-Steagall
absolutely persists; we are right on the cusp of a complete
meltdown of this financial system.  The Glass-Steagall
mobilization is one which must be generating the kind of activity
that we had during the JASTA mobilization.  That victory rendered
the Obama regime impotent.  Don't fall for the bluster and the
intimidation; don't give in to the fear that the Obama
administration is attempting to project right now.  We had a
revolution in this country with the override of the JASTA veto;
and it's a completely new situation.  If we maintain that kind of
sense of victory and urgency, we can continue to make some very
incredible breakthroughs.
        I'd like to thank Ben; thank you, Kesha; thank you, Michael.
Please stay tuned.  Obviously, we're going to just elaborate
these discussions much more in the days to come.  Thank you very
much, and good night.

Krakket har været i gang siden 1. januar, 2016. Det var den dato, da alle regler i Europa blev ændret således, at banker ikke kunne få en bailout (statslig bankredning). De skulle angiveligt reddes gennem en bail-in (ekspropriering af visse typer af bankindskud); det er blevet til at betyde, at indskyderne og obligationsindehaverne ville få eksproprieret deres penge for at skabe ny kapital til insolvente banker. Det har vist sig at være en total ’non-starter’, komplet ubrugeligt; det fungerer ikke. Det blev afvist af Italien, og er grundlæggende set blevet opgivet og smidt i skraldespanden. Men de står ikke desto mindre over for, at der ikke er mulighed for bailout; især Deutsche Bank står på det seneste over for, at der ikke er nogen mulighed for bailout.

Da dette først skete, og oliepriserne faldt til omkring $30-40 fra næsten 3,5 gange så meget, og alle de andre råvarepriser kollapsede, har dette, samt truslen om, at de ikke kunne få bailout, betydet, at ikke alene Deutsche Bank, men dusinvis af storbanker i de europæiske lande, i Det forenede Kongerige (U.K.), siden da har stået på kanten af afgrunden, med udsigt ned i dybet. De ventede simpelt hen på at se, hvor udløseren af faktisk tab af al likviditet i dette baksystem ville finde sted; om det ville blive i det tyske banksystem, i U.K.’s nationaliserede banker – som er i en meget dårlig forfatning.

Det er, hvor hele dette banksystem har stået siden 1. januar; enormt overgearet. Otte år; 7,5 år med kvantitativ lempelse, der har givet dem mulighed for at blive enormt overgearet; Deutsche Bank har en gearing-rate på 37:1 iflg. en rapport, der netop er udgivet af FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; USA’s Statslige Indskudsgarantifond). Det er værre end Lehman Brothers’ gearing-rate, da den gik konkurs; ikke meget værre, men værre.

Samtidigt har de ligget og marineret i otte år i et miljø med 0 % ’s rentesatser; hvilket betyder, at de ikke er profitable. De kan ikke på én og samme gang være forsigtigt kloge og solide, kommercielle banker, og så også være profitable. Så hvad har de gjort? De har generelt tilsidesat deres aktiviteter med at modtage indskud og udstede lån – deres kommercielle bank er fuldstændig gået over til den hajtank, der indeholder diverse former for spekulationer; med salg af kunstfærdige og komplekse instrumenter, som ingen forstår – inklusive dem, der sælger dem. De solgte dem til deres afdelingskunder, de solgte dem til kommuner og byer, de solgte dem til organisationer; og de forsøgte grundlæggende set at plyndre indskuddene i deres kommercielle bankenheder og bruge dem til deres spekulative operationer, fordi de ikke kan tjene penge ved kommerciel bankaktivitet, eftersom de har ligget marineret i 0 % ’s rentesatser i otte år, med udsigten til, generelt, en ubegrænset fremtid med mere af samme slags. Så når man frem til krakket.

Det, der diskuteres omkring IMF-mødet, og jeg tror, vi kommer til dette, for vi har venner, som er dér; ud over dem af os, der udgiver The Hamiltonian, har vi andre venner omkring disse møder. Det, som diskuteres dér, er muligheden og frygten for et reelt likviditetskrak, som kunne blive udløst, hvad øjeblik, det skal være. Det, som ikke diskuteres dér, er de kriminelle handlinger, som disse banker begår som et resultat af deres spekulative kultur, og som et resultat af den tilstand, de befinder sig i, efter at have ligget i lage i disse 8 år. De forbrydelser, som de nu er i færd med at begå, fordrer absolut, både som et spørgsmål om juridisk retfærdighed og som et spørgsmål om fornuftig, sund bankpraksis, at bankerne omgående opdeles.

Vi behøver ikke se længere end til Wells Fargo, der skulle forestille at være den næststørste bank i USA, et mønster på ikke-spekulativ, kommerciel bankvirksomhed. Se på, hvad de har bedrevet. Deres bankenheder for investering og værdipapirhandel har i bogstavelig forstand stjålet pengene fra deres indskydere i en skala af hundreder af tusinder (af indskydere), for at tjene gebyrer og profitter på kunstfærdige instrumenter (læs: makværk). Det er kriminelt. Vi husker nok Detroit og alle de andre byer i hele verden – i hvert fald i hele Europa og USA – som man solgte disse meget komplekse derivater og rente-swaps til. Hver gang, de ønskede at udstede en obligation og låne nogle penge til kommunen eller byen eller offentlige transportselskaber, hvad det nu var, solgte man disse produkter til dem. Det er stort set det samme som at sige, at de ikke anede, hvad det var, de fik; præcis ligesom indskyderne i Wells Fargo, som ikke var klar over, hvad det var for noget, man havde solgt til dem. Så uklar var forståelsen hos kommunens/byens finansdirektører, og hos finansdirektører for selskaberne for offentlige tjenesteydelser, af disse derivater, som bankerne fik dem til at købe, simpelt hen for at gøre lånet til en obligation med variabel rentesats, at man lige så godt kunne sige, at de solgte dem disse derivater uden, at finansdirektørerne overhovedet vidste, at de fik dem, indtil de opdagede, at de tabte millioner og atter millioner af dollars hvert år. Og forbløffende nok, i hvert eneste tilfælde i hver eneste by/kommune i hele verden, var den samme satsning gået galt på nøjagtig samme måde; og det løb op i – i nogle tilfælde med storbyer – i hundreder af millioner af dollars for bøder, gebyrer og tab, som de ikke kunne komme ud af. Denne kriminelle aktivitet kan kun afsluttes på én måde. Det er ved at sætte Glass/Steagall-loven i kraft igen. Hvis nogen prøver at fortælle dig, at, ved at tilføje endnu en specifik, lille regel til de andre tusinder, der findes i Dodd/Frank-loven, osv., at, så vil denne kriminelle aktivitet stoppe, så lægger de røgslør ud – de bedrager dig. Der findes kun én måde at standse det på. Uden Glass/Steagall-loven i en omtrentlig periode på de seneste 20 år, er hver eneste storbank blevet meget større, og er blevet til en båd, hvis midte er fuld af indskydere med et stort antal – i visse tilfælde hundreder af tusinder af hajer, som udgøres af de spekulative afdelinger af dette enorme holdingselskab – alle disse hajer, der svømmer rundt omkring båden, der er fuld af indskydere, og som forsøger på den ene eller anden måde at få noget blod, få en arm eller et ben, få en hel krop, for at få blod ud af båden.

Den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan vende selv en sådan enkelt, enorm bank omkring og sige, give os en bank tilbage, der kan udøve kommerciel bankvirksomhed; som kan tage imod indsættelser/indskud og udstede lån og faktisk investere i industri og fremskridt; giv os det tilbage. Der findes kun én måde at gøre det på; og det er, at man tager sin harpunkanon og dræber disse hajer. Og måden at gøre dét på er at vedtage Glass/Steagall-loven; sæt den i kraft igen. Man rejser således, grundlæggende set, et sådant hegn op omkring indskuddene, at hajerne absolut ikke kan få nogen adgang, og man vi så se, at disse spekulative bankenheder – mange af dem – hurtigt vil gå bankerot. Det var meget velkomment i går at høre et forslag fra et parlamentsmedlem i Hamborg i Tyskland om, at man netop skulle gøre dét med Deutsche Bank. Hvis man kan gøre det med Deutsche Bank, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche foreslog for et par måneder siden, så kan man gøre det med alle storbanker i verden. Hvis man rent faktisk kan få en rigtig bank tilbage, en kommerciel bank, en udlånsbank, ud af den monstrøsitet, det roderi, som er Deutsche Bank i dag – i processen med en bankerot; så er den eneste måde at gøre det på lig med det forslag, som dette parlamentsmedlem kom med. Det samme forslag, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche fremsatte for to måneder siden, kendt som Herrhausen-forslaget for Deutsche Bank. Dette parlamentsmedlem sagde, opdel og, på en lovmæssig måde, kør ned og fjern alle disse giftige, spekulative bankenheder. Så kan den kommercielle bank genkapitaliseres, endda af regeringen, på en sådan måde, at den nu begynder seriøst at investere i økonomien.

Så det er altså, hvad man ikke diskuterer; det er de kriminelle handlinger, og hvordan man skal standse dem. Det er et langt mere fundamentalt spørgsmål end spørgsmålet om, hvilke af disse banker, der først går ned og udløser den generelle eksplosion af afviklinger. Vi må få Kongressen til at vende tilbage (til Washington). Hvad foretager de sig, når de forlader Washington i to måneder, efter at have sagt, at, nu vil de stramme skruen over for Wall Street i en række høringer om Wells Fargos kriminelle handlinger; for dernæst at forlade byen i to måneder. Holde pause for et totalt ubetydeligt valg, der ikke har noget valg at byde på, når de i stedet burde stramme skruen over for Wall Street; når de burde lovgive! Det er, hvad vi diskuterer her; den mobilisering, der nu er i gang, for at få dem til at komme tilbage til Washington og genindføre Glass-Steagall nu, og så fortsætter vi derfra.

Ovenstående er et uddrag af LaRouchePAC’s webcast, 7. oktober, 2016. Hele webcastet, med engelsk udskrift, kan ses her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=15135

Vi befinder os midt i en forhøjet mobilisering, og jeg kan sige, at netop, mens vi taler, bliver eksemplarer af det allerseneste nummer af avisen The Hamiltonian, den ugentlige avis fra LaRouchePAC, uddelt i New York City; men også på gaderne i Washington, D.C., uden for det årlige IMF-møde. Hovedoverskriften i The Hamiltonian i denne uge er meget klar; den har titlen »Ét minut over midnat, krakket er begyndt!« Og det kunne dårligt opsummere vores diskussion her i aften bedre. De andre artikler er også apropos; hvis I endnu ikke har læst dem, opfordrer jeg jer til at gøre det. Vi har »Økonomi handler ikke om penge« af Jason Ross; »Finanskrise i oktober; Vedtag Glass-Steagall nu« af Rachel Brinkley; »Et lille skridt for Kongressen, Et kæmpespring for menneskeheden«, af Dennis Speed, om gennembruddet med underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet; og »Nero-Obamas sidste dage: Fremstød for atomkrigs-folkemord«, af Carl Osgood.

Så avisen uddeles nu, mens vi taler; og vi har allerede sidste-minut-rapporter fra uden for IMF-mødet, hvor personer responderer meget ivrigt, inklusive nogle tyske økonomer, der kendte Alfred Herrhausen personligt, inden han blev myrdet, og som responderer til Alexander Hamiltons stemme via de forslag eller det politiske perspektiv, som Lyndon LaRouche fremlægger netop nu.

Engelsk udskrift.

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 7, 2016

"ONE MINUTE AFTER MIDNIGHT!"

GET CONGRESS BACK IN WASHINGTON TO PASS GLASS-STEAGALL NOW!

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it's October 7, 2016.  My name is Matthew Ogden and you're joining us for our Friday evening webcast from larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by a guest — Paul Gallagher from Executive Intelligence Review — and by two members of our Policy Committee via video; Bill Roberts joining us from Detroit, Michigan, and Kesha Rogers
joining us from Houston, Texas.
        We are in the midst of a heightened mobilization, and I can say that as we speak, copies of the very latest edition of the Hamiltonian, the weekly broadsheet from LaRouche PAC, are being distributed in New York City; but also on the streets of
Washington DC outside of the annual IMF meeting. The headline of the Hamiltonian this week is very clear; it's titled "One Minute after Midnight, the Crash Is On!"  And I think that couldn't summarize our discussion any better here right now.  The other articles are also apropos; and if you haven't read them yet, I'd encourage you to.  We have "Economics Isn't About Money" by Jason Ross; "Financial Crisis in October; Pass Glass-Steagall Now" by Rachel Brinkley; "One Small Step for Congress, One Giant Leap for Mankind" by Dennis Speed, about the breakthrough with the JASTA veto override; and "Nero Obama Pushes Nuclear Genocide in Final Days" by Carl Osgood.
        So, that is now being distributed as we speak; and we already have up-to-the-minute reports from outside of the IMF meeting, where individuals are responding very keenly, including some German economists who personally knew Alfred Herrhausen before his assassination and who are responding to the voice of Alexander Hamilton via the proposals or the policy perspective that is being laid out by Lyndon LaRouche right now.
        What I want to begin with is a very quick brief overview of the crash as it stands, and as it is unfolding over the coming few days and few hours.  We will also discuss a little bit of the mobilization that we're engaged in.  But we're going to move very quickly from that discussion to an elaboration of what Mr. LaRouche wished to convey as he communicated during the discussion that we had with him a few hours ago.  But before we get to that, Paul, let me just ask you to give us a very quick
overview of the crisis.

