Der er intet grundlag overhovedet for at betale 6 mia. euro i afpresserpenge, når man ved, at en karakter som Erdogan vil komme tilbage … og vil fortsætte med at true med at udløse massive flygtningestrømme samtidig med, at Tyrkiet forsøger at sabotere Lavrovs og Kerrys indsats for at bringe en afslutning på denne fem år lange monstrøsitet af en krig, der har raset i Syrien.
Vi må genrejse fremtiden; og det begynder med kampen for at genoplive NASA. Og de gode nyheder er, at denne kamp nu er i gang; den er endnu i sit begyndelsesstadie, men det er en kamp, der kan vindes. Og USA’s fremtid ligger i vægtskålene.
6. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Da Barack Obama annullerede USA’s planer om udforskning af rummet, begik han den største af sine forbrydelser, selv i sin egenskab af en »Vinder af Nobels Fredspris«, der udartede til en krigspræsident og massedræber. Rumprogrammet var Amerikas kultur, dets mission og fremtid, og Obamas handlinger vendte i realiteten den historiske kurs omkring og drev USA tilbage.
Tilstanden for økonomien i USA – for ikke at tale om Europa – er i en håbløs spiral for nedadgående og dræber millioner af mennesker gennem håbløshed, narko- og medikamentafhængighed og krig, som truer hele den amerikanske befolkning.
En total genoplivelse af udfordringerne i forbindelse med udforskning af rummet kan ændre alt. NASA’s rumprogrammer, der nu er skåret væk og suspenderet, er Amerikas eneste potentielle center for økonomisk håb.
For at vende degenerationen af USA og dets befolkning omkring, er den totale genoplivelse af rumprogrammet, på et højere niveau, den eneste farbare vej.
LaRouche-demokraten Kesha Rogers fra Texas fører an på denne vej, med den mobilisering, hun har genlanceret sammen med veteraner fra NASA, for at bringe rumprogrammet tilbage. EIR’s stiftende redaktør Lyndon LaRouche kalder dette for videnskabeligt arbejde af højeste rang; det er den eneste, videnskabelige aktivitet i USA, der har ægte betydning for menneskehedens fremtid.
Og Amerika vil stå foran et samfundsmæssigt kollaps, hvis vi ikke meget snart gør dette.
De eksempler, som USA må samarbejde med om enhver bestræbelse inden for rumfartsvidenskab, som der gives mulighed for, er Kina og Rusland.
Dér, hvor den amerikanske »fremskridtskultur« engang blomstrede – i udforskningen af rummet – dér er Kina nu den drivende kraft. Kinas plan for de næste fem år er centreret omkring rumforskning. Med målet om at undersøge galaksen fra Månens bagside inden for de næste to år, inkluderer Kinas nye plan for økonomisk og samfundsmæssig udvikling »en forståelse af universets oprindelse«.
Under en diskussion om det økonomiske program den 5. marts sagde chefen for Kinas største rumforskningslaboratorie: »Rumforskning er uadskilleligt fra Kinas innovationsdrevne udvikling. Hvis Kina ønsker at være en stærk, global nation, bør det ikke kun varetage sine umiddelbare interesser, men også bidrage til menneskeheden. Kun dette kan vinde Kina verdens respekt.«
USA har mistet verdens respekt under Bush, og især under Barack Obama. Obama må fjernes fra embedet, omgående, og hans onde »værk« må omstødes. Og mere presserende end alt andet må hans mord på Amerikas rumforskningsprogram vendes omkring i en total genoplivelse af rumforskning – »for en forståelse af universets oprindelse«.
Det er denne form for menneskets potentiale for at transformere vores magt, transformere vores relation til selve Solsystemet, som de kinesiske tiltag i dag kan tilbyde. Og det er denne fornemmelse af mening, denne fornemmelse for mobilisering og forpligtelse over for fremskridt for hele menneskeheden, som er det, vi nede i Texas minder folk om. Det, som Kesha Rogers minder folk om – selv folk, der var en del af disse store præstationer for 40 eller 50 år siden, og som nu måske har mødt en fornemmelse af demoralisering, pga. handlinger siden den tid. Vi trækker folk ud igen til en forpligtelse til denne mission. Og Kesha viser atter engang, at USA kan, og må, forpligte sig over for denne form for formål for hele menneskeheden.
Disse handlinger, denne operation for regimeskift i Libyen, førte, som nu er velkendt, direkte til, at Libyen blev til en mislykket stat og skabte et vakuum, i hvilket Libyen kunne blive stedet for iscenesættelse af det, der i dag kaldes ISIS – disse radikale, jihadistiske terrorister, der i mange områder bruger de våben, der blev kanaliseret ind i Libyen på tidspunktet for Hillary Clinton/Obama-operationen, med henblik på at vælte Gaddafi. De bruger nu disse våben til at overtage store bidder af territorium i Nordafrika og Mellemøsten. Dette skal naturligvis ses i forbindelse med de tragiske begivenheder, der udspillede sig den 11. september [2011] i Benghazi, hvor ambassadør Stevens og tre andre amerikanere blev dræbt. Men dette påpeger den mere betydningsfulde diskussion, der burde finde sted: Hvad var Hillary Clintons rolle? Hvad var Barack Obamas rolle i beslutningen om at gennemføre regimeskift i Libyen, og hvad vil resultatet blive, hvis vi tillader denne samme operation for regimeskift at finde sted i Syrien og mange andre lande?
Titelfoto: En bevæbnet libysk oprørskæmper sparker til en fodbold i nærheden af Moammar Gaddafis kompleks Bab al-Aziziya, mens dette omsluttes af flammer. Libyske oprørere indtog paladset efter flere dages kampe for at vinde kontrollen over Tripoli, 2011. (Maxppp/ZUMAPRESS)
Megan Beets fra LPAC Videnskabsteam rapporterer fra en begivenhed med Kesha Rogers i Texas om rumprogrammets betydning for USA og hele menneskeheden; Jeffrey Steinberg fremlægger en analyse af begivenhederne omkring Libyen, som Hillary Clinton var en del af, med afsættelsen og mordet på Gaddafi, og hele operationens konsekvenser for den aktuelle situation i Nordafrika og Mellemøsten, der kan føre til generel atomkrig; og Jeff Steinberg fremlægger hr. LaRouches tanker om en genrejsning af USA’s økonomi, med en genoplivning af rumprogrammet som spydspids. Engelsk udskrift.
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s March 4th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden and you are joining us for our weekly broadcast
here on Friday evenings for the LaRouche PAC webcast, at
larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio this evening by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and Megan Beets
from the LaRouche Pac Science Team. And Megan Beets just returned
from a trip to Houston, Texas where she was involved in a very
significant event and other meetings with Kesha Rogers. Many of
you might have seen the recording of this event, which was also
live-streamed on this website last Saturday. It featured Tom
Wysmueller, and Kesha Rogers, as well as Megan Beets.
We’re going to begin our broadcast this evening with some
remarks from Megan Beets, coming off the discussion that we had
with Mr. LaRouche this morning. As many of you know, Mr. LaRouche
has placed a premium on Kesha Rogers’ role as a champion, a
unique champion, of the resurgence of the United States space
program. Kesha Rogers very aggressively campaigned for this cause
in her three campaigns for Federal office that she has run so far
— 2010, 2012, and 2014, in which she was the Democratic nominee
two elections in a row, in the 22nd District of Texas, for the
United States House of Representatives, and also ran an
internationally profiled Senate campaign in 2014.
So, without further adieu, I would like to ask Megan Beets
to come to the podium to deliver a few opening remarks, and then
after that, we’ll feature some more discussion coming off of the
meeting we had with Mr. LaRouche this morning, with Jeffrey
Steinberg filling in some of those details.
MEGAN BEETS: Thanks, Matt. I can tell you from my visit to
Texas that at this moment, when the breakdown of the
trans-Atlantic system is undeniable — we’re witnessing the
complete malfunctioning and shutdown of this old system — we’re
also see the reopening of the space program down in Texas.
Now the event that I was privileged to participate in with
Kesha and Tom Wysmueller down in Texas, represents a real
beginning of a change of direction of the United States, a
rebirth, so to speak, of the United States as a nation. Now, the
requirement today is that the United States dump our commitment,
our addiction, to this dead, dying trans-Atlantic system, and
decide once again to take up a mission in the sense of purpose
and contribution to mankind.
Now, you look around today. You look around at our citizens.
You look at the heroin epidemic. You look at the death, the
self-induced deaths from drugs, from suicide, from alcoholism,
and so forth. You look at the breakdown in cities like Flint,
Michigan, the breakdown in places like certain counties of West
Virginia that were once booming coal towns. There’s no reflection
in the United States of reality.
Now, what’s reality? Look at the leadership coming from
Asia, particularly from China. Look at the kinds of optimistic
developments, the progress for humanity, that’s coming from the
leadership of China and their space program; and in their
commitment to development projects which are beginning to take
hold and take place all across Eurasia. That’s reality. There’s
no reflection of this yet inside the United States. And so when
we look around, it’s not just that the U. S. economy has
disappeared. The United States has disappeared. There’s no sense
of a unified purpose. There’s no sense of a unified mission for
the existence of the United States as a nation, and there’s no
sense within our people of what {we}, as a nation, will organize
ourselves to contribute to the purposes of mankind.