PAUL GALLAGHER:  The crash has been on since January 1, 2016.  That's when all the rules in Europe were changed so that banks could not be bailed out.  Supposedly they were going to be bailed-in; that has turned into meaning the depositors and
bondholders were going to have their money taken in order to make new capital for failing banks.  That has turned out to be a complete non-starter; it isn't working.  It was rejected by Italy, and has basically been thrown up into the air and into the
trash basket.  So, but nonetheless, they are facing no bail-out; especially Deutsche Bank recently has been facing no bail-out.
Once that occurred, and the price of oil fell into the thirties and around $40 from nearly 3.5 times that and all the other commodity prices collapsed, that plus the threat of not being bailed out, has meant that not just Deutsche Bank, but dozens of major banks in the countries of Europe, in the United Kingdom, have been at the abyss looking down since then.  Simply waiting to see where the trigger for actual loss of all liquidity in that banking system was going to occur; whether it would be in the
German banking system, in the Italian banking system, in the nationalized banks of the UK — which are in very bad shape.
That's where this entire banking system has sat since January 1st; tremendously over-leveraged.  Eight years, 7.5 years of quantitative easing, which has given them the opportunity to be tremendously over-leveraged; Deutsche Bank is leverage 37:1,
according to a report that just came out from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.  That is worse than the leverage ratio of Lehman when it failed; not much worse, but worse.
        At the same time, they've been marinated for eight years in an environment of 0% interest rates; which means they are not profitable.  They cannot at the same time be prudent and sound commercial banks, and at the same time be profitable.  So, what have they done?  They have generally shoved aside their taking deposits and making loans — their commercial bank has gone wholly into the shark tank of various speculations; selling elaborate complex instruments which no one understands —
including the salesman.  Selling them to their retail depositors, selling them to cities, selling them to towns, selling them to agencies; and essentially trying to loot the deposits in their commercial banking units into their speculative operations, because they can't make money by commercial banking, having been marinated in 0 % interest rates for eight years with essentially an indefinite future of the same stretching ahead of them.  So, you reach the crash.
        What's being discussed around the IMF meeting, and I think we'll get to it because friends of ours are there; in addition to those of us who are getting out the Hamiltonian, there are other friends of ours around these meetings. What's being
discussed there is the potential and the fear of a real liquidity crash being triggered at any moment. What's not being discussed is the crimes that these banks are committing as a result of their speculative culture and as a result of the condition that
they are in after this 8-year marination. The crimes that they are committing now absolutely demand, as a matter of justice as well as sound banking, that they be immediately broken up.
        We don't have to look any further than Wells Fargo, which was supposedly the second-largest bank in the United States, which was supposedly the paragon of non-speculative commercial banking.  Look at what they have been doing.  Their investment banking and securities units have literally been stealing the money from their depositors by the hundreds of thousands in order to make fees and profits on elaborate instruments.  It's criminal.  We remember Detroit and all the other cities around the world — around Europe and the United States anyway – which were also sold very complex derivatives, interest rate swaps. Every time they wanted to issue a bond and borrow some money for the city or the town or the transit agency, whatever it was, they were sold these products.  It is as good as saying that they didn't know what they had; just like the depositors at Wells Fargo weren't aware of these things they had been sold.  So dim was the understanding of the city treasurers and the agency treasurers of these derivatives that the banks were making them buy in order to simply float a bond, that you might just as well say that they sold them those derivatives without the treasurers even knowing that they had them, until they found that they were losing millions and millions of dollars every year. And amazingly, in every single case in every city around the world, the same bet had gone wrong in exactly the same way; and they were running into — in some cases with large cities — into the hundreds of millions of dollars of fines, fees, and losses that they couldn't get out of.  This criminal activity can be ended in only one way. That is by enacting the Glass-Steagall Act. If anyone is telling you that by adding yet another specific little
regulation to the thousands of them that are in the Dodd-Frank Act and so forth, that this criminal activity will stop, they are blowing smoke. There is only one way to stop it. Without Glass-Steagall for the last nearly 20 years, you have had every major bank get much larger, and turn into a boat in the middle full of depositors with a large — in some cases hundreds and thousands of sharks, which are the speculative units of this
immense holding company — all those sharks swimming around the boat full of depositors, and trying in one way or another to get some blood, to get a limb, to get a whole body, to get blood out of there.
        The only way you can return even in an individual huge bank like that, to say give us back a bank which can do commercial banking, which can take in deposits and make loans and actually invest in industry and progress, give us that back. There's only one way to do it; and that is to get out your spear gun and kill
those sharks. The way to do that is enact the Glass-Steagall Act; put it back in effect. Essentially, you make such a fence around the deposits then that the sharks absolutely have no access, and you will find that those speculative units — many of them — will rapidly be bankrupt. We're very welcome to hear a proposal from a legislator in Hamburg in Germany yesterday, to do exactly that with Deutsche Bank. If it can be done with Deutsche Bank, as Lyndon and Helga LaRouche proposed a couple of months ago, then it can be done with any major bank in the world. If you can actually get back a real bank, a commercial bank, a lending bank out of that monstrosity, that mess which is Deutsche Bank today — in the process of failing; then the only way to do it was the proposal this legislator made. The same proposal, that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche had made two months ago known as the Herrhausen Proposal for Deutsche Bank. That legislator said, separate and in an orderly way, run down, eliminate all of these toxic, speculative units. Then the commercial bank may be
capitalized, even by the government, in such a way that it begins to invest seriously in the economy.
        So, that's what's not being discussed; is the crimes and how to stop them. That's a much more fundamental question than which of these banks is going to go first and be the trigger for the general liquidity explosion. We have to get the Congress to
return. What are they doing having left Washington for two months after saying they wanted to get tough with Wall Street in a series of hearings on Wells Fargo's crimes; then leave the city for two months.  Go into recess for a completely meaningless
no-choice election, when instead they should be getting tough with Wall Street; legislating. That's what we're here to discuss, is that mobilization which is now on to get them to go back and restore Glass-Steagall now, and then we'll go on.

OGDEN:  Well the smell of that 2008 crash is back in the air for sure; and I think people are beginning to recognize what time it is, as demonstrated in this. This is a headline from the New York Times yesterday: "Deutsche Bank as the Next Lehman Brothers". They say, "far-fetched, but not unthinkable"; but remember, that 2008 crash happened exactly during this campaign season, and the Congress came back into emergency session.  And at first, voted down the bail-out and then voted the bail-out up. It's that kind of environment; this is what we're seeing.  This is an October crisis; this is not something which is going to wait until after the elections.  This is not something that's going to wait until the lame duck; and that's the lead on the
LaRouche PAC website today.  "Send Congress Back To Enact Glass-Steagall Law; Lame Duck Is Too Late".
        I don't know Bill, if you want to say a little bit about what the status of that mobilization is, and what people have to be thinking about.

BILL ROBERTS:  Sure, Matt.  I can confirm that it was my experience when confronting two Congressmen yesterday here in Michigan, and I think some of our super activists have reported a very similar experience.  While these Congressmen are paying lip service and while their lips say "Yes, I'm for Glass-Steagall"; their actions say "No."  Because as Paul just pointed out, if they were in reality about the fact that Glass-Steagall is something that must be put in place preemptively, then they would
be rushing back to Washington to pass it.  The vote to override Obama's veto of the JASTA bill is quite fortuitous, because really if you think about all of the excuses that these members of Congress have: you can't get the two parties together; you can't take on these high-powered lobbyists.  In both of those cases, the defeat of JASTA — the justice for the families of the victims — the way that this happened, proves that in fact, it is possible.
        This mobilization has got to be accelerated and continued. What our activists are doing–and we are building up a full-scale mobilization on this–is to confront these Congressmen on the full reality of what Glass-Steagall actually is. As Mr. LaRouche
pointed out today, Glass-Steagall is just the first of four steps. I think that while many well-meaning people say they support Glass-Steagall, in fact their unwillingness to take leadership on this so far, reflects a lack of understanding of the reality of the situation, how dire it is, and, frankly, a lack of a sense of what Glass-Steagall is, in the sense that this was a real historical bill that was signed into law by Franklin
Roosevelt.
        When you hear some of these Congressmen, or Bernie Sanders talk about Glass-Steagall, it's just "break up the banks," and that's it. And then they start talking about the abuses of the pharmaceutical industry, as if it's just this sort of gimmick.
But, as Mr. LaRouche has pointed out, this is a strategy, frankly, for victory against genocide. With JASTA, Obama was confronted on his taking the side of an imperial authority to have arbitrary power over people's lives. This is the same exact question. It is even more deadly.
        I think it's on that sort of level that this mobilization has to upshift to, to get out of the domain of just a question of "Are you for, or are you against Glass-Steagall?," but "What is your commitment, now, Mr. Congressman to ensuring that the
government intervenes to save the American people, as Franklin Roosevelt did?"

OGDEN: Absolutely! Thank you very much. That, I think, brings us directly to the subject that we discussed with Mr. LaRouche earlier, and this is the subject of our "institutional question," which I'm just going to read. It says, "Mr. LaRouche,
you have said that it is absolutely urgent that Glass-Steagall is implemented immediately, and that this is the first step towards a whole series of actions that must be taken to save the economy. Can you please elaborate what the other steps are?" So, that's the question.
        Paul, I'm going to let you elaborate a little bit, and then we can also get to the Four Laws, as Mr. LaRouche specifically identifies them.

PAUL GALLAGHER: Well, maybe we'll get to them very quickly, because it brings us really to the question of these two extremely well-known, very fundamentally important figures in history, extremely controversial and very little understood,
namely, Alexander Hamilton and Lyndon LaRouche. Certainly the recent efforts to lampoon Hamilton on the stage in New York have not aided at all in people understanding what he really contributed to the human race, to this nation, how he built this nation, in an indispensable way.
        We were talking to Lyn LaRouche and Helga LaRouche earlier today about this subject. What Lyndon LaRouche said, repeatedly, actually, was that when he introduced what he called his "Four Cardinal Laws for the Economy" in 2014, he was modelling them directly on the Reports of Alexander Hamilton to the Congress of
the United States. Here is where those reports are found, in this book, The Reports of Alexander Hamilton, [edited by Jacob Ernest Cooke, II] which gives the four Reports that Hamilton made to the Congress, through which he established the legislative
actions– but they were really broad government actions, based on crucial legislation in each case â which made it possible for this country to survive the extreme bankruptcy which it came into during the course of the Revolution, and to rapidly, from that point on, expand and become the leading industrial and technological power in the world.
        What LaRouche was looking at, was four laws and obviously not meaning four traffic laws–four broad actions that must be taken in order to revive the economy from its present zero growth, zero productivity growth state, and nearly zero infrastructure investment, no infrastructure mission. To revive it from that state there are four broad actions which have to be taken, which can be represented and made possible, authorized by legislation, but are really very fundamental.
        Glass-Steagall is the first, and must be done right now, but it just opens the door. It's like taking out the garbage, as we say. It opens the door to the other actions, and it
corresponds very much to Hamilton's establishment on this continent–initially even before the Constitution was adopted, and before any of his Reports to the Congress were made and the institution of a commercial bank and something whose only purpose was to, as he put it, "gather the savings of the country, and place them in the hands of those who could make the most productive use of them."
        That idea of a "commercial bank," in the Bank of New York, which he founded; and, obviously, in the Bank of the United States, which he founded, was unique. Before that, you had merchant banks in Europe, which essentially took partnerships in trade ventures and financed trade; and then you had banks which were formed in order to lend to the government, and get control of government finances. The Hamiltonian bank had absolutely neither of those purposes, but rather the purpose which we'll get into, I think, in the course of this.