Now you contrast that with the U.S. sense of purpose and
mission as under John F. Kennedy and his Presidency, and his
leadership within the United States, and his dedication to the
space program. Now, as anyone who truthfully remembers — and
most especially, those people who were directly involved — can
tell you, this wasn’t just a mission for the United States. This
was a real mission for all of mankind. And this was reflected in
some anecdotes in the event last Saturday from some of the
attendees, who themselves were engineers or otherwise employed in
NASA during the Apollo missions.
One anecdote that was told by someone saying that he
disagreed with Werner von Braun that we should be sharing some of
our technology with the Russians, and his mind was changed by von
Braun. There was another former NASA employee who said that at
first in the 1990s, he disagreed with President Clinton’s sharing
of U.S. space technology with the former Soviet Union — with
Russia. And he said once he started working with Russian
engineers, he realized that our mission is mankind; it’s unified;
it’s the same. And this was reflected throughout the entire
event: the sense that our work during the space program was
contributing fundamental developments and contributions, not to
the progress of the United States, but to the progress of man as
a whole.
Now, why? What is the space program? What happened during
the space program in the United States?
Well, not only was the common, the general citizen,
transformed. Not only were there innumerable and immeasurable
benefits from the economic spin-offs. But most importantly, the
people were transformed. The astronauts were fundamentally
transformed. The engineers working in a space program were
fundamentally transformed, as we confronted problems in space,
problems that forced us to overturn our assumptions about the
principles which govern and control the Universe that we lived
in. And each of these problems that we confronted, we were to
conquer. And you see that in the accounts of the people who were
involved during that time in the space program: that we were able
to pull together around a common mission, thousands and thousands
of people across the country to confront these challenges in our
knowledge about the Universe, and to conquer them.
And in that way, in a very short period of time, man began
to rapidly transform and change into a more powerful species. We
began to progress into a species with more power and control over
the processes in the Universe, so much to the point that we were
able to land people on the surface of the Moon, which
fundamentally transformed our ideas and our knowledge of what the
Moon itself is, of what potential the Moon holds for a new
platform of development for man, which was completely unknown
until the accomplishments of Apollo.
Now this is what the Chinese are doing today with their
space program. In 2018, just two years from now, the Chinese plan
to land on the far side of the Moon. This has never been done
before. The far side of the Moon has been imaged with satellites,
it’s been seen by human eyes in the American astronauts who
travelled there. But nobody has ever landed on the far side of
the Moon.
Now, people may say, “Well, we know what the Moon is; we’ve
looked at it. We’ve taken pictures.” But the fact is, the far
side of the Moon is a completely unknown quantity to us. When we
land there, for example, what do we think the far side can teach
us? When we land there, we’ll have a chance to confront our
fundamental notions about the formation of the Moon, the
formation of the Earth, and possibly other planets in the Solar
System with the unique geological investigations that we’ll be
able to perform there.
When we land there, and when we’re able to set up
astronomical observatories in the very low radio frequency range,
which is a band of the electromagnetic spectrum which is
impossible to look at the Solar System in from anywhere
attainable to us besides the far side of the Moon; when we are
able to look at the Solar System in this new range, we’re very
likely going to discover that the planets, the interstellar
medium, distant galaxies, different stars, could exhibit
processes to us which were completely invisible before.
It’s this kind of potential for mankind to transform our
powers, to transform our relationship to the Solar System itself,
that’s being offered by the Chinese actions today. And it’s this
sense of meaning, this sense of mobilization and commitment to
progress for all of mankind, which is what we, down in Texas, are
reminding people of. What Kesha is reminding people of — even
people who participated in these great accomplishments 40 or 50
years ago, and who might have encountered now a sense of
demoralization with the actions since that time. We’re drawing
people back out to a commitment of this mission. And Kesha is
showing once again that the United States can, and must, commit
itself to this kind of purpose for all of mankind.
So I can just conclude by reporting that the beginnings of
these developments that we’re seeing coming out of Texas, is that
people down there still associate themselves with reality, and
are now playing a leading role, with Kesha, in being moved toward
recognizing that this is the viable option for the United States.
OGDEN: Thank you very much, Megan. And like I said, if you
haven’t gotten a chance to see the recording of the event that
occurred down in Texas last Saturday, it is archived on the
larouchepac youtube channel, and I would encourage you to watch
it. It was a very uplifting event, and we can expect to hear
much, much more from Kesha Rogers, obviously.
Now, the second item on our agenda tonight is something
which you may have heard Mr. LaRouche emphasize during the
discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee this past
Monday. Towards the end of that show, you might have caught Mr.
LaRouche’s reference to a series of very significant articles
that were published in the {New York Times} over the weekend.
They were titled: “Hillary Clinton, Smart Power, and a Dictator’s
Fall: The Role of Hillary Clinton in the ouster and killing of
Colonel Muammar Qaddafi That Left Libya a Failed State and a
Terrorist Haven.” This article, or series of articles, which were
based on a number of interviews from people who were right on the
inside of the entire decision-making process that led into the
decision to overthrow Qaddafi, and to ultimately have him
killing, very vividly paints the picture of the months leading up
into that decision, and Hillary Clinton’s central role in making
that decision on the inside of the Obama White House.
And this, despite dire warnings from intelligence experts,
and military experts, as to what the aftermath of that decision
would be, and also even overtures of peace that were coming from
Libya itself, and the Libyan government — overtures for a
peaceful transition, which were directly and decisively ignored
by the Clinton State Department and the Obama White House.
These actions, this regime-change operation in Libya, as we
know now very well, directly led to Libya becoming a failed
state, and creating the vacuum in which Libya could be the
staging ground for what has now come to be called ISIS today —
these radical jihadist terrorist who in many parts are using the
weapons that were channeled into Libya at that time by the
Hillary Clinton-Obama operation, in order to overthrow Qaddafi.
They are now using those weapons to take over large swaths of
territory in Northern Africa, and in the Middle East. Obviously,
this is the context for the tragic events that unfolded on Sept.
11 in Benghazi in which Ambassador Stevens and three other
Americans were killed. However, I think this point to the more
important discussion that should be being had: What was Hillary
Clinton’s role? What was Barack Obama’s role in the decision for
regime change in Libya, and what will be the outcome if we allow
this same regime-change operation to continue to take place in
Syria and in many other countries?
One note I would say just before inviting Jeff up to the
podium to discuss this more in detail, is the importance of the
coincidence of the publication of these series of articles in the
{New York Times} with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s surprise
announcement that she was resigning as vice-chair of the DNC in
order to more aggressively campaign against Hillary Clinton,
explicitly because of Hillary Clinton’s identity as a strong and
vocal advocate of the policy of regime change what Tulsi Gabbard
has said she personally witnessed the tragic and disastrous
consequences of on the ground in Iraq, after the decision to have
regime change against Saddam Hussein. Tulsi Gabbard was active
service military. And we saw the decision again in the case of
Libya, and now we are confronting directly head-on whether or not
that decision will be made in Syria.
This also obviously has a lot to do with the context of
Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to create the framework
for a ceasefire, along with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in
Syria.
Now, what I would like to ask Jeff to discuss at the podium
is what Mr. LaRouche’s take has been on the significance of these
articles, and also the very precise timing of these articles
being published right now, during this Presidential campaign
season, and what the implications of this should be seen in terms
of the ongoing fight behind the scenes continuing to this day in
the Obama Administration.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Well, the two-part series,
lengthy articles that were published late last week, early this
week, in the New York Times bring back into stark relief and
memory, the fact that the decision to overthrow and execute
Qaddafi was not only a turning point in recent history. It
unleashed a flood of instability. Massive amounts of weapons
flooded out of Libya. All across Africa a structure was set up
for laundering those weapons into Syria, where they ultimately
wound up in the hands of both the al-Qaeda, and later the Islamic
State forces. This has been a source of mass death, grave
instability, throughout the entire Africa and Middle East region,
and beyond.
Now, what the {New York Times} articles make clear is
something that was well-known to us and which Mr. LaRouche
commented on exhaustively as these events were playing out. But
from the standpoint of the current elections and things related
to the ongoing war danger, now at the threshold of the danger of
a general war, a nuclear war, it’s very important to reflect back
on this.
Effectively, as the result of Hillary Clinton joining the
White House, joining President Obama, joining Samantha Power,
joining Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett, in pressing for the
violent overthrow of the Qaddafi government, the assassination of
Qaddafi, and effectively the installation of the Muslim
Brotherhood and al-Qaeda into power in Libya, this meant that
Hillary Clinton had completely capitulated to Obama. Prior to
that point, during the Obama administration, despite the fact
that it was a grave political mistake on the part of Hillary
Clinton to have become a part of the Obama Administration in the
first place, the fact is that she had generally aligned herself
with Defense Secretary Gates, with General Dempsey, chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and had been a barrier to the worst
kinds of British policies coming out of Obama, Jarrett, Rice,
Power, and the others grouped around this President.
Obama is a British agent, plain and simple, and that was one
of the first points that Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our
discussion earlier today. And he said, Look, Hillary Clinton was
terrified into playing the role that she played in Libya. She was
not the only person pushing for regime change; she was, in the
words of Roberts Gates, “the tilt factor”. The decisive vote in a
very close 51-49 vote, where Gates himself, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, were opposed to launching the no-fly zone. Launching what
was being mislabelled a humanitarian intervention, when from the
very outset it was always about regime change. You’ve got to
remember that the characteristic of the Obama Presidency is to be
found in those Tuesday kill sessions; where the President sits
down with a group of national security advisors, Cabinet members,
representatives of the military and intelligence community, and
makes life-or-death arbitrary decisions to add people’s names to
the kill lists. In some cases — we know in at least four
instances — people were put on that kill list who were American
citizens; who were deprived of any day in court, any due process,
and were summarily assassinated. Whether by special forces,
whether by drone attacks, or combinations of both.