OGDEN: Let me just display on the screen, right now, the first slide. This [Slide #1] is the title screen: “The Four Laws, by Lyndon LaRouche.” On the next slide [Slide #2] you'll see the link to the actual document which was published by Mr. LaRouche
on June 8, 2014, which we encourage you to read in full. It's titled "The Four New Laws to Save the USA Now! Not an Option: an Immediate Necessity." [https://larouchepac.com/four-laws]  That's the website you can go to, to read the document in full, and that will also be included in the description to this video, so you'll have access to that as the broadcast continues.
        On the next slide [Slide #3] you'll see a very short quote which I've taken from the introduction to that document, in which Mr. LaRouche says the following: "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…."
        On the next slide [Slide #4] you'll see "No. 1: the immediate re-enactment of the Glass-Steagall law instituted by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, without modification, as to principle of action. No. 2: A return to a system of top-down, and
thoroughly defined as National Banking. The actually tested, successful model to be authorized is that which had been instituted, under the direction of the policies of national banking which had been actually, successfully installed under President Abraham Lincoln's superseding authority of a currency created by the Presidency of the United States (e.g., 'Greenbacks'), as conducted as a national banking-and-credit-system placed under the supervision of the Office of the Treasury Secretary of the United States". Mr. LaRouche elaborates after that, that this was the system that
Alexander Hamilton created. "No. 3: The purpose of the use of a Federal Credit-system, is to generate high-productivity trends in improvements of employment, with the accompanying intention, to increase the physical-economic productivity, and the standard of living of the persons and households of the United States. The creation of credit for the now urgently needed increase of the relative quality and quantity of productive employment, must be assured, this time, once more, as was done successfully under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, or by like standards of Federal
practice…" Next slide [Slide No. 5] "…used to create a general economic recovery of the nation, {per capita}, and for the rate of net effects in productivity, and by reliance on the essential human principle, which distinguishes the human personality from the systemic characteristics of the lower forms of life: the net rate of increase of the energy-flux density of effective practice. This means intrinsically, a thoroughly
scientific, rather than a merely mathematical one, and by the related increase of the effective energy-flus density per capita, and for the human population when considered as each and all as a whole." Following this, Mr. LaRouche said, "The
ceaseless increase of the physical-productivity of employment, accompanied by its benefits for the general welfare, are a principle of Federal law which must be a paramount standard achievement of the nation and the individual."
        And then "No. 4." Next Slide. [Slide No. 6] "'Adopt a Fusion-Driver 'Crash Program.' The essential distinction of man from all lower forms of life, hence, in practice, is that it presents the means for the perfection of the specifically
affirmative aims and needs of human individual and social life. Therefore: the subject of man in the process of creation, as an affirmative identification of an affirmative statement of an absolute state of nature, is a permitted form of expression.
Principles of nature are either only affirmations, or they could not be affirmatively stated among civilized human minds."
Following this, Mr. LaRouche elaborates the concept of Vladimir Vernadsky's idea of the noosphere, in which he places man as specifically distinct, and in a hierarchy, above other forms of life; and then elaborates the concept of "physical chemistry," as
the only yardstick in the science of economics.
        So, again, that document, in full, is available to you at https://larouchepac.com/four-laws. The link is available in the description to this video. We encourage to read that and study that, in full, along with these Four Reports that Paul mentioned–the Four Reports by Alexander Hamilton to the United
States Congress. With that said, I think we can open up, especially this fourth point, that I just named here, and I invite Kesha to say a little bit on this subject.

KESHA ROGERS:  Okay. Thank you Matt. I think we really have to start with the unstated-but-consuming principle that exists in all four of those Laws. Mr. LaRouche really captured this in recent discussions: that mankind has to re-discover the meaning of "mankind," and what is the purpose by which we, as the human
species, exist? What is our purpose, in terms of promoting the power of the creative potential that lies only in the human species, unlike any other species.
        When you think about the Fourth Law, people start to say, "Ah, Okay. Well, you know, LaRouche is promoting nuclear power and fusion power, and so forth." It's not just about that. It's a subsuming principle of all Four, that starts with, what I would
define as the principle of Agapé. How do you develop Glass-Steagall? How do you develop the credit system, in the way that Hamilton understood, in the way that LaRouche understands? It comes from the understanding of the benefit to all mankind, which exits in advancing the creative potential for all mankind.
        If you really look at how that has influenced our nation, under Presidents George Washington, and particularly in Roosevelt and John F Kennedy.  These Presidents didn't just look at Hamilton's conception of national credit, Hamilton's conception
of development of economics from the standpoint of just the law. It started with the understanding of a unique principle in the United States to advance the productive and creative powers of every living being in this nation and on this planet.  One thing
that we talk about is what you saw under President Franklin Roosevelt, who was a devout student of Alexander Hamilton, and really what expanded from the period of Franklin Roosevelt through the period of John F Kennedy, was what named as the
Golden Age of Productivity.  I think that what we need right now is a Golden Age of Productivity for the world.
        Where is the opposition coming to this?  Well, if you look at what has happened with the attacks on our US space program, which would be the defining principle, the defining process which would bring together new scientific discoveries for mankind;
revolutionizing science in the way that we should be doing, which is our human potential.  That's what Obama rejects.  When Obama said that we don't need any fancy fusion, and now you've seen not only the shutdown of our manned space program; but now the potential for advancements in new creative breakthroughs of
scientific and technological advancements that exist through programs such as the fusion research centers and development programs at MIT and Princeton.  That's being shut down because we didn't go with Glass-Steagall; we didn't go with the Hamiltonian credit system to actually put the necessary credit into these great scientific endeavors and large scale infrastructure projects.  This isn't just happening because somebody thinks the money should go elsewhere.  It's happening because of a rejection to this truly human identity that it is our human nature to advance to provide for the future; to bring about the creating of a future.  So, when you think about what we're up against here, when people say "Oh yeah, we need to break up the big banks and we need Glass-Steagall"; we need Glass-Steagall, we need to break
up the big banks, but we need it on Hamilton's terms.  We need it on LaRouche's terms from the standpoint of a higher conception.
We have to stop the death rate; we have to stop the mass killing in the United States and around the world.  The way we're going to do this, is that these programs have to be implemented from the standpoint of a higher definition and conception of what it
means to be human.
        I think that gets us to a fundamental point of why you look at what China is doing with the development of their space program — and LaRouche has really emphasized this very emphatically — that China has to be a model from the standpoint of the space program.  Not just because of a singularity of a program they're taking up, because China's now going to the far side of the Moon, unlike any other nation; doing something that no one else has yet to do.  What does this mean?  This is a breakthrough in a revolution in science; this is a breakthrough
in the benefit and the potential progress to all mankind.  I think that is where LaRouche's Four Laws have to start from; and what China is doing right now is what we in the United States, the foundation and the principle of this United States was
founded on.
        What our great visionaries and scientists understood was the unique principle of mankind that defies this oligarchy's rejection of that identity; and why we became a nation committed to this principle of the creative, productive powers of the human
species.  If you think about these visionaries from the standpoint of what China and nations around the world are doing to advance this creative potential, it can really be stated and defined in what the great space pioneer Krafft Ehricke again outlined as what our true extra-terrestrial imperative as a human species is.  One thing I wanted to point is — again, I've stated this on a number of occasions — we brought up Krafft Ehricke's three laws of astronautics and what this really represents to promoting that potential.  But I want to focus in very quickly on the third law, which is not always stated as clearly as it could be; but I think it really captures this idea that he says, "By
expanding through the universe, man fulfills his destiny as an element of life; endowed with the power of reason and the wisdom of the moral law within himself."  I guess the point is, where does this power of reason come from?  Where does this moral law and nature within the existence of mankind lie?  And it lies in
mankind's creative potential, the discovery that exists only in the human species to be able to introduce new scientific principles; to introduce new laws that no other animal species can do.  This is what we're losing sight of right now.
        But the thing is, if we allow for the human population to be killed off en masse, we take away that potential.  Look at what's happening right now:  the death rates; what's happening with the drug overdoses, the suicides.  What's happening with the fact that nations are dying because we don't have the scientific and technological advances to deal with threats that occur in terms of threats that come with natural disasters, that we could be saving lives.  Look at the numbers of people that are going to die in Haiti right now.  All of this could be stopped if we actually had a program in place immediately; a global Glass-Steagall.  So we can actually stop the death rate and organize people around saving human lives so that we can advance for the future; so that we can put forth a new meaning of what mankind and the future of mankind must be.  That's where the Four Laws lie; that's where we have to get Congress, as you said, back in Washington DC right now.  Because they have a responsibility
to this nation and a responsibility to mankind.  The fact that Obama rejected the offer by China for cooperation, rejected the offer by China to be a member of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and to be a part of the New Silk Road Development
Plan, already tells you — once again — his commitment is not to the advancement of the people of this nation and the people of the world.  It is to this financial oligarchy, to this empire, and to the purpose of death that he has been promoting for far too long and cannot continue to get away with.

OGDEN:  Yeah, I'm actually glad you brought up the AIIB, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, because one of the other elements that Mr. LaRouche raised in the discussion that we had with him this afternoon, was the necessity for international development bank banking types of activities.  That there has to be a commitment on the level of agreements among nations for these vast development projects, and a Hamiltonian banking system which will allow these to take place.  We see the emergence of this with what China is doing and some of the other collaborative
programs around the development of the New Silk Road.  This is the kind of vast surge in productivity and increased standards of living that we see in places of the world that have suffered almost no development.  The interior of Eurasia and elsewhere.
But it's something that the United States had originated over 200 years ago with what Hamilton conceived; and it's something which the United States is in no way participating in today.  In fact, it's rejecting and attempting to shut down — as you said Kesha. So, that's something that Mr. LaRouche also introduced into the
discussion.  Maybe it's something that we can also discuss a little bit more of.

GALLAGHER:  At this IMF meeting, the IMF introduced a report on the world economy, and they said the big problems are:  no growth, most especially including in the United States and of course in Europe; in Obama's recovery, no growth at all; and too much debt.  What did they propose as a solution?  To cut back credit all over the globe, and especially to insist that China and India — which are the only two engines of real economic and industrial growth in the world — should cut back their issuance of credit.  That tells you that there is functional insanity at the top of the IMF; they are completely unaware of the relationship between credit and debt.  It is in fact the case that what Alexander Hamilton did ⦠The United States now needs a
national investment bank; it needs a national infrastructure bank, whatever you want to call it, it needs a national bank with that purpose.  What Alexander Hamilton created, as LaRouche in the second of his Four Laws, was essentially a bank which he said was needed in order to be the liaison between the government and the private banks.  In the process, again remember that characterization of gathering the savings of the country and placing them in the hands of those who could make the most
productive use of them.  So that Hamilton was able to actually reorganize the debt of the United States and the states – which was largely unpayable at that time; provide a means of extinguishing it over a long period of time and redirect that reorganized debt through a bank into new credit, the purpose of which was to go into the key areas of the development of the productivity of the new American labor force.  It could have been coming to the third action LaRouche is talking about, Hamilton
was most controversial there, because the bank that he created to reorganize the unpayable debt of the United States and the states and make it into credit; that bank could have been a land bank, that was what was being done in Europe.  Alexander Hamilton had studied all those experiments of Turgot and all the other national land banks which had been set up, which had the effect of perpetuating agriculture as really the only economic activity in the country, and of enriching farmers.  But of course, it tended to enrich the monopolists who got control of the production of farmers.  It also potentially that effect.
Hamilton said, no, that is not what we want to be as a nation. We don't want a national bank to finance unchanged farming practices all the way to the Pacific Ocean; which is what Jefferson wanted, and other.  Rather, we want the farms to become the market for truly creative new manufacturing and industrial development — craftsmen, artisans, the founders of manufacturing businesses.  This is what our national bank, said Hamilton, has to bring about; not just the endless extension of farming, the basis of the government finances on a national land bank.
        What LaRouche specified — and again, as he was saying, he was thinking of Hamilton's Four Reports to the Congress in his Four Laws; what he specified is then the national bank's credit must be invested in truly productive infrastructure investment.
We're not going to get productive by investing in endless fields of solar mirrors out in the desert, or making a desert out of what was previously just a plain.  We're going to become more productive by investing in the most advanced infrastructure
investments and missions that the country could possibly have.

That brings us directly to Kesha's conceptual overview, particularly of the fourth critical action; what LaRouche called the Fourth Cardinal Law, that there are frontiers of science.  We know that the exploration of deep space, reviving that with everything that goes with in terms of the human experience and also in terms of developing new means of studying, measuring, and changing potentially, the laws of the universe; Einsteinian action in exploration of deep space.  That requires that we have a major effort such as that which collapsed in the late 1960s when NASA's budget essentially, virtually disappeared overnight just as we were landing on the Moon.  There was not a Hamiltonian credit institution backing that space exploration, that Apollo project, up; and its budget suddenly disappeared.
        We need, according to LaRouche's outline of these actions that have to be taken, to put that on the basis that we are going to go fully at the frontiers of science.  Go with China to the other side of the Moon, from which the universe can be studied
and observed in a way that it never has been before.  Take the Moon's long view of the universe and bring it back and share it with all the nations of the Earth; which is what the Chinese space administrator at the conference in Mexico last week was
committing China to.  So, we also have to make this international, as LaRouche specified.  It is a crime that whereas China has created the institutions of credit — the New Silk Road Fund, the AIIB that Kesha raised — the so-called policy banks which make trillions of dollars in infrastructure at home and abroad.  Where it has created, one hand reached out for an actually international credit and sound banking system, the United States has not responded.  It has no national banking institution; does not have, for the most part, sound and prudent banking going on in the private commercial banking system either.

Germany — the other critical economy in the trans-Atlantic region — same thing; no such national institution.  The Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau which they built up after the war, has practically been eliminated; and therefore, no hands coming from the trans-Atlantic side, from the European economies join with that initiative of China, either in the exploration of space, or in the creation of the credit for it.  Therefore, this terrible predicament that our friends reported and are experiencing who are at the IMF meeting; that they are somehow trying to reduce the runaway indebtedness of the world by cutting off the new credit which could actually — if directed as Hamilton and LaRouche say — if directed into the frontiers of science and technology, could actually make that debt manageable; both by being written off and also by being made whole in the long term.
        This is where Glass-Steagall is intended to lead, is into these kinds of actions.  By first putting an end to the crime syndicate which has taken the place of major banks, and breaking it up and making the rest of these crucial actions possible.
But, as Bill said, we have a lot of members of Congress – why not name a few?  Maxine Waters, who in the hearing on Wells Fargo said, "I'm introducing legislation to break this bank up; and if it breaks the other banks up, so be it."  She's not a sponsor of the legislation which would break that bank up in the way that
would actually make for sound banking.  A whole bunch of Senators at the Democratic Convention, who were interviewed on the floor in a television video, and said they were absolutely for restoring Glass-Steagall; but haven't sponsored the legislation: Senator Stabenow; Senator Booker of New Jersey; Rep. Sherman of
California.  There are so many members of Congress, who are not putting their sponsorship and their action where their — they're like on Facebook.  They "like" Glass-Steagall, but that is the end of it; they haven't done what they have to do.
        So, get like-minded friends of yours and associates, people you know who, like you, support Glass-Steagall, and ambush these Congressmen with bunches of calls all at once to their offices demanding this.  Ambush them as Bill was talking about, at the many town meetings and public appearances that they'll make.
We've got to get them to go back to Washington and take the action against Wall Street before this crash wipes us out.

ROBERTS:  Let me make one more point, too, which is that Glass-Steagall has enjoyed popular support for years; it's in both party platforms.  Why hasn't there been a hearing on Glass-Steagall when you have 130 members of Congress that support
it?  Well, it's simple — because of Obama.  It's the same reason that Obama has sabotaged Glass-Steagall is the same reason that Obama sabotaged the space program.  Because the space program is the one area, as Kesha was developing, where it's completely transparent that the real nature of the human species and the
real nature of economics is the Hamiltonian conception of the increase of productive powers of labor and of real physical economic growth that's generated through the discovery of new principles.  You can't have a space program without that; you
can't send human beings out into space and conquer the Moon and other domains.  There's no pie to divide up; space is infinite. It just becomes utterly clear; it's like this experience that's been related by so many astronauts that go up to the Space Station.  They look down at the bright blue Earth, and they say, "Well, I don't see any borders.  I see these little land masses." And it becomes very clear to them that we are one unified humanity; and that is something that Obama had to kill.  So, just as in the case of the JASTA vote, Obama has to be confronted; there's no nice way about this.  He's the reason why this has not happened.  I just wanted to make that point clear.

OGDEN:  Absolutely!  He was rendered impotent over this historic defeat of his veto of the JASTA bill.  All of the so-called practical political arguments that people presented to you over years and years — "Oh, we're for Glass-Steagall, but it's just not — we can't politically make it happen."  All of those crumbled with this historic victory, secured by the activation of the American people to create the conditions in
which Congress had no choice but to override Obama's veto.  All of these arguments against the immediate re-enactment of Glass-Steagall have crumbled.  There's no better opportunity than in the wake of that victory with the restoration of the
confidence of the American people that in fact, you can force this kind of historic political change to happen through this kind of mass-based activation.  Coming off of that victory, it's the time to create the political climate in this country in which if Congress does not return to Washington to immediately re-enact Glass-Steagall; that that's a toxic environment.  And the American people know how to make that happen; we can do that, we can lead that.  It's the kind of climate in which if you were clear as to how close we are to a total disintegration of this trans-Atlantic system, you wouldn't think twice about doing that.
And any Congressman who's trying to escape from the reality of what it would mean for Deutsche Bank with all of the derivatives counterparties to go through the floor; that this would be far, far worse than the Hell that was experienced in 2008.  That would be a collapse from which you could not recover; you can't bail your way out of that kind of crisis.
        So, it's only through the immediate re-enactment of Glass-Steagall — but also, as you made the point, Bill, I think very clearly — knowing that Franklin Roosevelt created Glass-Steagall in the context of the entire program that he instituted with his Presidency.  The full weight of the FDR program has got to be present with the first step that's taken with re-enacting Glass-Steagall.

ROGERS:  It's important to bring out what we put out as a standard in the report we published — which people should go back to — "The United States Joins the New Silk Road; a Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance" — because I think that captures the essence of what we have to seek to bring about.  Not just an economic recovery, not just putting a few people back to work; but we need a whole, complete breakthrough. A revolutionizing of science in the way that LaRouche is calling
for; a revolutionizing in the conception of the nature of mankind; what it means to be human; what we are as a species. And then how we bring together the conception of mankind for the benefit of all from the standpoint that we are now going to
advance and share in the greatest potentials for mankind that ever existed.  That's found in, as Krafft Ehricke said, "leaving the confines of one small planet" and going out into conquering and development of space.  I thought that Bill just said it well;
that that exists not from the standpoint of borders, or from the standpoint of competing for resources.  This is not about competing for resources or existence of borders; but it's that we have a unique potential as a species to come together and to act to create this economic renaissance as it's never been defined before.
        I think that is really what we have to get the emotional quality around, as we saw an emotional drive around this JASTA fight.  It wasn't just about the families of 9/11; but this was the question of the fight for human beings.  The fight that existed really took place in people starting to sing together. When people sang together, the power that they found within themselves with the development of what took place with the
Living Memorial concerts as one; but the principle that people started to really sing together and to realize that they had more power against this enemy than they ever thought existed.  And they acted on that power.  We have to do the same right now to
realize that this evil can be and must be defeated.

OGDEN:  Wonderful.  So, I think that with the title of this week's Hamiltonian — "One Minute After Midnight" — we can proceed with the correct sense of urgency; and everything that has been said today defines exactly what the mission is. So, again, if you can read the full document — LaRouche's Four Laws — which is provided in the link in the description to this video, that's available.  And secondly, the Four Reports by Alexander Hamilton; this is available as a book.  Jacob Cook is
the editor of this version; it can be made available as well.
And please read these in conjunction, and maybe that can be the subject of your Congressman's next town hall meeting.

        So, thank you very much for joining us.  And I would like to thank both Kesha and Bill, as well as Paul.

Please stay tuned at larouchepac.com, and Good Night.

Lyndon LaRouche: »Det vigtigste spørgsmål, der konfronterer menneskeheden, er, hvilke er de eksisterende potentialer, på hvilke menneskehedens fremtid er beroende? Hvilke er de videnskabelige opdagelser, der må gøres af den unikt kreative art, som er mennesket, og på hvilke vi kan skabe en sand og vedvarende fremtid for den menneskelige art?«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

LaRouche: »Det vigtigste spørgsmål, som mennesket star overfor, er, hvilke er de eksisterende potentialer, på hvilke menneskets fremtid beror? Hvilke er de videnskabelige opdagelser, der må gøres af den unikt kreative art, som er menneskeheden, og på basis af hvilke vi kan skabe en sand og vedvarende fremtid for den menneskelige art?«

Engelsk udskrift:

WHAT ARE THE EXISTING POTENTIALS WHICH MUST BE
DEVELOPED IF WE ARE TO GIVE MANKIND A FUTURE?

LaRouche PAC International Webcast
September 30, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It is September 30, 2016.
My name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us here for our
weekly LaRouche PAC webcast on Friday evening.  I'm joined in the
studio by Jason Ross and Benjamin Deniston of the LaRouche PAC
science team, and via video by Diane Sare and Michael Steger,
both of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.
        We spoke with Lyndon LaRouche just a short time ago, and Mr.
LaRouche's opening remarks are as follows:  He says, "The most
important question facing mankind is what are the existing
potentials on which mankind's future depends?  What are the
scientific discoveries that must be made by the uniquely creative
species that is mankind on which we can create a true and
sustainable future for the human species?"  Not a practical
question, but a truly scientific question in a truly scientific
sense.  Now Mr. LaRouche's remarks come right in the wake of the
absolutely victory, the deafening defeat that we have delivered
to Barack Obama with the resounding override in both Houses of
the United States Congress — both the Senate and the House — of
Obama's veto of the JASTA bill.  It's widely acknowledged that
the LaRouche Movement, those of you who are watching this
broadcast here today, played a central role in that victory
alongside the 9/11 families.  I think it's clear that the
courageous and consistent and sustained leadership of Mr.
LaRouche himself on this, has delivered this historic defeat of
Obama.
        Now we know, as Obama's disgustingly arrogant response to
this override that was handed to him demonstrates very clearly,
where he said, "This is the most embarrassing moment in the
history of the United States Senate," and so forth; you're
dealing with a narcissist here.  And a narcissist, when delivered
this kind of defeat, is very dangerous.  And we're seeing the
danger of the escalation to the point of nuclear war of Obama's
personal desire to confront both Russia and China; the refusal to
allow the peace process in Syria to work.  And also the total
breakdown of Deutsche Bank, number one, and the entire rest of
the financial system.  It's been said that this is a zombie bank
walking which is creating a zombie economy; this is way worse
than the Lehman process.  So, the next step is obviously the
immediate restoration of Glass-Steagall.
        However, as Mr. LaRouche was emphatic today — and we are
going to have his remarks written up and circulated widely for
you to read verbatim — the solution to this is not a practical
question.  We need to throw in the garbage can all the failed
ways of thinking; and we need to create an entirely new outlook
on mankind's relationship to the Universe.  So, we're going to
have a somewhat in-depth presentation and discussion on some of
those questions here today.  We thank you for joining that
discussion, and hope to have full participation.  So, I'm going
to hand it over to Ben to get that discussion started.