So, that’s the character of the Obama administration. And
with the 2011 decision to overthrow Qaddafi, Hillary Clinton —
out of absolute fear — remember, you’re dealing with a President
who relishes the idea of coming up with weekly lists of targets
for assassination. With that Libya decision, with Clinton’s
decision to side with her own worst enemies, going all the way
back to the 2008 campaign when she campaigned against Barack
Obama; when Samantha Power publicly went out on the stump calling
her a witch. When she capitulated and sided with those British
forces in the Libya operation, she not only participated in the
unleashing of absolute Hell across much of Africa and the Middle
East region; but she caved in to people who, at an earlier point,
she knew were absolutely despicable and were her avowed enemies.
That capitulation is something that she will live with forever.
Now, recently, in the course of reviewing the Africa events,
the Libya events, some additional information has come out that
even puts a further punctuation point on the fact that there was
a top-down decision in which Secretary Clinton participated,
along with President Obama, to overthrow Qaddafi; no questions
asked, no second thoughts. There’s a very precise timeline that
has been provided by a retired US Navy Rear Admiral named Charles
Kubic, who was retired from the Navy and was a business man
working in Libya — also a trained engineer. And when the United
Nations Security Council passed the resolution to establish a
no-fly zone and a “humanitarian corridor” around Benghazi — this
was on March 19, 2011 — on that very day, Rear Admiral Kubic was
contacted by people in the inner circle of Qaddafi; and they
said, “Let’s talk.” Let’s not go with diplomatic formulations.
Let’s immediately convene a battlefield 72-hour truce. And
during that time, let’s discuss an orderly procedure for standing
down the Libyan forces that were moving on Benghazi, and on an
orderly transition of power. Qaddafi was prepared to leave
Libya, to go into exile; to arrange a negotiated government to
follow from him, and to basically stand down the Libyan forces
that were, in fact, battling al-Qaeda and other jihadist networks
in the area around Benghazi and Misurata inside Libya. Admiral
Kubic conveyed immediately the approach that he had gotten from
the head of Qaddafi’s personal security. He conveyed it to
Stuttgart, Germany; it was reported to General Carter Ham, the
head of the Africa Command, and General Ham responded favorably.
Details were being worked out the very next day to convene
exactly this kind of battlefield truce and negotiating process;
either in Tripoli, or right off the shores of Libya on a
designated US military ship. And in fact, there was a halt on
the part of Qaddafi of the military movement toward Benghazi and
Misurata. So, in other words, everything was there within the
first 24 hours of when the bombing began of Libya, for the
conflict to stop right there; for Qaddafi’s departure; for none
of the death and destruction that followed to actually take
place. On the evening of March 20, 2011, General Carter Ham
issued a statement saying that the United States had no interest
in targetting Qaddafi. That was the return signal that the
Libyans were looking for, coming from AFRICOM, that the
negotiations could begin perhaps as early as the next morning.
However that entire situation was cancelled; Admiral Kubic was
ordered to stand down, to drop the contact. AFRICOM was ordered
to stand down and abandon any plans for any such negotiation for
Qaddafi’s departure. Because the decision had been made “higher
up in the administration” that there would be no turning back;
that this was a regime change operation, and in fact, a part of
that was the fact that the British — who had agents inside the
inner circle of Qaddafi’s own personal security detail — were
the ones who fingered his location and set up his assassination
later that year.
So, in other words, the destruction of Libya, the
destruction of Africa, that came in part as a measure of Hillary
Clinton’s capitulation to President Obama, and above all else, to
the British; could have been at least short-circuited and the
worst damage prevented. The death of Ambassador Stephens and the
three other American officials a year and later probably could
have been averted. But none of that happened, because there was
a willful decision; undoubtedly the decision was made in London,
was passed in through Obama. And rather than fighting against
that, Hillary Clinton capitulated; and it was out of a fear of
Obama, out of a fear that this was a killer President. There
were a number of opportunities where she had the possibility to
resign and put the spotlight where it properly belonged; but none
of those things happened.
And as the result of that, all of the African continent is
now one extended battle zone. As the result of that, we have the
existence of the Islamic State; because Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar flooded Syria and Iraq with the kinds of weapons that had
been derived from what was at one point a secured Qaddafi arsenal
of all kinds of weapons. And those weapons have now spread
chaos, death, and destruction across that entire swath of North
Africa and the Middle East. That’s the legacy, that’s the
consequence of the fact that, as Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton failed to uphold her responsibilities; capitulated to her
own worst avowed enemies in the Obama administration, and
unfortunately, the rest is history.
Mr. LaRouche, at the time, pointedly said, from the moment
that he heard that Qaddafi had been assassinated, that the real
targets were Russia and China; and that these events in 2011 were
the beginning of a process that would now accelerate towards the
general warfare — potentially thermonuclear warfare — involving
the United States, Russia, and China. So, look back with a
certain degree of hindsight, and understand the consequences of
what happened in that critical moment of March of 2011; and see
how all of the events that have followed from that, and why we
are on the verge of a potential thermonuclear war of annihilation
of mankind. Understand how critical decisions in critical
moments, shape events for long periods of time to come.
OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. Now, in the context of
what Jeff just said about the overarching policy that has
emanated from this Obama administration against Russia and
against China, you’ve seen obvious economic warfare also that’s
taken place from the United States against both of those
countries. The next question pertains to one of those aspects;
and I know that it will also give Jeff an opportunity to discuss
a little bit about what Mr. LaRouche’s views are on the necessity
of a massive mobilization inside the United States to rebuild our
economy, spearheaded by Kesha Rogers’ efforts in Texas to revive
the legacy of the NASA space program.
So, the question reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, the US
Department of Commerce has imposed a 265% tariff on Chinese
cold-rolled steel. The Department of Commerce stated that the
tariffs are meant to punish China for dumping cold-rolled steel
onto the market; which is used to make auto parts, appliances,
and shipping containers. In your view, will these imposed
tariffs help the US steel industry? And if not, what measures do
you recommend to revitalize our steel industry?”
STEINBERG: Well, the first thing that Mr. LaRouche said
was, if you want to revitalize the US economy, then you’ve got to
start out by shutting down Wall Street; because Wall Street right
now is about the only steel sector left in the United States —
they steal everything that’s available to be stolen.
Now, I think that this move by the Commerce Department came
as the result of pressure from a number of members of Congress;
most of whom are simply desperate and misguided and are not even
among the worst people in the US Congress. The idea that somehow
or other, putting prohibitive tariffs on the importing of Chinese
steel at this stage of the game, when the entire real economy of
the United States is in a state of absolute collapse, is the
ultimate folly. Now, let’s just look at some of the basic facts
of what’s been going on inside the US economy; and particularly,
let’s look at the steel sector. We don’t have the data for all
of 2015, but we know that between 2014 and 2015 there was
actually a 26% decline in the amount of steel imported from
China. And the reason for that is because there was an even
greater decline in the overall steel utilization inside the US
economy; because the US economy is in a state of physical,
economic collapse. One of the areas where you had substantial
use of steel, not on a gigantic scale, but on a significant
scale, was in the shale oil and gas sector; which we know is in a
state of collapse right now. And the fact that it was that
sector that was a major source of steel use in the US economy,
just tells you how far down the scale of real economic
development that we have fallen.
Now, the fact of the matter is, that on a global scale
centered in the trans-Atlantic region, you have a significant
collapse in physical economic output. Real production in the
United States has collapsed; we’ve gone through 15 consecutive
months of a decline in industrial output. The shale oil and gas
sector collapse is a small piece at the tail end of a 40-year
process of economic collapse, disintegration, out-sourcing of
what little real economic activity was going on. So the idea
that a tariff, at this point, is going to protect a domestic
industry that collapsed over the past 40 years, is an act of
desperation; when in fact, we need real creative thinking.
Now, {Executive Intelligence Review} has recently — we’ve
talked about it on this show before — produced a supplement to
the World Land-Bridge report, called “The United States Must Join
the World Land-Bridge”; and it lays out a clear game plan for a
genuine economic revival of the United States. It starts by
shutting down Wall Street; they’re hopelessly bankrupt. And the
bankruptcy of Wall Street is now in the process of advancing the
disintegration of the real economy of the United States; and the
real economy of the United States means the American people.
When we were discussing earlier today with Mr. LaRouche, he said,
“Look, what’s the most chilling indication of the real rate of
collapse of the US economy? It’s the exponential increase in the
number of people dying of heroin overdoses; it’s the number of
people, the exponential rise in the number of people committing
suicide in other ways, as well. It’s the desperation and
demoralization of a population that was once inspired, that was
once the most productive population in the world; and is now
fallen into a state of complete collapse.” In 2005, we saw the
takedown of the auto sector; and what that meant was the machine
tool design sector associated with the US auto sector was wiped
out. Under President Obama, there has been a conscious and
systematic policy of shutting down our space program; and it’s
only through that space exploration, as Megan just emphasized,
that you have any prospect of a genuine future for mankind.