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think Mr. LaRouche definitely raised
the bar in our discussion with him this morning; and I think it's
a very apt and useful intervention into the way many people are
thinking about the situation, because as you said, we've had a
huge victory with Obama being just slammed on his attempted
treasonous veto of the JASTA bill and protection of the Saudis.
So, this is a major victory, but coming out of the discussion
with Mr. LaRouche, I think it's a victory for our cause as a
movement that Mr. LaRouche has uniquely created; and our mission
as a movement, which is to move mankind forward from the highest
level.  This is not just a victory in terms of DC politics; it's
not just a victory in terms of party debates and the normal terms
of politics people think of in the United States today.  It's a
victory in terms of our mission as an organization to go from the
highest historical, scientific level, understanding what the heck
is mankind on this planet.  What are we trying to do; what is our
mission as a species here?  That's what we're fighting on; we
have to deal with these kinds of issues, and we have to defeat
these terrible forces that are holding mankind back — Obama is
exemplary, the Saudis are exemplary.  But victories against these
evils are victories for the cause of real progress; real economic
progress as Mr. LaRouche understands it.
        As he said earlier today, real economics as he understands
it, is very different than what normal people think about
economics.  It's not just about money issues, or even production
or products or something like that; but if you're talking about
economics, you're talking about the human species.  You're
talking about how do we progress; how do we move mankind forward?
Progress for mankind has always been, and will always continue to
be if we continue to exist, fundamental creative revolutions in
what the human species really is.  It's not about how much you
produce, the productivity of your labor force, how much credit
you're spending, how much money you're putting in.  Those are
components, but if you're talking about real, fundamental human
progress, economic progress, the core goes to how is that mankind
uniquely completely changes the nature of his existence on this
planet in this Universe more generally?  That's something mankind
does; the entire history of mankind, when we haven't been held
back by empires, oligarchical systems, degenerate ideologies as
we have largely dominating today.  Mankind's nature is complete
revolutions where in effect, it's as if we really create the
human species anew on a higher level.  So, that's our mission as
mankind today; that's what the fight is today.
        From the discussion and Mr. LaRouche's emphasis, he is
emphasizing that this has to be upfront and center.  That's what
we're fighting for; that's our mission on this planet.  That
means science; that means real science.  That means going into
space; that means what China is doing with their lunar program.
Bringing mankind into the Solar System as a real creative force
in the Solar System in the way mankind has never done.  What
China's doing with their lunar program, their current focus on
the lunar far side; a completely mysterious area in many degrees.
A region that is absolutely unique in the immediate vicinity
around the Earth; that will give us completely new insights into
the Universe more broadly.  These are the kinds of pursuits that
enable mankind to come to these new, higher levels.
        One thing I wanted to put on the table today, a subject
that's been a longstanding discussion with Mr. LaRouche and our
science team, is this issue of the Galaxy, the galactic system.
This defines a new frontier, the new domains of scientific
revolution that are the substance of what mankind does to
completely transform his existence.  I think it's apt in the
context of this victory to assess what these new future
discoveries can be; what we should be looking towards.  Because
as he said earlier today, it's not just about repeating something
you've done before; it's always something fundamentally new.  And
the Galaxy is something fundamentally new, really.  We don't
understand how the Galaxy works, and we know coming to a higher
understanding of that — a real scientific understanding of that
— is the kind of thing that will transform what mankind is in
the most fundamental sense in this Universe.
        So, we're living in this galactic system; and again, this
determines more about our lives here on Earth than people tend to
realize.  This is still a very slow realization; only a handful
of the population — small layers in the scientific community —
are really pursuing and presenting that.  The conditions here on
Earth that we live in and experience are not Earth conditions;
they're not even Solar System conditions.  They're galactic
conditions.  Just to highlight one example we've discussed
before, we're living in a galactic climate.  If you look at the
Earth as it exists today, the largest scales of climate change
that occur, are a function of our relationship to our galactic
system, for example.  We're used to the Earth as it is today.
For much of modern civilization, the Earth has been relatively
similar to how it is today; but the conditions that we experience
now are a function, to a very large degree, of our current
galactic relationship.
        For example, we've cited that on very long timescales, the
motion of our Solar System into and out of the Galaxy's spiral
arms, for example, determines some of the largest variations we
see in the climate record.  The reason why we have ice-caps at
all, for example; you look at a map, you see Antarctica, it's
covered in ice.  You ever see it not covered in ice?  You ever
gone to the islands of Antarctica and visited lakes there, fished
on Antarctica and seen the wildlife there?  No, no human being
has ever experienced that; it used to be like that.  It used to
just be a land-exposed continent like the other continents.  Why
is it not like that now?  Because of a function of our galactic
position, we're in a large-scale glacial period that the Earth
periodically goes through as a function of our galactic
relationship currently.  So, the conditions that we experience,
that we're used to, that we see on Earth, are largely a function
of these larger processes; that being just one example.
        We had discussed on one of the New Paradigm shows recently,
a new paper that came out that demonstrated this in a new way.
Demonstrating more clearly that the conditions of the atmosphere,
the water cycle, the cloud systems — which play a huge role in
climate — are being hour-to-hour, day-to-day affected by this
galactic influence.  Even just a one-day perturbation of that
galactic influence, you can immediately measure the effects.  So
when the Sun gets more active and shields the Earth from this
galactic radiation effect for just the course of a couple days,
within days after that, you can measure changes in the cloud
cover, changes in the water cycle of the atmosphere.  So, this
galactic input, this radiation, this effect of what we call the
atmospheric system of the Galaxy, is a continuous input that
determines the conditions we experience here on Earth.
        That's just an opening example to start to get people to
think about the fact that we're part of this much larger system.
We're not living on Earth and there's some galaxy out there;
we've living in the galaxy.  The galaxy is what we're a part of.
It's a larger system, but the point is, it's a larger system we
don't yet understand.  To draw an analogy, it's like looking at
the Solar System before the time of Kepler.  The Earth was part
of the Solar System, but it was not understood; we did not
understand the principle of the Solar System.  It took a real
creative revolution, a creative discovery to understand that.  We
have not yet done that for this larger galactic system.  We have
not yet gone through the type of creative discovery that really
elevates mankind to a new level of fundamental relationship to
the universe by understanding these higher order principles of
the galactic system.
        A lot can be said, but just to point to another example, we
have some sense of the Solar System's orbiting through the
galaxy, moving through the galaxy.  We have some sense, according
to the records, that that determines climate change; potentially
evolution, the development of life are also things that have been
related to the relation of our Solar System to the galaxy.  Those
are large topics I'm just citing; a lot could be said on this.
We have a sense of these records, and the relation of these
records; but the actual fundamental basic principle governing the
orbit of our Solar System around the galaxy, or any star around
the galaxy is not understood.  We don't even understand the basic
principles of the orbital relations of stars in the galaxy.  This
has been cited as a reason to invoke this whole investigation of
so-called "dark matter"; it's another subject that would take
some time to get into.  But the point is, we can't even explain
the orbital periods of stars around galaxies with our current
understandings of the way galaxy are organized and the principles
governing galactic systems.
        Not to be too linear about it, I think it's worth drawing a
direct relation to science and astronomy before the time of
Kepler.  Where, for example, you had the attempt to extrapolate
from prior conceptions, prior knowledge, a certain way of
modelling the Solar System and explaining certain observations.
You had models of the Solar System done by Ptolemy, done by Tyco
Brahe, done by Copernicus — something people may be more
familiar with.  But in a sense, all of those attempts to explain
the motions of the planets, to explain the Solar System at those
times, were extrapolations from a certain assumed method of
thinking the way the universe functioned.
        What Kepler did was fundamentally different, by actually
making a discovery. He didn't just extrapolate, extend further,
prior conceptions of how the solar system worked — how they
thought it worked, how they assumed it worked, based on certain
assumptions. He introduced a discovery, something that {he}
generated, uniquely, as a creative thought, and that was what
allowed mankind to know the solar system, not an extrapolation
from observation, not an extrapolation from data, but an actual
{discovery}.
        I think that really goes to the core of what Mr. LaRouche
has spent decades trying to address, which is that issue of {real
creative discovery}, as opposed to {description}, as opposed to
what gets discussed often as science today, which is much more
empirical descriptions of observation, maybe coming up with
certain formulas or certain descriptive relations that describe
phenomena, {versus} the idea that there is something
fundamentally {different} about what the human mind can generate
as a completely new idea, which does not come from the
observations, {per se}. Kepler is a very good example of that.
Einstein is a very good example of that.
        That's the kind of thinking that we need, if we're going to
move the human species forward. I think that's Mr. LaRouche's
point. We're at a point now, where, if we're going to move
mankind in his natural, creative, human direction, it requires
these kinds of revolutionary discoveries of the very fundamental
organization of the universe. That does not come from the type of
so-called "science" that's often taught today, which, I think, is
why Mr. LaRouche is highlighting Einstein as such a {critical}
figure at this point, one of the last people who really had an
insight into this fundamental difference between real human
creative discovery and mere description, mere observation. A lot
can be said about that.
        I just want to cite one more example, before getting into
maybe some discussion about this. Recently we just got, I think,
a very interesting new, initial, preliminary of many of the stars
surrounding us in our galaxy. This comes from the so-called Gaia
satellite. What that Gaia satellite is doing now, is mapping very
precisely the positions and the motions of a billion stars
surrounding us. We'll have to wait a few years for the full map
to be created. But this is a very exciting, very interesting
mission that's going on right now. We're going to have a map of
the motions — direct observations of the motions and the
directions — of a billion stars surrounding us. This is going to
give us the best observational data we've ever had about how our
galaxy functions, how any galaxy functions, really. We're going
to have direct measurements of a substantial — still small, but
substantial — sections of our galactic system as a whole. We
will then be able to measure, with more accuracy than ever, how
things are moving, where things are moving, what structures are
there, how different structures are moving.
        But, if we don't then continue to then put the emphasis on
the issue of actual creative discovery, that's not going to do
the trick. That's going to take us one step. I think the most apt
comparison is Tycho Brahe had made the most accurate observations
of the motions of the planets up to his time. But when he tried
to explain the solar system, and how the planets moved, he just
had another iteration, based on the same assumptions as his
predecessors, as Copernicus, as Ptolemy. Even though he had the
data, he didn't make the "discovery," to put it in very simple
terms. Kepler did. Kepler was able to use that same data to
actually make a discovery. He needed the data to do it, but it
was something that {he} was able to generate in his own mind,
that was the discovery, that was what allowed mankind to really
change the way he exists in the universe, by moving to an
understanding of the {principles} organizing the galactic system.
        I think these are the kind of examples and reference points
that we can look to today, for the kind of challenge we are
facing now. We're part of this galaxy. This galaxy represents
higher-order principles of organization of the universe as we
understand it — the universe that we're a part of. Mankind,
uniquely, can discover these things, but only when we recognize
that it's not just coming from observations or descriptions, but
it is the issue of something unique about the human mind and
creativity, that is the real substance of science.
        I'm certainly no expert on Einstein, but Mr. LaRouche has
put a large emphasis on the importance of Einstein's work. As far
as I understand it, [Einstein is] one of the last — if not the
last — leading scientist who really waged a fight on this issue,
who really had some insight into the fact that there is something
remarkable about the fact that the human mind can come to know
the fundamental, unseen, organizing principles of the universe. I
haven't seen Einstein reflect on his own work in this way, but I
think it's rather interesting to just look at his work and the
implication of his work on Relativity, where he shows that your
basic ideas of space, of time, are not the way the universe is
organized. To take it maybe closer to Mr. LaRouche's work, your
sense-perceptual interpretation of the universe does not give you
a direct understanding for how the universe is actually
organized.
        But there is something within mankind that's not from
sense-perception, that's not just from observation, that's not
just from descriptions of data, some potential that mankind has,
to come to know the causes, the principles, that are not
accessible to sense-perception. At the very heart of it, that is
the substance of what enables mankind to be a unique species on
this planet. We talk about economics and growth and progress. It
is those kinds of revolutions, not economic growth, [but]
complete revolutions in what mankind is and what mankind can do
on this planet, [that] fundamentally transforms the nature of our
existence.
        If you look at what level of society existed 1000 years ago,
2000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, to today; that's not just an
incremental process of finding and exploiting new wealth, or
something. That [progression] is a function of complete
revolutions in the very fundamental way mankind relates to the
universe. That is our mission today. That's something that's been
attacked and written out of science, written out of education,
largely, today: this critical issue of actual creative discovery.
        Again, I think Mr. LaRouche has defined this and illustrated
this better than anyone else I've ever seen: the intimate
relation between {that} process and what really moves society
forward, what really moves mankind forward.
        The challenge that Mr. LaRouche put to us today, I think, is
that we're at an historical moment. This is an historical
victory. It's not completed, it's not over. There's still a
{major] fight going on. But this opens up the potential to
actually have some positive solutions. But those positive
solutions are not what people normally think about, in terms of
"positive solutions", in society today. It's not just about
taking on the banks and giving some of their money to other
people and redistributing the wealth. We're fighting on a much
higher level. It's about how do we actually move human society
forward, and what does that mean? That means these kinds of
issues: the genius of Einstein, the genius of Kepler; looking to
the new areas — the galaxy, the far side of the Moon.
        I know that's a very brief and general coverage of a lot of
stuff. But I think that's some of the framework that we should
discuss, because I think that's the real challenge we have,
uniquely, as this organization — the LaRouche organization — to
fight on that level. I'm sure that other people have some
thoughts, but I think Mr. LaRouche definitely intervened with a
very provocative and challenging focus today, and I think this is
maybe a way to open it up and get the discussion going.

        DIANE SARE: I just wanted to take a couple examples, because
it is very provocative. In Einstein's letters, he makes the
point. He said, of course there's a place for empirical evidence
in science, but the more important the discovery, the smaller the
role of empirical evidence is. When you think about, for example,
Kepler, or his conception of the universe — which is a real
challenge to think about what each one of us is, potentially, as
a human being, and a great deal of faith in Reason, or what it
means to be created in the image of the Creator — Kepler had an
idea in his mind of a view of the solar system from the vantage
point of standing on the Sun, as if you were on the Sun at the
center, or slightly off-center, since we donât have circular
orbits of the solar system.
        Now think about, in his day, what that looked like. Not only
had we never gone to the Moon, we didn't even have an automobile!
I mean, you're talking about the 1600's. So, how is it that
Kepler has a conception of the solar system, as if perceived from
the Sun? And then his ability, in his own mind, to develop a
conception of what that would mean, in terms of the relationships
among the planets, which Cusa, who was even earlier and did not
have the benefit of Tycho Brahe's observations, yet Cusa had a
certain very clear hypothesis, simply through Reason, about the
way that the solar system could be ordered or had to be ordered,
just based on his ability to try and think as if he were the
Creator. How might the Creator of the universe think about what
this is?
        Similarly with Einstein, we had a discussion on one of the
Thursday night Fireside Chats. The caller clearly had read
Einstein, and he said this seems more like an essay or a
philosophical discussion, than what he would typically think of
as "hard science," because, similarly, Einstein was dealing with
Reason. In other words, we have not, so far, had a train that
goes anywhere near the speed of light, and if one did, I'm not
really sure how well you could see it, if you were standing on a
bank, trying to watch what was going on in such a train.
        But Einstein was able to construct "experiments" {in his
mind}, which may have been provoked by something was observed or
a phenomena that was not explained. The other thing that he said,
which I found very provocative; he was writing a letter to a
friend of his who was, I think, a physicist, and he said, "You
know, I really admire the work that you do, because the best you
can get, in scientific experiments, is 'Maybe.' That is, you can
get an outright 'No,' like you have a hypothesis, you try to
construct it, you try to demonstrate it, and the thing flops, and
then you know that the universe definitely doesn't work {that}
way. But, you could construct an experiment, and then you get the
result that you're hypothesizing, and then you say, Okay, well it
seems that, perhaps, the universe does work {this} way." And
Einstein then, of course, says that "The best you get is a
'Maybe,' which always will ultimately will become a 'No,"
because, as science advances, then, ultimately, you will discover
that what seemed to be true in your initial hypothesis, actually
is not the whole truth at all."
        Therefore, Mr. LaRouche's challenge to us today about
developing new types of science. In other words, there are
principles which, even to conceive of them, would require a leap
beyond, and then the ability, almost, to look back on ourselves,
as if from above, or as if from some future point, to determine
what should be the next step.

        JASON ROSS:  I really liked what you had brought up from
Einstein about how discoveries will rely less on empirical data;
you had brought that up as something that he was saying, because
it's a great example.  None of the things, many of the things he
predicted, it's not that things had been observed and no
explanation was available, which he then came up with an
explanation for.  He did some of that.  But the other thing he
did was to forecast events occurring, forecast scientific
experiments that could be performed that had never been seen
before.  People couldn't explain why Mercury's orbit moved the
way that it did until Einstein; that was already a problem.  But
nobody had seen light bend around the Sun and wondered why it
occurred.  Nobody had noticed that the kind of light emitted
changed depending on the gravitational field it was emitted in.
These weren't problems that needed a solution; they were things
that Einstein — from very simple principles — realized would
have to come about.
        I think another thing that's very important about him is
that he was active in many other fields.  In other words, he had
a very pervading sense of justice and of honesty, a disdain for
authority in the sense that he should come to his own conclusions
about things and then stick with them once he came to them.  This
is what made it possible for to do things like discard the
notions of space and time that people had.  This wasn't an easy
thing; it was a difficult concept to get, it was shocking to
Einstein as well.  But he realized that it had to be the case.
He also was very adamant in his day — see, people alive and
maybe some of our viewers can recall this; during Einstein's
life, he was known as an outspoken political figure.  He made
commentary on political events all the time, and as far as the
coverage that he got in newspapers, a lot of it was about what he
did with science; but a lot of it was about his stands on things.
For example, he said that academics should just refuse to testify
at the McCarthy hearings.  He said, "Don't use the 5th Amendment
as an excuse, use the 1st!  You should be able to say what you
think and discuss ideas without being called to account by the
government for it.  What is this, Nazi Germany?"  He saw the
anti-Communist crusades being conducted as being very similar to
something he saw in Germany; where the Nazis began by taking out
the Communists.

        OGDEN:  It earned him a very extensive FBI file.

        ROSS:  Yes, an 1800-page FBI file, full of mostly crap.
Well, if you're trying to make someone good look bad, you're
going to have to fill your file with a bunch of crap.  It was
astonishingly incompetent by the FBI, although maybe it's par for
the course for them.
        The other thing, take racism, for example.  This is
something that he spoke frequently about; that he made an
exception to his general tendency not to go to ceremonies at
colleges to get honorary degrees.  He had had enough; he found
the ceremonies sort of obnoxious.  But he made an exception to go
to what billed itself as the first institute for higher learning
for blacks in the United States — Lincoln University.  He went
there to get his honorary degree and lecture on relativity and on
racism.  So, he was a committed overall person, who also had his
standards — I'll bring up one more topic — in music and
culture.  His use of the violin is famous; his affection for
music is well-known.  He played his violin at events, benefit
concerts.  Once when he was asked to give a speech, he said, "You
know, I'm going to play my violin instead; I don't really have
anything to add to what the other speakers said."  So, he pulled
it out and performed.
        He lived at a time — think about this — the early 1900s,
the first half of the 20th Century.  This is a period that Lyndon
LaRouche has identified as a willful destruction of culture —
both in science with the replacement of science by mathematics,
and culturally after the death of Brahms by a changing basis of
what it would mean to be culture or to be music.  Where anything
goes, and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring", which invites the
audience to join him in a murder of a virgin to satisfy the gods,
is considered to be art in just the same way that Beethoven's
Ninth Symphony, the {Ode to Joy}, the sense that all men are
brothers, is art.  So, a rejection of reason in the domain of
culture; a rejection of reason in the domain of science.
        I'll just end with one example on that, which is the field
of quantum study; where Einstein, although really pioneering the
field of quantum physics, towards the end of his life was seen as
an outcast because he held to the notion that fundamentally the
universe is real and that it's reasonable.  Those concepts were
rejected in what became prevalent quantum mechanics, by his
friend Nils Bohr, for example; who said that because of what
seems to be a lack of determination or of cause when we look at
processes in the very small, we would have to abandon that
concept.  We would have to abandon the concept that there is a
real world independent of our observations.  In a very crude way,
what becomes science, is going right back to what Ben had
mentioned about Tyco Brahe; science is set back to the idea that
what can we say about things that we observe.  That was the view
of Heisenberg, for example.  What can we say about observations
we might make?  And throw away the idea that there's something
real underneath it; something real that's susceptible to human
reason and that should make sense to us as a human-like idea; the
same way that was attacked in culture.  So, I think those are
several other reasons that Einstein absolutely stands out as a
scientific genius and as an incredibly moral person, who allowed
his convictions and his honesty to guide in other fields as well.
Who didn't limit himself to being a scientist, but in fact used
the notoriety he received from what he had done in that field to
advance other causes that he thought the world needed to take on.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Yeah, I think you'd be hard pressed to find
someone, if they're a scientific genius, if they're not of a
higher moral quality.  The discussion so far I think has been
very relevant, because over the course of the last 30 days, we
have clearly gone into a different period.  We are at a point
that mankind has never been before.  That's not simply from the
standpoint of a timeline perspective; we are at a qualitative —
these last 30 days have seen a qualitative transformation in the
condition of mankind.  But that cannot be measured from past
events; it can't be measured based on anything mankind has ever
experienced before.  It has to be measured on where we're now
going to take this new condition of mankind.  What is going to be
the direction?  What is the scope or perspective of mankind's
actions in the universe?  What new discoveries, what new
principles will be discovered that create the conditions for
mankind to substantiate and develop an entirely new human
species?  The level of coordination on this planet now among
nations is of an extraordinary level; one that's unprecedented.
That major nations on the planet today have a capability of
coordinating the most broad and in-depth scientific and
technological revolution that mankind has ever seen, among
billions of human beings.  That is something that is beyond
unprecedented; it is a fundamental shift in the universe itself.
This recent expression of humanity within the US Congress only
typifies what more is possible; because we are now in a
condition.  What China has established with its space program,
and the capability that you have within the major nations; you
see endeavors by India, by Russia, by nations of South America,
Africa, Europe.  And really a revival of the United States
towards this question of what is mankind in the universe.  These
bigger questions ultimately, in the pursuit of discoveries as
we've seen with Kepler and Einstein, ultimately have to shape the
policies themselves that coordinate the development of our nation
and of mankind as a whole.
        This New Silk Road perspective is now becoming an entrenched
factor for a growing majority of the population on the planet.
Over 4 billion people are already encompassed by the policy.
This will likely take another billion people out of poverty over
the course of the next 20 years; and that would be at a slow
pace.  If the United States immediately moves under these kinds
of financial breakdown circumstances that are ongoing now; this
system — as Mr. LaRouche said yesterday — the crash is on.
It's coming; it's here.  It's not something you have to argue;
it's not something you have to look for indications.  It's
practically right in front of your face; that's partly why most
people can't see it.  There is that quality of shift, and under
these kinds of circumstances, the question does come up.   We are
looking at, that what we know of mankind thus far is
insufficient; we have to call upon the creative scientists and
artists of our society and of the world to participate in a
re-conceiving of mankind's new future.  I think this is really
the endeavor; if you look at individuals like Brunelleschi or
Cusa.
        We had a discussion with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche a few weeks
ago.  This question of, it almost seems as if it comes out of the
blue; a new quality of human identity emerges.  Something that no
one had ever even conceived of before, and yet once it's
introduced and takes hold, it seems as if it's the most natural
characteristic. Yet, it's a fundamental leap.  The characteristic
of mankind since the Italian Renaissance, the level of population
growth, the potential density of mankind on this planet and in
the universe fundamentally changed; it's an undeniable empirical
fact that that had happened.  Yet, the cause of it was the
unleashing of mankind's new creative potential.  I think that's
the responsibility that we have as a nation and as a species for
the future of mankind; to unfold that characteristic of mankind.
I think what Ben raised on the galaxy ultimately captures it;
because as the Solar System did for Kepler, the galaxy today
presents that next unfolding of the universe in its discovery for
us.  We are at a new era of mankind; and we must move so rapidly
to consolidate that potential, because it's something that
requires constant creative input and discovery.  It will never
rest on its own.  It will require from this day forward, a higher
quality of creative thought than mankind has thus far been
capable of generating.
        I think as we probably all agree, Mr. LaRouche has been the
key figure in initiating this potential and this possibility.
But it's something that really lies upon all of us to continue
and to advance.  So, I'll leave my comments there; perhaps there
are some other thoughts.

        OGDEN:  One of the things that Jason mentioned, the role
that music played as an integral part of Einstein's identity, is
something that can't be overestimated.  I think it's often very
underestimated, even though it's a well-known fact among some
circles.  I think the other thing that cannot be underestimated
is the role that the music program that's been initiated by Mr.
LaRouche and others who are on this discussion here today, has
played in changing the United States.  One thing that's very
clear, is that nobody really expected this great victory that
occurred this week to happen; it kind of came out of the blue.  I
don't think that the Obama White House really expected that
Congress was going to grow a spine and stand up to him and
deliver this kind of rebuke.  I don't think the Saudis were
expecting that they were going to have to pull out $5 million and
all the stops and try to intimidate Congress at the very last
minute.  Where did it come from?  I think it's an ingredient that
people might not understand when they have their heads in the
practical world of politics.  And it's very much what happened
two weeks ago up in New York City.  A series of concerts of the
Mozart {Requiem} and four African-American spirituals that were
performed by the Schiller Institute chorus; and performed in
memory of the victims of 9/11, but also for the cause of justice.
To remoralize those people who, for the last 15 years, have been
so beaten down by the Bush-Obama paradigm; to remoralize them and
to create that surge of optimism for victory that was required to
secure what happened this week.  We know that Terry Strada
herself was involved in and was personally present at one of
those concerts, and gave a very impassioned speech beforehand on
the necessity for securing all-out victory on the fight for JASTA
against Obama.  But we were told by some of the members of the
9/11 Families this week, that the sound of those concerts was
still ringing in their ears; and I think that is something that
has had an effect in New York City and a radiating effect across
the entirety of the United States.  Which is compounded by the
victory that occurred this week, but it's inseparable; those two
elements.  I know, Diane, tonight in New York, John Sigerson —
who was the conductor of that series of concerts — is going to
be giving a presentation on the scientific rigor, the scientific
principles underlying truthful musical performance with the
unique Verdi tuning that those performances were presented at.  I
think this is going to be a sort of continual echo back and
forth; the political victories and the musical accomplishments
that have occurred and will continue to occur, emanating out of
the Manhattan Project.

        SARE:  I think a part of the power of the music is like
making a scientific discovery.  When you participate in something
which is actually beautiful in the most scientific sense of
beauty, you are reminded of your identity as a human being.  When
we remind ourselves of that principle of what it actually means
to be human, there are certain forms of injustice which simply
are not tolerable.  Things that would make us scared on a lower
level if you think of yourself as an animal, or you think of your
life's value being dependent on how much money you earn, or what
your status is in society, or what kind of clothing you can wear;
then you have a lot to be fearful about.  But, if you are
reminded that what makes us human, what is actually lasting is a
quality which is invisible; which is both in the domain of
science as Einstein understood it, and in classical composition;
then these other things seem trivial, and there are higher
principles which become far more important.  I think that's why
music was such an integral part of the civil rights movement, for
example; where people had extraordinary courage in the face of
extreme violence and torture.  Music, explicitly Beethoven, was
crucial in the freedom movements of 1989 when the Berlin Wall
came down.  I think it is going to be crucial today for the
United States to come into embodying what our nation was actually
intended to be by the Founding Fathers.  Because we are, after
all, a revolutionary republic.  You might not think that if you
look at the last two administrations, but the intent of our
republic actually was completely revolutionary; the idea of a
nation which is not based particularly on a land area or a
religion or some other construct, but on the idea of human
creativity as being the generator of so-called wealth.  So, I
think that's true.  Tonight we'll see what occurs, but John is
very creative; and I think it's very useful that we're going to
develop this process of our musical collaborators not only
appreciating the work that we've done, but beginning to get
insights as to why a group of political organizers would be able
to pull off what is seen by many as a very high quality and
unique quality of performance; which has to do with this kind of
approach to the music, as opposed to the typical, lower level
technical or whatever idea.  So, I think this will be quite
interesting, and will further advance the work.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think that embodies and typifies exactly
what the question that's been opened up today is.  I know some of
the work that Ben was presenting was to be a little bit more
elaborated and something that you're working on writing, and I
know will be explored further in some of these upcoming shows
that we'll be doing on this channel.  So, this is meant to open
up a lot of questions, and to engage your mind in this process;
not to have the answers to all the questions, but to ask them.
And make these kinds of breakthroughs in terms of the discoveries
that are yet to occur.  So, as Mr. LaRouche said, "The most
important question facing mankind at this moment is: What are the
existing potentials which must be developed if we are to give
mankind a future?"
        So, with that said, I think we can celebrate our victories,
but we can anticipate even greater victories in the future.  I
would like to thank all of you for joining us here today.  Thank
you to Jason and Ben, and to both Michael and Diane.  Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com; and good night.
 