The good news is that the report coming out of Texas is that
some of the leading circles historically associated with NASA,
current and former NASA employees, have reached the point where
they realize: 1) that it’s all over for the United States if
there’s not a real fight to revive the space program. They see
certain glimmers of reflection of what was once a driving force
in the growth of real productivity in the American economy;
namely, the space program, centered in NASA Houston. You had the
return to Earth of Scott Kelly, who spent a year up in space; an
exciting development, it’s a glimmer. It’s a sort of smell or
fragrance of the fact that NASA can be revived; that we can have
a resurgence of the kind of optimism that we had during the
Kennedy Presidency, before he was assassinated. Where the Apollo
program was the centerpiece for the whole development of the real
US economy. You’ve got NASA people now beginning to say, “Yes,
we’re ready for a real fight.” The fight is on; and you’ve got
reflections of that that you’ll see emerging as a tendency in
other parts of the country. Southern California used to be a
major center of our space program; you had the Jet Propulsion Lab
in the Los Angeles area, a crucial component. And you, of
course, had the Lawrence Livermore Lab up in the Bay area. These
are centers that can be revived; but only if we get a core
revival of that NASA mission. The mission to join with China,
with Russia, with India, with other nations, in exploring and
developing the universe as part of man’s extraterrestrial
mission.
So, if you think about the steel issue again, from that
standpoint, how much steel would be required for the kind of
nationwide high-speed rail system that is part of the “US joins
the World Land-Bridge”? How much steel will be required for a
proliferation of nuclear power plants throughout the United
States? The modernization of the existing plants, and they’re
replacement where appropriate, by fourth generation nuclear power
plants. What would be the requirements once we’ve actually
completed the process of successfully commercializing fusion?
These are the issues for the future; but these fights have to won
today. And if you want to understand the biggest mass kill
factor with President Obama, it has been his killing of the NASA
space program; because that is a mass execution of the future.
And so, these issues are all very much inextricably tied
together. Unless we get a revolutionary change in policy, which
means a return to the kind of Hamiltonian principles that we last
saw on display in the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency overall, and
in the Kennedy Apollo program in particular. These ideas are
there; and we’re getting now, coming from the Houston vicinity,
from the NASA center there, a rumbling. The start of a real
fight to basically bring the United States back into space; as
part of a collaborative mission for all of mankind. And as I
say, once that happens, the issue of steel, the issue of dumping;
all of this becomes meaningless. Because the actual physical
requirements will be so enormous, the return to optimism and the
benefits of that — particularly for a lost generation of young
people, who represent a high percentage of those who are going
off as heroin addicts, who are committing suicide, who have no
sense of future. We’ve got to restore the future; and that
starts with a fight to revive NASA. And the good news is that
that fight is now beginning; it’s in its early moments, but it’s
a fight that is winnable. And the future of the United States
hangs in the balance.
OGDEN: Thank you very much. Because Jeff mentioned it, I
would just encourage our viewers to revisit the pamphlet; which
is both available in print form, and in digital form: “The
United States Must Join the New Silk Road; A Hamiltonian Vision
for an Economic Renaissance”; which features much of what Jeff
just discussed in terms of a national high-speed rail program, a
Bering Straits tunnel or bridge project to connect us to Eurasia.
To the phenomenal developments that are happening now in China;
but it also has an entire section on a science-driver development
mission, which includes much of the cutting edge work that needs
to be done with a revived space program — not just in the United
States, but also collaboration that we must begin to cooperate
with China’s and Russia’s space programs. And have what Mr.
LaRouche has so aptly termed the common aims of mankind; that is
the truest form of a war avoidance program for a durable piece.
So, with that said, I would like to thank Jeff; and I would
also like to thank Megan Beets for joining us here this evening.
And I would encourage you to stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
Thank you very much.
LPAC fredags-webcast 26. februar 2016, dansk oversættelse.
Hvis man derfor sluttelig ønsker, at den syriske fredsaftale skal blive en succes, altså holde, så må man, ud over det presserende nødvendige behov for en Marshallplan/Landbro-hjørnesten for at sikre, at freden er varig, også fjerne Obama. Og man må bringe det britiske imperiesystem til fald.
Der findes muligheder for en erstatning, men disse erstatninger vil kun ske, når Obama er blevet fjernet af reelle forfatningsmæssige grunde, og på det tidspunkt, hvor Det britiske Imperium har fået en reglementeret begravelse.
Jeffrey Steinberg giver os Lyndon LaRouches tanker om muligheden for fred i Syrien, og Benjamin Deniston taler om tre nødvendige aspekter af rumforskning.
Engelsk udskrift.
Jeff Steinberg gives Lyndon LaRouche’s thoughts on the potential for peace in Syria, and Ben Deniston speaks on three necessary aspects of space science.
TRANSCRIPT
JASON ROSS: Good evening. This is February 26, 2016, and you’re joining us for the regular LaRouche PAC Friday webcast. I’m Jason Ross, and I’m joined in the studio today by Jeff Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, as well as Ben Denison from the LaRouche PAC Basement team. The three of us had an opportunity to speak with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche this afternoon, and the comments you’ll be hearing tonight reflect that discussion.
To start off, the topic is Syria. As few days ago, on February 22, an agreement for a ceasefire was reached, brokered by the United States and by Russia, giving today as a deadline for armed groups to register themselves with the terms of the ceasefire, which is to take effect tonight. The institutional question to Mr. LaRouche, reads: “In your view, what efforts will make this Syrian peace process a success?” And I’d like to ask Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response.
JEFF STEINBERG: Thanks, Jason. Well, let’s start with the positive side of the equation. As Jason just indicated, there is an agreement. It’s been accepted by the Syrian government. It’s been accepted by — at least nominally — by a number of the rebel groups. The only exclusion is ISIS and the al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda group inside Syria, who are both on the United Nations list of international terrorist organizations, and have not even been asked to participate. They are the targets, and they will continue to remain the targets as the ceasefire takes place in other parts of the country, and among other groups, both government and opposition rebel groups.
There are many difficult and complicated challenges here, obviously starting from the fact that you’re talking about a ceasefire that will be going on simultaneous to ongoing combat. And the Russian government, the Syrian government, have made clear that they do intend to continue taking the war to the al-Qaeda and Nusra Front areas. And of course, they’re not always going to be so clearly delineated.
What’s important is that the United States and Russia are taking co-responsibility for the monitoring of this process.
Now you’ve seen a number of fairly dramatic announcements over the last several weeks. You had the announcement a week ago today where the terms of this detailed ceasefire agreement were worked out. Earlier in the month, on Feb. 11, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, there was a meeting of the International Syria Support Group, again chaired by the U.S. and Russia, and that’s where they announced the original earlier framework for the ceasefire. Needless to say, when Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov sit down, they’re not starting out simply with an empty clean piece of paper. There’s an enormous amount of back-channel secret diplomacy that’s been taking place between Russian and American officials leading to the point where these breakthroughs are at least potentially in sight within a matter of hours. And so you’ve had extensive U.S.-Russian military to military coordination. In fact, the advances being made against the Islamic State heartland, hardcore area of control, by the group known as the Syrian Democratic Front, largely the Kurdish YPG and certain Sunni tribes that make up that Syrian Democratic Front, they’ve been getting active support for their advances both from Russia and the United States. So, there are things that are going on that you will not read about in the mainstream American media, but which have all contributed to this process.
Now there is strong opposition to this entire arrangement, coming from elements within the Obama administration. President Obama himself has been caught in a kind of a trap, because on the one hand, a success by Secretary of State Kerry, who’s clearly the point man on behalf of the Administration for this effort, looks good on Obama’s report card, makes his legacy appear to be better than it actually should be. So, he’s got a certain tendency to want to see this thing succeed.
But there’s a deeper underlying hatred of Russia, and after all, he is a tool under the orders, under the thumb, of the British Empire faction. And I’ll get to that aspect of the situation in just a moment.
To go at the heart of the question that’s been posed, to make this work, you’ve got to have a solid economic foundation, and fortunately, in the Eurasian part of the world — say, the area from Russia extending all the way out to the Pacific Coast — you’ve got coordination among major states, particularly Russia, China, and India, and the Chinese policy of One Belt, One Road — which involves both the New Silk Road, the overland, high-speed development corridor transportation corridors, and the Maritime Silk Road, are all ultimately programs that are the basis for a stabilizing and full development of the Middle East Region.
I should say that quite a number of years ago, Lyndon LaRouche was invited to the Zayed Center in the United Arab Emirates, to deliver a paper on the economic future prospects of the Persian Gulf, and he identified this region as the crossroads for where Eurasia and Africa come together under one great big development design that he’s been working on, that Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been working on, literally for decades and decades.
So, we have a living experience from not that long ago, when under the impetus of President Bill Clinton, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, head of the PLO, chairman of that organization, and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, where you had back in 1993, a breakthrough secretly negotiated in Oslo, and then finally signed and commemorated with the Oslo Accords which were signed at the White House. And I remember vividly that Prime Minister Rabin called this the “peace of the brave,” because peace is only realized when you are willing to come up with a common plan with your worst avowed enemies, for the betterment of all.
Now, what Mr. LaRouche said at that time by way of a warning, because of his clear understanding of the overarching power of the British Empire system, the dominant political-economic system in the trans-Atlantic region: he said the only way that Oslo would work is if there were shovels, crane, building material brought in immediately. Start building up the West Band, building up the Gaza Strip. Tap into the tremendous scientific and technological capabilities of Israel. Create a new fundamentally different reality on the ground, a reality of optimism, born of genuine economic progress.
That did not happen. The World Bank interceded. The British, through their radical elements inside Israel, assassinated Prime Minister Rabin. In all likelihood, Chairman Arafat was also assassinated through poisoning. And so that whole process basically disintegrated, and leaves us now with a worse cancer in Israel-Palestinian relations than probably we ever had.
So, it’s a powerful lesson to be learned, and it’s the same exact neighborhood. So, unless you’ve got a perspective of a genuine Marshall Plan, that is anchored in the Chinese policy of One Belt, One Road — because that’s where the momentum is in the world today for real development. Unless you do that, then this will not succeed. Yes, Kerry is doing a heroic job, working in partnership with Lavrov. Putin is playing a key role. He’s holding his nose and engaging in an open dialogue to keep President Obama boxed in, and prevent him from wrecking this whole thing. But really, the key is going to be fully integrating the One Belt, One Road policy, the New Silk Road, with the Middle East, as precisely the kind of crossroads that Lyndon LaRouche talked about quite a number of years back in that lecture that he delivered at the Zayed Center in the UAE.
Now, to fully answer the question, and to step back further and really face the cold hard reality: You’ve got to start from the fact that so long as President Obama remains in office, there is an imminent danger that the British Empire will pull the plug not just on the Syria situation, but will pull the plug on the whole planet, and draw us into a devastating war that will likely be a war of thermonuclear extinction.
At the very same time that Secretary Kerry was working on this Syria situation, in full partnership with the Russians, you’ve had the spectacle this week on Capitol Hill of General Breedlove, the head of NATO, Defense Secretary Ash Carter, making their pitch for a major defense budget, and in so doing, demonizing Russia. You’ve got all kinds of demands for added defense spending in order to put NATO forces on the borders with Russia, in addition to their various minions around Europe and the United States. And so when you’re coming under that kind of pressure, that kind of psychological tension, the tendency is going to be to look for some avenue of relief. And the avenue of relief that they’re looking at is war against Russia, and secondarily, war against China.
They know perfectly well that the world from Russia, extending eastward all the way to the Pacific Coast, is an area of relative economic recovery. Russia to be sure has major economic problems, major economic policy problems. But Russia has taken a critical leading role in taking up the Syria flank in a way that has completely overturned the apple cart in terms of how the British and how Obama were steering that Middle East situation, in partnership with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Russia seized the initiative because Putin understood the strategic principle of the flank.
China is the center of scientific and technological growth on this planet. India is aligning with that combination. So you have an area defining where two-thirds of the population now live and work, that is relatively doing well, particularly when you compare it to anything going on in the trans-Atlantic region. So you’ve got a situation where the British Empire is bankrupt, is desperate, and will continue by impulse to drive for war, so long as they continue to exist.
So therefore, ultimately, if you want the Syrian peace agreement to succeed, in addition to the urgent need for a Marshall Plan, Land-Bridge cornerstone to make sure that that peace is durable, you’ve got to remove Obama. And you’ve got to bring down the British Empire system.
You’ve got options for replacement, but those replacements will only come about when Obama has been removed for cause, for good Constitutional cause, and at the point that the British Empire has been put through an orderly funeral.
ROSS: Thank you, Jeff. On the other direction, in terms of what is possibly outside of the dying, collapsing current trajectory of the trans-Atlantic, Lyndon LaRouche has been very emphatic over the recent period on the role of space as a driver for a uniquely human mission of discovery and of economic development, pointing in particular to the role here in the United States of Kesha Rogers, for example. I’d like to ask Ben to deliver some prepared remarks that he has on space, economics, and where we need to go.
BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Jason. I want to take a few minutes just to lay out some conceptions about how to think about approaching this perspective for a new space program that Mr. LaRouche has been re-emphasizing recently.
And I think, to start, the most fundamental point is this is an issue of understanding the nature of mankind: getting a deeper understanding of what is mankind and mankind’s mission as a uniquely creative species in what Mr. LaRouche has defined in his work, as a creative universe. That we cannot separate the ostensible space program, maybe the way a lot of people tend to think about it, in terms of spaceships and rockets and spacesuits — those are all elements of it — but this is a necessary expression of the true scientific principle of mankind’s existence, as not just another animal species on this planet, but a species that has a fundamentally unique creative capability. And we must always continue to exercise that creative capability in new domains, new frontiers, new deeper principles of the universe, and that’s our destiny. That’s what we have to do, and that’s why we look to space. That’s why space is necessary at this point in the development of mankind. And as we juxtapose the horrid direction under Obama and the trans-Atlantic and the British, this is — as Jason just said — the alternative, the reality that we should be pursuing if we return to an issue of principle.
This really defines what some people discuss as, to some degree in the highest sense, the common aims of mankind. This is the common unifying objective of the human species as a single species: the pursuit of our true nature as this creative force, into the Solar System in the near term, and looking out farther into the galaxy and the galactic perspective as the frontiers we want to push towards.
And the point is, this is what is happening in the Asian sector of the world. This is what China is doing. This is what Russia is doing, what Russia would like to do. This is what China’s lunar program is vectored towards. And this is what China and Russia and their allies are openly asking the United States to come join. This is the offer being presented to the United States. China’s explicit policy of “win-win” cooperation. And I want to just reference that that was a very beautiful concluding remark given by the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at a press conference he had with Secretary of State Kerry, just this past Tuesday, where he said, again reiterating China’s conception of this “win-win” policy, he said, “Our two countries, China and the United States, we should work to make the pie of our common interests bigger. We should enlarge the pie of our common interests. We should look through telescopes to visualize the future, rather than a microscope to magnify our differences.” So again, you’re just continually getting this from China; this perspective of if we cooperate in true, fundamental scientific economic progress, we expand the pie. We create more wealth; we create more resources available to the human species as a whole. So, let’s just get rid of this crazy imperial perspective, and get on board with the development of the future in this very real sense.
As Jason emphasized, one of the most important things I think about what Kesha Rogers has done, is she has shown that the American people want this; that they’re ready for this. What she demonstrated in her campaign is, that if there is real leadership out there, the American people will respond; they want this. They want this perspective; they’re sick of what’s going on. If we can provide real leadership and remove this terrible fake leadership running our country right not, there’s the potential, the inherent desire in the American people to move in this direction. And she showed that very clearly in her leadership in her multiple Congressional campaigns; where with orders of magnitude less financial support than her adversaries, no support from the Democratic Party establishment — the certified hacks of the Democratic Party over there — despite all this seeming lack of resources, she showed a couple of resounding victories. Which shows you that if you have real qualified leadership out there, this is what the American people want; this potential is there.
So, this is where we have to go. Now from this standpoint, to break this down a little bit and to just kind of put some of this on the table, I think we ought to look at the space program perspective from the standpoint of two dimensions; two dimensions of what we mean about the space program. We have first, what I think is really the primary issue; and I think this is something that Mr. LaRouche is rather uniquely focussed on, and very focussed on; and I think this is something that he has uniquely and emphatically brought to the forefront of this discussion. Which is the primacy of the role of fundamental scientific discovery in this whole process. If we want to talk about space and the Solar System, in a certain very real sense, you’re talking about pursuing the fundamental potential created by the scientific revolutions and discoveries of Kepler through Einstein, for example. That it’s that quality of fundamental scientific discovery which is what ultimately in the most basic sense, enables mankind to rise to a fundamentally different relationship to the universe as a whole. That our ability to not just be a species on Earth interacting with the universe from the standpoint of Earth-based processes; and to actually fundamentally change our relationship to the very substance, the nature of organization of the universe. That comes in the most primary sense from the unique quality of creative discovery per se; typified by Kepler, typified by Einstein. And I think if you draw an arc between Kepler’s initial discoveries of the organization of the Solar System, the development of Kepler’s work all the way up through Einstein is kind of defining another bounding condition on our understanding of the organization of the Solar System. You get a very clear picture of the kind of fundamental, uniquely human, discovery process which is the substance, the real root, of our ability to progress and transform the nature of our species, of our organization. So, that’s one dimension; that’s in a sense the more fundamental issue that we need to put up front and center when we talk about the “space program”.
I would say the second dimension is, you could say in a sense, the realization of the potential created with those types of revolutions. Stuff we might discuss more as the infrastructure, or the physical economic development, or maybe physical economic platform which enables mankind to realize his potential to develop the Solar System. And Mr. LaRouche has been putting a lot of emphasis on the work of the German space pioneer, Krafft Ehricke, as a critical person defining many of the key elements of mankind’s development of the Solar System. He was one of the original German space pioneers, the visionaries who really worked through in really significant on a very real sense. And anytime we bring up the work of Krafft Ehricke, who was also very much a collaborator of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in the 1970s and 1980s; and there was a very clear resonance with the perspective that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche were defining at the time, and Krafft Ehricke’s own work in terms of bringing mankind into this next stage.
But anytime we talk about Krafft Ehricke’s work, I think it’s worth emphasizing what we have on the first slide here [Fig. 1], his three laws of astronautics; which I think define very beautifully the scientific principle that he worked from when developing his whole perspective for the space program. So, I just want to read this; I’m sure many people have heard these, but I think it’s worth continuing to re-emphasize his insight into this. His first law states: “Nobody and nothing under the natural laws of the universe impose any limitations on man, except man himself.” And his second law: “Not only the Earth, but the entire Solar System and as much of the universe as he can reach under the laws of Nature, are man’s rightful field of activity.” And his third law: “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.”