… hvis Obama fører sit veto ud i livet, så bør han omgående afsættes ved en rigsretssag. Dette er i den grad en handling med åbenlyst og vidende forræderi imod ikke alene 11. september-familierne, men imod De forenede Stater som helhed.

»Det er forkasteligt, at én mand kan stå imellem retfærdighed for mordet på 3000 mennesker, og så denne lovs ikrafttræden«. Kristen Brightweiser, 11. september-enke.

Matthew Ogden: God eftermiddag! Det er den 23. sept., 2016.

Jeg er Matthew Ogden, og jeg vil gerne byde jer alle velkommen til en særlig udsendelse her fra LaRouchepac.com her fredag eftermiddag. Vi udsender tidligere end vi plejer; kl. er 4:00 Eastern Time (1:00 Pacific Time), fordi vi befinder os midt i et opgør i Washington, D.C., hvor hvert minut tæller.

Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Jeff Steinberg fra Executive Intelligence Review; og via video har vi med os Elliot Greenspan, koordinator for LaRouchePAC-aktiviteter i New York City.

Som I alle ved, så befinder vi os netop nu i en nedtælling til »sandhedens time«. Fra og med kl. 1:00-2:00 her i eftermiddag, under Det hvide Hus’ pressebriefing, står det klart, at [præsident] Obama vil nedlægge veto mod JASTA-loven (Senatslov 2040). Vi vil straks skrive telefonnummeret på skærmen, så I kan ringe til Kongressen og komme i kontakt med senatorerne og kongresmedlemmerne (i Repræsentanternes Hus, -red.) fra jeres stat, så I kan være mobiliserede under vores udsendelse. I skal slet ikke udsætte det. Ring. Sørg for, at jeres stemme bliver hørt. Sig til hvert enkelt kongresmedlem, at han/hun skal være stærk i sin forpligtelse over for at gøre Obamas veto ugyldigt. [Capitols omstillingsbord: 202-224-3131]

Trods utroligt pres, trusler, løgne, penge, intimidering fra den saudiske lobby-maskine og fra Det hvide Hus direkte, så står Kongressen, under den sidste optælling på Capitol Hill, stadig til at gøre Loven for Retsforfølgelse af Sponsorer af Terrorisme (den såkaldte JASTA) ugyldig og levere en særdeles historisk første tilsidesættelse af et veto i hele Obamas præsidentskab. Tidligere på dagen havde New York Times en artikel, »Obama er på kanten til at få en skarp irettesættelse, han længe har undgået – en tilsidesættelse af sit veto«.

Det, som dækningen har tydeliggjort, er, at dette har været en total kamp bag scenen. Jeg vil gerne meget, meget hurtigt læse blot lige indledningen til en NYT-artikel, der udkom onsdag den 21. sept., med overskriften, »Kamp mellem saudier og 11. september-familier eskalerer i Washington«. Jeg synes, det giver et dramatisk overblik over nøjagtigt, hvad det er, der er foregået bag scenen, og i offentlighedens lys, i løbet af blot disse par dage i denne uge. Artiklen starter således:

»Mandag indkaldte en samling lobbyister for Saudi-Arabien, der har brugt mere end $5 million i det forgangne år på at købe indflydelse i Washington, til et krisemøde, for at forsøge at standse en lovgivning, der vil gøre det muligt for familierne til ofre for 11. september-angrebene at sagsøge den saudiske regering for enhver rolle, den måtte have spillet i den forbryderiske plan.

Tirsdag demonstrerede 11. september-familierne, hvis sagsanlæg til mange milliarder dollars varetages af advokater inkl. Jack Quinn, en forhenværende rådgiver til Det hvide Hus, for at lægge pres på præsident Obama om ikke at nedlægge veto mod loven, som han har lovet at gøre.

Onsdag kom disse to magtfulde kræfter, den ene, der operer i skyggerne, og den anden mere åbent, sammen på Capitol Hill til kulminationen af en af de største og mest følelsesladede lobby-stridigheder i hele året. Kampen reflekterer 11. september-familiernes vedvarende dominans i Washington, og den skrumpende indflydelse her af Saudi-Arabien, der engang uhindret promoverede sin dagsorden i Vestfløjen og i korridorerne af Kongressen.«

Jeg mener, at det er meget tydeligt, at der er sket det, at 11. september-familierne – men også andre borgere, inklusive de af jer, der ser med i dag på denne udsendelse – har spillet en central rolle i at bære ved til dette opgør. Dette opgør er, trods $5 mio. i saudiske lobby-penge, blevet næret af aktivismen hos borgere som jer selv. Og derfor er det, at vi beder jer om lige nu, hvis I ikke allerede har ringet jeres repræsentant i Kongressen op, at ringe lige med det samme – 202-224-3121 – for at sige: »Tilsidesæt det veto af JASTA-loven, som Obama truer med.«

Dette kunne ikke være tydeligere end under de demonstrationer, der fandt sted foran Det hvide Hus tirsdag morgen, og foran USA’s Senat senere på dagen, med medlemmerne af 11. september-familierne og andre. Vi har nogle videoklip fra pressekonferencen, der fandt sted på Senats-siden af Capitol tirsdag eftermiddag, hvor Terry Strada, Kaitlin Strada og Alison Crowther – alle tre medlemmer af 11. september-familierne – og ligeledes senator [Richard] Blumenthal totalt smadrede og pillede ned de løgne, der kom ud af Obama-administrationen og den saudiske lobby-maskine.

Men, før vi kommer til det, vil jeg bede Jeff Steinberg om, ganske kort, at fortælle os, hvad LaRouches marchordrer for dette øjeblik er, stedt over for Obamas forestående trussel om et veto af JASTA-loven. Dernæst vil vi afspille klippet fra pressekonferencen. Jeg vil give ordet til Jeff til en sammenfatning af hr. LaRouches kommentarer tidligere på dagen:

Jeff Steinberg: Det er temmelig lige ud ad landevejen. Han sagde simpelt hen, at, hvis Obama fører sit veto ud i livet, så bør han omgående afsættes ved en rigsretssag. Dette er i den grad en handling med åbenlyst og vidende forræderi imod ikke alene 11. september-familierne, men imod De forenede Stater som helhed.

En af nyhedshistorierne i dag sagde, at, hvis Obama fører dette veto ud i livet, så tager han, atter engang, terroristernes side imod USA’s interesser.

I Forordet til USA’s Forfatning er ét af præsidentens fremmeste ansvar, at forsvare De forenede Staters nationale sikkerhed: »at sikre det fælles forsvar«, og at »fremme det almene vel«, og hvis præsident Obama ikke kan se, hvorfor det er i alle amerikaneres og alle menneskers overhængende interesse, i hele verden, som rent faktisk ønsker at nedkæmpe denne terroristsvøbe, der udgår fra saudisk wahhabisme og fra den saudiske kongefamilie, ja, så må de hellere tænke over, hvad implikationerne af dette er.

Så hr. LaRouches »marchordrer« er ganske enkle: Få denne tilsidesættelse af Obamas veto i hus. Mobilisér jeres senator; mobilisér jeres repræsentant i Kongressen. Men oven i dette bør enhver, der ikke er sikker på, hvad implikationerne af et Obama-veto er, tænke længe og hårdt, og bør gå med i det kor, der omgående må kræve hans afsættelse fra embedet gennem en rigsretssag. Dette er en dødsens alvorlig sag, og dette er det skridt, der må tages.

Hele webcastet, inkl. engelsk udskrift, kan ses her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14887   

Som I alle ved, så befinder vi os netop nu i en nedtælling til »sandhedens time«. Fra og med kl. 1:00-2:00 her i eftermiddag, under Det hvide Hus’ pressebriefing, står det klart, at [præsident] Obama vil nedlægge veto mod JASTA-loven (Senatslov 2040). Vi vil straks skrive telefonnummeret på skærmen, så I kan ringe til Kongressen og komme i kontakt med senatorerne og kongresmedlemmerne (i Repræsentanternes Hus, -red.) fra jeres stat, så I kan være mobiliserede under vores udsendelse. I skal slet ikke udsætte det. Ring. Sørg for, at jeres stemme bliver hørt. Sig til hvert enkelt kongresmedlem, at han/hun skal være stærk i sin forpligtelse over for at gøre Obamas veto ugyldigt. [Capitols omstillingsbord: 202-224-3131]

 Et længere, dansk uddrag vil blive udlagt på hjemmesiden senere i dag.

Engelsk udskrift:

"IT IS REPREHENSIBLE THAT ONE MAN IS STANDING BETWEEN JUSTICE FOR
THE MURDER OF 3000 PEOPLE AND THIS LEGISLATION BECOMING LAW."  —
Kristen Brightweiser, 9/11 widow

LaRouche PAC International Webcast Sept. 23, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon! It's September 23rd, 2016. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome all of you to
a special broadcast here from LaRouchepac.com on Friday
{afternoon}. We are broadcasting {early} our regularly scheduled
webcast this week at 4:00 Eastern Time (1:00 pm Pacific Time)
because we are in the midst of a showdown in Washington, D.C.,
where every minute counts.
        I'm joined in the studio by Jeff Steinberg, from {Executive
Intelligence Review}; and we're joined via video by Elliot
Greenspan, coordinator for LaRouche PAC activities in New York
City.
        As all of you know, we're in the countdown to the "moment of
truth" right now. As of 1:00-2:00 this afternoon, during the
White House press briefing, it remains clear that [President]
Obama is committed to vetoing the JASTA Bill (Senate Bill 2040).
We're going to put, right now, the phone number on the screen for
you to call in to Congress in order to contact the Senators and
Representatives from your State, in order for you to be mobilized
{during the show}. Don't even delay. Call in. Make sure that your
voice is heard. Tell every single Member of Congress to remain
strong in their commitment to override Obama's veto. [Capitol
Switchboard: 202-224-3131]
        This Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (or JASTA,
so-called), despite {unbelievable} pressure, threats, lies,
money, intimidation coming from the Saudi lobbying machine and
from the White House directly, at last reading on Capitol Hill,
Congress is still set to override this veto, delivering a very
historic first veto override of Obama's entire Presidency.
There's a {New York Times} article just earlier today, "Obama is
on the cusp of a rebuke he has long avoided — a veto override."
        What's become clear from the coverage, is that this has been
an all-out battle behind the scenes. Very, very quickly I'd like
to read just the beginning of a {New York Times} that came out on
Wednesday, September 21st, which was headlined "Fight Between
Saudis and 9/11 Families Escalates in Washington." I think this
gives a dramatic overview of exactly what has gone down behind
the scenes, and in public view, during the course of just the few
days that have occurred this week. It reads, in the beginning:

        "On Monday, a constellation of lobbyists for Saudi Arabia,
which has spent more than $5 million this past year to buy
influence in Washington, called a crisis meeting to try to stop
legislation allowing the families of victims of the Sept. 11
attacks to sue the Saudi government for any role in the plot.
        "On Tuesday, the 9/11 families, represented in their
multibillion-dollar lawsuits by lawyers including Jack Quinn, a
former White House counsel with deep relationships in Washington,
demonstrated outside the White House to pressure President Obama
not to veto the legislation, as he has vowed to do.
        "On Wednesday, these two powerful forces, one operating in
the shadows and the other more in the open, converged on Capitol
Hill in the culmination of one of the biggest and most emotional
lobbying fights of the year. The battle is a reflection of the
enduring dominance in Washington of the 9/11 families and the
diminishing clout here of Saudi Arabia, which once advanced its
agenda unencumbered in the West Wing and corridors of Congress."
        Now, I think it's very clear that what has happened, is the
central role that the 9/11 families — but also other citizens,
including those of you who are watching this broadcast here today
— have played in fueling this showdown. This showdown has been
fueled, despite $5 million in Saudi lobbying money, by the
activism of citizens like you. And that's why we're asking you,
{right now}, if you haven't called in to your Congressmen, to
call right now — 202-224-3121 — to say "Override Obama's
threatened veto of JASTA."
        This couldn't have been made more clear than during the
rallies that occurred in front of the White House on Tuesday
morning, and later in the day in front of the United States
Senate, by members of the 9/11 families and others. We do have
some clips from the press conference that occurred on the
Senate side of the Capitol on Tuesday afternoon, where Terry
Strada, Kaitlyn Strada, Alison Crowther — all three members of
the 9/11 families — and also Sen. [Richard] Blumenthal
absolutely demolished and debunked the lies that were coming out
of the Obama Administration and the Saudi lobbying machine.
        But before we get to that, I'd like to just very briefly ask
Jeff Steinberg to say, in brief, what Mr. LaRouche's marching
orders for this moment were, in the face of Obama's upcoming
threatened veto of the JASTA Bill. And then we will play this
press conference clip. So, Jeff, I'm going to let you just
summarize what Mr. LaRouche's comments were today.