So, this was Krafft’s own insight into the nature of mankind, the destiny of mankind, and defining a space program from that standpoint, from that perspective. More work is being done on reviving and continuing Krafft Ehricke’s approach, but he defined and elaborated in great detail much of the fundamentals of the development of space from this proper scientific perspective.
Now, going from Krafft Ehricke’s work, the work of LaRouche in the 1980s with his own space program proposal, I think it’s useful just to fill out a little bit this idea of what I would call a physical economic platform for the development of the Solar System. I think there are three categories of activity which we should take a serious look at and focus on, if we want to enable a great expansion of mankind’s capability to be an active force in the development of the Solar System.
If we really want to fulfill the potential created by Kepler and Einstein in that sense, and fulfill Krafft Ehricke’s vision and bring mankind to a level of really mastering and developing and interacting with the Solar System as a whole; I think there are three key categories that we want to look at. That we need fundamental breakthroughs in. So, one, first, is the issue of getting into space; space launch. The issue of getting from the surface of the Earth up into Earth orbit. And it’s been said that getting from the Earth’s surface into even low Earth orbit is halfway to anywhere in the Solar System; that’s very true in a certain sense.
We can see this in the next graphic [Fig. 2]; this is illustrated rather clearly if we look at the case of the Saturn V rocket. The rocket that took the Apollo astronauts to the Moon. Some people might be familiar with this; some people may be not, but most of that entire rocket was not the elements that actually landed on the Moon and brought people back. Most of that was just to get up off the Earth. 92% of the mass, the weight of the entire Saturn V rocket, was all fuel; most of that fuel was used just to get into orbit. So, in the pie chart, you can see the breakdown; just the total amount of weight that’s fuel — 92% — the dry weight of the rockets and the systems to utilize that fuel is another 6.5%, and around 2% of the weight of the entire thing is the actual people and the stuff you’re trying to get on the Moon, and the stuff you’re trying to get back. So, you can get a clear sense of how much effort it takes just to get into space; this is also illustrated in the bar chart next to it. If people are familiar with the way the Saturn V worked, you had a series of stages; so you had the first main rocket fires, it gets up off the ground, and starts taking you up through the atmosphere, through the sky. And once that first rocket burns up all its fuel, it’s jettisoned, it’s released, and a significantly smaller part of the total rocket then continues as a new stage fires, a new rocket fires. So, you had three stages to the Saturn V rocket; the entire first stage, the entire second stage, and part of the third stage was all needed just to get into orbit. And then from there, the third stage carried the astronauts to the Moon; it landed and came back, and then that third stage carried them back to Earth.
So, as we saw with the case of the Apollo, it’s a nice, clear case study illustration of how much energy and expense it takes right now, currently, just to get into orbit. If we want to get a little bit more technical, this could also be expressed in terms of what’s discussed as changes in velocity, changes in speed. This is a way to look at travel around the Solar System. Now, to get into Earth orbit, you don’t just go up into space; if you just went straight up into space and then stopped firing your rockets, you’d just fall straight back down. Orbit is not just getting into space. You have to get up to a certain speed, where you’re orbiting the Earth; and you’re talking about thousands of miles per hour. You’re talking about miles per second; so you have to get up to very high speed to actually get into orbit. And if you want to change orbits, once you’re in low Earth orbit, and you want to get into a different orbit, you again have to change your speed, you have to again expend energy to change your speed. So, one way people discuss and analyze space travel, is what is referred to as changes in speed. So, here is just an illustration of the amount of change in velocity, sometimes called “delta V” is the technical terms sometimes used. The amount of change in velocity, the amount of change in kilometers per second needed to get to different destinations. And as you can see on the graph, each of those bars is to a different destination; the first one is to low Earth orbit, the second one is to geo-stationary orbit, the next one is to lunar orbit, and then we have each of our planets there. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. So, in all of those cases, you can see that they all have that grayish-blue chunk at the very bottom; which in most of those cases, is well over half of the total change in velocity requirements is just to get into low Earth orbit.
So again, when you say that getting from the Earth’s surface to low Earth orbit is halfway to anywhere in the Solar System, that’s very true. So this is a major impediment, a major challenge and expense factor for space travel, for developing the Moon, for sending out more satellites, for everything we want to do. To the degree we have to bring stuff from Earth, this is a huge part of the cost. Now, there’s been various designs proposed for ways to dramatically reduce this cost. One thing I want to — this is by no means the only method used, but this is something I think is worth putting on the table for greater consideration and examination, is what’s been designed as vacuum tube, maglev space launch systems. So, a magnetic levitation system, so you can propel a rocket, a spacecraft with magnetic levitation; if you put it inside a vacuum tube, you can actually get to much higher speeds. Because even with maglev technology, the main impediment to getting the higher speeds very quickly becomes wind resistance. So, if you put this in a vacuum tube, you can get to very, very high speeds. Remember, we need to get to high speeds to be into orbit. And then if you can elevate that track up above much of the atmosphere, you can actually use a maglev vacuum tube launch system to get into space.
And what’s depicted here [Fig. 3] is a NASA illustration of one design done by a former senior scientist at Brookhaven National Lab, Dr. James Powell, who actually has some of the original patents on maglev technology; he was one of the first designers of maglev technology back in the 1950s and 1960s. He developed this proposal for a vacuum tube maglev space launch system in collaboration with Dr. George Maise; and this particular design they called the “startram”. So, just to give a sense, through the analysis they did, this would lower the cost of launching things into space from the current range of something around $10,000-$20,000 per kilogram to something more on the order of $40 per kilogram; just to put it in monetary terms. So, you’re talking about a 100-, 200-, 400-fold drop in the cost of putting stuff into orbit. And this particular design was actually examined by an independent group in the Sandia National Labs, who had a so-called “murder board”, which is a term for a group of people set up to see if they could find any fundamental technical flaws in a design like this. And so they examined it, and they gave it a clean analysis; they couldn’t find any fundamental technical flaws in this general idea of this design.
So, you have these types of proposals out there, for dramatically lowering the cost and expense of getting stuff into orbit. And this general idea is being pursued in China. No surprise; China is where we see interest in actually pursuing these frontiers, and people are actually thinking about these things, are looking at these frontier technologies which can greatly give us a new capability to do these things. Specifically, at Southwest Jiaotong University in China, you have a group there looking at maglev technology, looking at vacuum tube maglev technology; they actually even have a test vacuum tube track actively working, where they’re testing vacuum tubes for maglev. And the head of that project has openly discussed, he said this could also have great application for space launches; so, this is being looked at in China. So, this is one category of activity we want to get a fundamental breakthrough if we want to dramatically expand mankind’s capabilities to develop the Solar System. And there are other variations, this isn’t the only design out there that can address this. But this is just one that is worth highlighting to look at.
Second issue; second category of activity if we want to expand our ability to develop the Solar System — actually travelling in space, moving around in space. Once we’re in Earth orbit, how do we get to the Moon, to Mars, to Jupiter, to Pluto, as we did recently? Well, to get to Pluto, it took us nine years; and after travelling for nine years, scientists hoping everything goes right, hoping they can turn the spacecraft back on because they had it in hibernation. They spent more years before that designing the mission. Finally, they’re reaching Pluto, they finally get there; the space craft turns on, starts taking all kinds of pictures, readings. We’re totally surprised by what we see; Pluto is actually a much more active planet than we thought. It’s got all kinds of diversity in its geographical, geological features; evidence for a lot of recent activity. Stuff we didn’t expect at all; just totally surprised, shocked the scientific community. And then the space craft just passed by and kept going; didn’t stop, didn’t enter orbit. If it had entered orbit, we could be finding all kinds of more stuff; it could be getting awesome pictures of the entire thing, doing active studies to see if we can see changes taking place currently. But it didn’t do that; it just kept going. Why did it keep going? Because we’re still dealing with chemical propulsion for space travel. If New Horizons, the mission Pluto, wanted to stop and enter an orbit around Pluto, they would have had to carry the fuel needed to slow down enough to enter orbit; and also the rockets needed to use that fuel. And if they had carried that fuel with them, the launch would have had to have been much bigger, because you would have to lift all that fuel off the ground in the first place. So, this is just one illustration of how difficult it is to have any serious development and travel and moving around the Solar System
travel in space. We still don’t want to take everything with us everywhere we go; we want to develop the resources of various environments in the Solar System. In the technical community, they talk about “in situ resource utilization”; I guess they want to make something exciting sound boring or something, so they call it “in situ resource utilization”.
But developing the resources of the Moon, for example. What people in China again have talked about — mining the Moon for Helium-3, an excellent, perhaps the most advanced fusion fuel available to us. Which doesn’t really exist in any significance at all on Earth, but it relatively abundant on the Moon. We could be mining the Moon for Helium-3; we could be getting oxygen from the Moon, water from the Moon. Being able to use the material of the Moon to build buildings and shelters, whatever; actually having the ability to use and develop all the resources available to us on the Moon, or on Mars or wherever else. So, again, the third category — maybe the third leg — of areas we need to make qualitative leaps and breakthroughs in to enable mankind to be a real controlling presence in the Solar System. And again, China is looking at this; they’re looking at the Moon, they’re looking at the far side of the Moon in particular. Their next mission is going to be a lander on the far side of the Moon, which will be the first time that’s ever happened in the history of mankind in space; they’ll be landing something on the far side of the Moon to further prepare themselves to pursue these goals.
I think if you take these together — addressing the issue of getting from the Earth’s surface up into Earth orbit, addressing the issue of travelling around the Solar System, and addressing the issue of utilizing and developing the resources of the Solar System — if we had leaps in all of those areas, the point here is not to detail exactly what those leaps will be. They can have various aspects to them; some of these breakthroughs are probably not even thought of yet, but those the three categorical areas where we need fundamental jumps in our capabilities there. With breakthroughs in these areas, we really have a new platform, a new physical economic platform; the kind of integrated infrastructure system that will enable mankind to be an active presence throughout the Solar System as a whole. And that defines a very useful set of boundary conditions that we have to focus upon if we want to pursue this type of perspective. And again, this is something that Krafft Ehricke spent a lot of time on and elaborated in great detail some of these aspects. The development of the resources of the Moon; he had extensive investigations into that himself already. Nuclear fission and fusion propulsion systems. So these are not new concepts I’m presenting to you; these are things that have been thought through by Krafft Ehricke and others. But together, they define the needed platform that we must develop now if we really want to be an active force, an active presence in the Solar System in a serious way.
But I think that just brings us back around to the more fundamental point, because what we want to do is bring mankind into a higher role as a creative force and active presence in the Solar System. But then that becoming the platform to create the potential for the next higher leap. And one thing that immediately comes to mind, is Mr. LaRouche’s work on this back in the 1980s; where he had designed his own proposal for a Moon-Mars colonization program. And in some of his presentations of this, and a particular paper he wrote on the subject, he organized the entire perspective from the standpoint of the most important being enabling mankind to make new fundamental scientific revolutionary breakthroughs. How do you want to do that? We need some really big and excellent and advanced space telescopes; things that cover the entire orbit of Mars with an interferometer system. From an integrated series of telescopes, you can integrate to operate as a single system. So, why don’t we build something like that? What do we need to do that? Well, we need to be able to get into space. We need to develop the Moon; we need to develop Mars. We need mankind to be an active force throughout the Solar System to do that. But that whole perspective was unified around a mission of giving mankind the new capabilities to provide the human mind new generations of scientists with the new clues, the new anomalies that will lead to new fundamental discoveries. And this takes us to things like the galaxy; understanding the higher order principles organizing our galaxy and other galactic systems. Or, even higher than that, what organizes multiple systems of galaxies.
So, as Kepler through Einstein had defined, in a certain sense, an arc of fundamental creative discovery that brought mankind to the level of the Solar System in true scientific fundamental potential; as they did that, so too, must we today look to the development of the Solar System. Expanding mankind in the Solar System, from the standpoint of giving new generations of scientists the capability to have the opportunity and the indications and the evidence needed to make new, completely fundamental breakthroughs in basic science; basic physics. The discovery of new physical principles; the types of things associated with our galaxy, other galactic systems, areas of science which are completely outside of our knowledge currently.
So, I think when we talk about the space program, people get excited about the rockets and the space suits and bouncing around in space — and those might be elements of it to some degree; to some degree not maybe. But the most fundamental thing is this issue of mankind; and this is really defining the necessary future common aims of mankind as pursuing the developments and the realization of our existence as a creative force in the universe. And that is something that unifies all of our nations; and it’s something that we need to pursue today. So that is, I think, the positive perspective that we have to look forward to, and which will give us the inspiration to defeat these very ugly figures like Obama and his controllers. Because they’re holding us back from that; and we shouldn’t waste any more time.
ROSS: Thank you very much. That will be the conclusion for our webcast for tonight. I do want to let people know that there will be a live-streamed event on this website tomorrow, February 27, from Texas; where Kesha Rogers will be hosting an event on there being no limits to mankind’s growth, and about the potential we have in space. I’d like to ask you to “like” this video, to subscribe to our Youtube channel; and if you have questions about things that were presented, or for future shows, leave them as a comment. Thanks for joining us.
Jeg vil begynde direkte med at diskutere den meget dystre trussel om en international konflikt, der nu er ved at rejse sig, især fra den krudttønde, der udgøres af Syrien, Nordafrika og Mellemøsten. Det syriske område, hvor, på trods af den fælles indsats fra udenrigsminister John Kerry og den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov for at finde fælles fodslag, så truer Obamas afvisning af at give Saudi Arabien og Tyrkiet besked på at trække sig med at få det hele til at eksplodere.
Faren for en massiv, endnu større strøm af flygtninge, der kommer fra Afrika og ind i Europa, så vel som også den fortsatte krise centreret omkring Mellemøsten, betyder således, at Europa er absolut dømt til undergang, med mindre der finder et fundamentalt skifte i politikken sted. Og dette betyder, at USA og Europa indledningsvis må række hånden frem mod Rusland og Kina.
Engelsk Udskrift.
US & EUROPE MUST REACH OUT TO RUSSIA & CHINA TO AVOID WAR
International LaRouche PAC Webcast
Friday, February 19, 2016
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s February 19, 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 we’re joined via video, from a
remote location, by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence
Review. The three of us, along with several others, had a chance
to have a discussion earlier today with both Lyndon and Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, so what you’re about to hear will be informed by
that discussion.
Now, I’m going to just start right off the bat with a
discussion of the very dire threat of an international conflict
arising, especially from the powderkeg of Syria, Northern Africa,
and the Middle East. The area of Syria, where, despite the
efforts of Secretary John Kerry to find common ground with
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Obama’s refusal to tell
Saudi Arabia and Turkey to stand down is threatening to blow this
entire thing sky high. A very accurate discussion of this was
published earlier today in a piece on Consortium News by Robert
Parry, the editor of that publication, in which he says the risk
that the multi-sided Syrian war could spark World War III,
continues, as Turkey and U.S. neo-cons seek an invasion that
could kill Russian troops, and possibly escalate the Syrian
crisis into a nuclear showdown.
What Robert Parry says in this article is that Barack Obama
took questions from reporters on Tuesday, but he did not take the
one that needed to be asked: which was whether he had forbidden
Turkey and Saudi Arabia to invade Syria, because on that question
could hinge whether the ugly Syrian civil war could spin off into
World War III and possibly a nuclear showdown.
Now, this was part of our discussion earlier today with Mr.
LaRouche and what I know Jeff will elaborate much more on, was
LaRouche’s analysis. But in short, what Mr. LaRouche had to say
is that what Putin is doing in this situation, and overall in a
strategic manner, defines the point of action, defines the point
of reference, for action. Everything else is bluff.
So, let me hand it over to Jeff, and he’ll elaborate many
more of the details, and then we’ll come back to our
institutional question for this evening, which Jeff will also
answer. So, Jeff?
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Matt. Well, as we were going
through the discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, he
actually drew a distinction between the bluff, and what he said
much more accurately is the folly of what Turkey and Saudi Arabia
are up to. It’s folly because they are caught in their own
madness, and don’t even realize the consequences of what they’re
doing in the real world. They don’t have the capability to carry
out the kind of provocations that they are threatening, and the
danger, of course, is that that does not mean that they’re not
going to try to do it.
Putin stepped into the Syria situation at a critical moment
last September, and the entire situation has shifted radically
since that point. The Russian intention is {not} to simply
accomplish a military victory on behalf of the forces of
President Assad. They’re creating the conditions to force the
intransigents, in this case Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, some of
the other Gulf states, and always lurking in the background when
you’re dealing with Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood is
the British. So, Putin has established a clear sense of control
over the situation. Undoubtedly part of Putin’s configuration is
that Obama has been greatly weakened by the actions of Russia; on
the economic sphere, the actions of China; and there are sane
military forces in the United States who recognize the folly of
what Turkey and Saudi Arabia are doing.
This has been described by Parry, whose article you
mentioned, and by others, as the danger of a Sarajevo 1914 flash
point, along the Syria-Turkey border, but what Mr. LaRouche
emphasized today is that Putin has a very clear sense of the
military correlation in this situation, and has also a very clear
sense that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are acting on the basis of
their own irrationality. And he is luring them in to the kind of
trap that could be basically enclosed on them at any moment. It’s
a gravely dangerous situation, but you have at least one key
player, namely Russian President Putin, who knows what he’s
doing, and who is steering these events in a way that conforms to
an appropriate strategic analysis, and to an understanding of how
to basically defeat these forces that have been trying to destroy
Syria for the last five years, and in so doing, to deprive Russia
of one of its own critical access points in the Mediterranean
region.
Now, what Mr. LaRouche really emphasized, and I think that
this is the crucial point to take away from this issue, is that
the center of gravity of world affairs has dramatically shifted
to where the Asia-Eurasia region, anchored in the cooperation
between China and Russia and India, with other countries grouping
around that, is really where the strategic center of the world
economy has now been shifted. And if you look at the situation in
Europe, in particular, from one end to the other you see nothing
but bankruptcy and political failure. The United States is on the
verge of the same kind of bankruptcy. And so the only place where
you have growth and stability by any measure, and of course Asia
and Russia and Eurasia are not devoid of problems, but relative
to the state of absolute bankruptcy that we see in Europe and in
the United States, we see a disintegration of the political and
economic conditions in much of South America, as well. Of course,
Africa has been on the target list of the British and other
European colonial, imperial powers for the longest time.