        JEFF STEINBERG: It's pretty straight forward. He just simply
said that if Obama goes ahead with this veto, then he should be
immediately impeached. This is such an act of overt and witting
treason against not just the 9/11 families, but against the
United States as a whole.
        One of the news accounts today said that if Obama goes ahead
with his veto, then once again he's siding with the terrorists,
against the interests of the United States.
        In the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, one of the first
responsibilities of the President is to defend the national
security of the United States: to "provide for the common
defense, and to "promote the general Welfare," and if President
Obama cannot see why it is in the urgent interests of all
Americans, and of anyone around the world, who wants to actually
fight against this terrorist scourge emanating from Saudi
Wahhabism and from the Saudi Royal Family, then they basically
better think about what the implications of this are.
        So, Mr. LaRouche's "marching orders" are very simple: Get
the veto override. Mobilize your Senator, mobilize your
Representative. But, on top of that, anyone who is unclear about
the strategic implications of an Obama veto, should think long
and hard and should join in the chorus that must immediately
demand his impeachment from office. This is a dead serious
matter, and that's the step that must be taken.

        OGDEN: Great! We're going to elaborate a little bit more on
the context of that a little bit later. Also, with the
developments that are occurring internationally. But right now, I
want to play a very short excerpt from the speeches of Terry
Strada, Kaitlyn Strada, Alison Crowther, and Sen. Blumenthal,
where they debunk every single media propaganda line that you're
going to hear coming from the White House and the Saudi lobbying
machine on the subject of the JASTA Bill. So, here's that
excerpt:

        TERRY STRADA: In our quest for the truth, accountability,
and justice for the murder of my husband and the thousands of
other innocent souls lost and injured, my colleagues and I have
worked tirelessly with Congress for over four years advocating
for the 9/11 families in support of the Justice Against Sponsors
of Terrorism Act (JASTA).
        I am frustrated, angry, and tired of the mis-truths being
carelessly spewed about this legislation, and I am here today to
set the record straight. The President's rationales to veto JASTA
hold no weight. They are 100% wrong. The issues the White House
and [unclear: 0:08:35.4] are raising now, concerns of reciprocal
laws or lawsuits, have all been considered, repeatedly, and
addressed.
        This issue about the possibility of threats of reciprocal
laws and lawsuits is a kneejerk reaction, raised by all novices
looking at the Bill, until they actually read the text and
consider the policies. Then, only those who would favor Saudi
interests seem to cling to the mis-truths. Those who favor sound,
anti-terror-financing policies, support JASTA.
        The most recent statement from the White House Press
Secretary, Josh Earnest, last Monday, when he told the White
House press corps that there were concerns about judges all over
the country designating terror organizations for U.S. sanctions,
is nonsensical. No judge overseeing a civil jury trial for
injuries would ever be imposing U.S. sanctions. That is simply
outlandish.
        To be crystal clear: JASTA does not and cannot have anything
to do with suing our diplomats. That issue is controlled by
something entirely different from JASTA — the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations. And, if {I} know it, I suspect the White
House knows this, too.
        Very importantly, JASTA has nothing to do with whether a
private citizen, or even a private company, can be sued for
alleged wrong-doing. JASTA deals with immunity of foreign States.
So, the White House's press comments that enacting JASTA will
threaten suits against the U.S. — which Mr. Earnest emphasized
as a risk of JASTA — are categorically untrue. I am sure the
White House knows that, too.
        And most importantly, our military is not at risk for being
sued if JASTA is enacted. The narrow text of JASTA, like our
legal history, specifically distinguishes between acts of war and
acts of terrorism. The text of the Bill, for anyone who cares to
read it — and it is surprisingly short — specifically excludes
acts of war. I'm sure the White House knows that, too.
        No one who seriously opposes terrorism disagrees with a bill
that at its core, accuses no one. All JASTA does, is simply ask
those accused of sponsoring terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, to
answer on the merits and to stand account for those accusations.
        For us, the 9/11 families and survivors, all we're asking
for is an opportunity to have our case heard in a courtroom.
Denying us justice is un-American. In our case, the existing and
still growing mountain of evidence against the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, demands that they address those accusations, if for
nothing else, to normalize our relations with a nation that
claims to be our ally.
        I would suggest, that if the Kingdom had no part in the
horrific attacks of 9/11, they should welcome the opportunity to
address the allegations head-on, and fix our relationship.
Instead, they have hired dozens of highly-paid lobbyists, who
roam the halls of Congress, intimidating our Members of Congress,
and trying to strong-arm our legislative process. This, too, is
un-American.
        We, the 9/11 community, have suffered far too long at the
hands of far too many that would prevent us from seeking
accountability before a jury of our peers. Neither the President,
nor Congress, nor the lobbyists for foreign kingdoms should be
permitted to make us wait another day to pass JASTA.

        SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: The basic objective here is to hold
accountable wrong-doers and law-breakers and evil-doers. Because
that is the rule of law. Behind that over-arching, seemingly
abstract ideal, is a loop-hole in the law. And it's a modest
loop-hole. The loop-hole is that a foreign actor or agent can
commit an atrocity in this country, but be immune from any kind
of legal accountability if the aiding and abetting is done
outside our boundaries. That's basically what may well be shown
in a court of law about the Saudi agents or operatives who aided
and abetted the 9/11 terrorists. There's a basic principle here.
If a foreign agent or actor gives a bag of money or a ton of
explosives to someone who then does harm in our country, and it
happens outside the country, there still should be legal
accountability. That's a loop-hole that Congress never intended.
        Take an analogy: If another country launched a missile from
[within] its borders, from its soil, that blew up an American
citizen, nobody would say, "Well, that's okay, because they did
it within their own borders." And the same principle applies
here. A foreign government that aids and abets an act of terror
that does harm in our country, should be held accountable, even
if those actions occurred outside our borders.
        I want to deal with the reasons given to oppose this
measure. And I want to say, with great respect to the President
of the United States, that he has a different perspective. He
conducts our nation's diplomacy. I respect him and his office and
his reasons for opposing this measure. But I disagree. Strongly,
and powerfully, with those reasons.
        If the Saudi Government is innocent, it has nothing to fear
from a day in court. If it is culpable, it should be held
accountable. And there is mounting evidence, revealed in the 28
pages, kept secret for so long, about potential Saudi complicity.
        So, I'm urging the President, as I did in a letter with my
colleague Sen. [Chuck] Schumer about ten days ago, to sign this
measure, and I believe that there are now, and there will be,
well more than the necessary votes to override this veto. It was
unanimously passed, and I believe it will be overwhelmingly
approved again, if need be.

        KAITLYN STRADA: After hearing our cries for justice, our US
Senate and House of Representatives unanimously passed
legislation called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
— JASTA. This bill would give me and thousands of other children
who lost their parents on 9/11, the opportunity to see some
degree of accountability. JASTA does not determine whether the
accused foreign state is actually responsible; the accused just
wouldn't get a free pass on accountability. Under existing law, a
foreign state alleged to be responsible for a car wreck has no
free pass and must face the music; the same should be for
terrorist attacks that kill or cause injury to Americans on US
soil. It is the right thing.
        So, I am imploring Congress to override the President's
impending veto, and help my family and all the 9/11 families and
survivors seek the justice we deserve. Fifteen years is far too
long for us to have to wait already. The veto should be
overridden at [the] first opportunity, and we should not be
forced to wait a day longer. Please show that you, our elected
officials, stand on {our} side; that of the American citizens. Do
not yield to the pressure of powerful foreign influences looking
to escape accountability. It's past time to enact JASTA.

        ALISON CROWTHER: I've come here today along with many other
9/11 families and victims in support of the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The purpose of this act is to hold
accountable individuals in nations that fund terrorist activities
in our country. JASTA, if passed, will open pathways to choke off
foreign sources of funding and bankrupt terrorism. We first and
foremost exhort President Obama to approve JASTA. We are engaged
in an insidious war of hearts and minds; an epic battle for the
soul of humanity. To quote President Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." If we allow
fear of potential consequences to rule over right action, the bad
guys will win. JASTA is a weapon in our nonviolent arsenal to
fight against those who would intentionally target and perpetrate
heinous crimes against innocent men, women, children, and the
unborn. If President Obama decides to veto JASTA, we trust that
the Senate and House, who represent the will of the 9/11 families
and the citizens of our great country, will stand by their
unanimous convictions and override a Presidential veto of JASTA
without delay. Thank you very much.

        OGDEN: Now while you were watching that video, we received a
breaking news announcement; and I'm going to let Jeff announce to
you what has just developed.

        STEINBERG: At 4:27 this afternoon, President Obama signed
the veto of JASTA. Which now means that the onus is on all of you
and on the members of the US Senate and then the US House of
Representatives to deliver a unanimous rebuke to a President who
puts his future business dealings with Saudi Arabia and his
commitment to cover up the crimes of 9/11, ahead of the interests
of the American people. This is a shameful moment for the
institution of the Presidency; and I hope all of you will take
that absolutely seriously and do your part as citizens. As Mr.
LaRouche said, "This is an unconscionable act by President Obama
that deserves his immediate impeachment. But first and foremost,
he's got to be delivered a brutal message by the Congress, by the
Senate; but first by you, the American people that this is
thoroughly unacceptable. He will go down in infamy for this
hideous act on his part."
        I just want to amplify a little bit what the stakes are in
this fight. We all know that 2,997 people perished on 9/11; but
the death and destruction from that event continues to this day.
I want to read you a news item that I wrote earlier this
afternoon, just before coming to the studio; and I think you'll
understand why this is an appropriate thing to be reading to you
right now.
        "On the weekend of the 15th anniversary of the September 11,
2001 attacks earlier this month, {Newsweek} magazine published an
extensive report on the tens of thousands of New Yorkers and
other first responders who are suffering severe medical
conditions as the result of their heroics following the 9/11
attacks. The {Newsweek} story was graphically headlined, '9/11's
Second Wave; Cancer and Other Diseases Linked to the 2001 Attacks
Are Surging'. While much of the article was devoted to
heartbreaking case studies of the first responders who are now
either dead or are suffering serious illnesses as the result of
their efforts, the statistics provided in the article are
harrowing, and reveal the extent to which the consequences of the
9/11 attacks continue to take lives."
        This is a quote from {Newsweek}: "|'Doctors with the World
Trade Center Health Program, which the Federal government created
in the aftermath of the attacks, have linked nearly 70 types of
cancer to Ground Zero. Many people have fallen victim to cancers
their doctors are rare, aggressive, and particularly hard to
treat.' More than 411 emergency rescue workers died in the
immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center;
and that number has reached 1064 as of July 2016, according to
data that {Newsweek} obtained from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and OSHA. But the full account is
staggering: 'As many as 400,000 people are estimated to be
affected by diseases such as cancers and mental illnesses linked
to September 11th.' 400,000. That figure includes those who lived
and worked within a mile and a half of Ground Zero in Manhattan
and Brooklyn. The vast majority of whom still don't know they're
at risk. Mark Farfel, director of the World Trade Center Health
Registry, which tracks the health of more than 71,000 rescue
workers and survivors, says 'Many people don't connect the
symptoms they have today to September 11th.'
        "Dr. Michael Crane, director of a clinic at Mount Sinai
Hospital which treats 22,000 rescue and recovery workers from
9/11, told {Newsweek} that of the 75,000 people enrolled in the
World Trade Center's Health Program, 5,441 have been diagnosed
with 9/11 cancers. {Newsweek} reported that 'Today, 15 years
after the attacks, doctors are starting to understand why people
are still dying. When the towers came down, they say, they
released a massive plume of carcinogens; turning lower Manhattan
into a cesspool of cancer and deadly disease.'
        "A National Resources Defense Council report issued soon
after the 9/11 attacks estimated that the North Tower alone
released 400 tons of asbestos into the atmosphere, along with
lead, mercury, volatile organic compounds, and deadly poisons.
Among New York City firefighters, the cancer rate after 9/11
increased by between 19% and 30% over pre-9/11 rates. The
Environmental Protection Agency, however, issued a report one
week after the 9/11 attacks, declaring that the air within a
16-acre area around Ground Zero was safe to breathe. An EPA
Inspector General's report in 2003 found that there was no basis
for EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman making that
statement. The IG report concluded, 'The White House Council on
Environmental Quality influenced, through the collaborative
process, the information that the EPA communicated to the public
through its early press releases when it convinced the EPA to add
reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.' So far, at
least 1140 people who lived and worked in the immediate vicinity
of Ground Zero, have died from diseases brought on by the attack;
and that number is incomplete. An unknown number of first
responders and those who were in the immediate area of Ground
Zero, are suffering from mental illnesses similar to the PTSD
suffered by returning Iraq and Afghan war veterans."
        So, the body count is continuing, and therefore, the
magnitude of the President's crime in failing to sign JASTA into
law, is that much greater.