But in Asia, you not only have a much more stable and
growing situation, but you have a commitment to an abandonment of
geopolitics in favor of what Chinese President Xi Jinping has
called the ”win-win” strategy. And if you look at the crisis in
Europe right now, leaving aside the fact that the entire European
financial system is bankrupt — hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt
under the present conditions and terms of thinking that dominate
Europe — if you look at the refugee crisis, you’re beginning to
see a glimmer of sanity, driven by desperation, by certain of the
people who are responsible for creating the European fiasco in
the first place.
So, you’ve got people like Wolfgang Schäuble, the finance
minister of Germany, who was one of the monsters behind the
destruction of Europe, including the German economy itself, now
saying there must be a Marshall Plan to rebuild Syria, to rebuild
other parts of the Middle East, and only on the basis of a
Marshall Plan, which gives people a clear incentive to go back to
their homes, to rebuild their country, only under those
circumstances, and those circumstances alone, can the refugee
crisis in Europe be remotely solved. And of course, what applies
to the Middle East applies doubly for Africa, where the
U.S.-British-French overthrow of Qaddafi unleashed absolute hell
throughout the African continent.
And so the danger of a massive, even larger flow of refugees
coming out of Africa into Europe, as well as the continuing
crisis centered in the Middle East, means that Europe is
absolutely doomed unless there is a fundamental change in policy.
And for starters, that change means that the United States and
Europe must reach out to Russia and China. You had the recent
visit by President Xi Jinping of China to Saudi Arabia, to Iran,
and to Egypt, and what Xi Jinping made very clear is that China
is prepared to move towards the building of the Silk Road
infrastructure, the New Silk Road land route, the Maritime Silk
Route, which will come up through the newly expanded Suez Canal
— China will do that. In fact, just this week, the first freight
train from Eastern China arrived in Iran, and this is part of the
entire European system of not just transportation corridors, but
development corridors that have been put forward by China as the
cornerstone of their foreign policy.
So, they’re presenting a win-win alternative. And in the
case of Europe, there is no alternative. Europe is so politically
and psychologically bankrupt — the leadership of Europe is so
bankrupt that China, through this Middle East development portion
of the One Belt, One Road policy, offers the only viable basis
for this Marshall Plan idea to actually be put into practice. And
were it not for the Putin intervention, beginning last September,
we couldn’t even be contemplating the possibility of that kind of
solution to this seemingly intractable problem in the Middle
East.
Now, Mr. LaRouche emphasized in this context that Europe is
completely gone; it’s completely bankrupt, and there are
solutions, but the present leadership is unprepared to consider
that kind of level of rethinking. In the United States, we’re
very close to the edge, but the United States {can} be saved and
the solution to the problems in the United States begins with
removing President Barack Obama from off ice immediately, and
moving to wipe out the thoroughly bankrupt Wall Street system.
Because until that system is put through basically a bankruptcy
shutdown, then none of the viable and available solutions are
going to be there. But, if you were to get rid of Obama, if you
were to wipe out Wall Street,–and, for example, immediately
passage of Glass-Steagall would be one critical element for that
process to happen almost overnight — then we have a history in
the United States. We had Alexander Hamilton. We had Franklin
Roosevelt. We had glimmers of the same policy with John F.
Kennedy. You go back to a credit system, a government credit
system that kick-starts production, that trains a young
generation that’s right now completely unqualified to serve in a
real economy.
All of that means the United States coming into alignment
with what we see going on with China, with Russia, with India,
with others. In other words, the United States becomes part of a
genuine trans-Pacific collaboration, and under those
circumstances, Europe itself would have no choice but to get on
with the program.
So, what we’re seeing from Turkey, from Saudi Arabia, and as
I said, always watch for the British lurking in the background
with those two countries — you have clinical insanity and folly,
which holds the danger of war. But Mr. LaRouche again emphasized,
Putin knows this. He sees all of this, and he is on top of the
situation, and is prepared to take the appropriate and necessary
actions. And there are some people who are not completely out of
their minds on the U.S. side, within the military-intelligence
community, who understand that partnering with Russia is the only
way to solve this problem.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, just really on the subject that
you ended on here, the bankruptcy of Wall Street and the extended
Wall Street system, and the relationship of that to the
conditions in Europe; that brings us to our institutional
question for this evening, which reads as follows: ”Mr.
LaRouche. The heat is turning up on British Prime Minister David
Cameron, who’s trying to get the upper hand over a referendum
that could result in the UK leaving the European Union. The
potential break-up of the European Union, which is called
‘Brexit’, has elicited warnings about the impact on the UK
economy should voters say that they want out of the EU. A recent
poll showed that 42% of UK voters would opt to leave the EU;
compared to 38% who say that they would vote to stay. This week
will be the first major test as to whether Cameron’s done enough
to secure an agreement to change some terms of the UK’s
relationship with the European bloc. Cameron says that he will
campaign to stick with the EU, if a deal can be reached. This
Thursday and Friday will be the first time that all 28 EU
countries will discuss a package of proposals recently released
by the EU, aimed at addressing the UK’s economic concerns.
Cameron negotiated the proposals with the EU leaders and Donald
Tusk, President of the European Council — the EU’s main
decision-making body. What is your view of a possible ‘Brexit’?”
STEINBERG: Well, you know, you’ve got ”Brexit” that was
preceded by ”Grexit”, and probably we’re going to have a much
larger lexicon; that all comes down to the fact that people have
the sense that the European Union, particularly the European
Monetary Union, is a sinking ship. And therefore, if the ship is
sinking, or the movie theatre is on fire, you get to the exit as
fast as possible. But the reality is, that the European Union —
and within that, the European Monetary Union — are the problem.
So, therefore, unless you address the more underlying issue,
which is that Europe is financially and economically bankrupt;
then it really is almost of secondary significance whether
Britain stays in or leaves. If Britain leaves the European Union,
then that’s virtually it for the European Union. Other officials
in Europe, even including Schäuble at the Davos Conference
earlier this month, said that if the Schengen agreement, the open
borders agreement in Europe is broken, then the European Union
will cease to exist. And already in Poland, in Hungary, in other
countries on the edge of Europe but within the European Union,
they’re already building those walls. So in effect, the European
Union, as it’s presently constituted, is a dead letter; it really
doesn’t exist. And the countries of Europe, either collectively
or individually, are going to have to come to face the reality
that their banking system is thoroughly bankrupt; they’ve lost so
much productive capacity that Europe from a physical standpoint
is no longer capable of self-reliance, self-preservation. So, the
whole thing is going under; and of course, there’s a certain
irony in the British threatening to leave the European Union,
since the bankruptcy of the entire trans-Atlantic system is
largely the result of policies that were created in London, and
were then spread about Europe and the United States. You could
almost say that Europe was doomed from the moment that Margaret
Thatcher launched the Big Bang in 1985, and turned London into a
safe haven for speculative gambling operations, drug-money
laundering, anything other than investment in the real economy.
So now, we’re 30 years into that process, and Europe is
finished. So, the issues that are being negotiated between
Cameron and Tusk and the others on the European Commission, are
tiddlywinks; they’re not the real issues. Unless Europe comes up
with its own version of shutting down the City of London and Wall
Street, a genuine full-scale Glass-Steagall separation of
legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling,
then Europe is completely doomed. And the only hope that they
will have is that some sane future leaders, who emerge out of
this political rubble, recognize before it’s perhaps too late
that aligning with China and Russia — which is exactly the
opposite of the policies that are being pursued in Europe right
now — is the only answer. So, I think that that’s the context in
which the question can be answered; and so the issue is merely
that Europe in its present circumstance is doomed. And whether
Britain leaves the European Union or stays in, they are part of
that system of doom that’s going to have to be changed in a much
more fundamental — I’d say ”revolutionary” — way. And the
opportunities are there; they’re presented there because Europe
is at the western end of Eurasia; and the Chinese have already
established the rail links between central China and Germany.
There are opportunities galore under the umbrella of the ”One
Belt-One Road” policy; but the first step is that the European
leaders are going to have abandon their folly. And that’s a
difficult proposition to conceive of, given who the current
European leadership is.
OGDEN: Absolutely. And, let me just elaborate a little bit
what Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized, which is that if you
just look at the refugee crisis, for example, and the absolute
breakdown of Europe to even absorb and handle this under the
current economic conditions. This has pushed people to begin to
discuss the possibility of what the LaRouche movement has been
advocating for quite a long time; which is a new Marshall Plan, a
new program of economic development for the Middle East and North
Africa. It is what was published by the Schiller Institute and
{Executive Intelligence Review} in a major book-length
publication a number of years back, called ”A New Marshall Plan
for Southern Europe and the Mediterranean”. What Helga LaRouche
emphasized is that at the point that the EU is really detonating
underneath people’s noses, there is no solution within the
current geometry.
The only solution is to go with this kind of Marshall Plan,
and to work with China and the BRICS and other countries, to
extend the Silk Road project into this region and to develop the
Middle East and North Africa in order to have an incentive for
millions and tens of millions of refugees not to leave to seek a
better condition. And Helga LaRouche’s emphasis was that this is
a very substantial example of what Xi Jinping has called the
”win-win” paradigm; the ”win-win” system. It is a win for
everybody, for Europe and the United States to work with China
and Russia to develop the Middle East and North Africa along the
Silk Road routes. This kind of cooperation between China and the
rest of the world is what China is seeking in inviting the rest
of the world to engage in; and this is the only way to solve the
crises and shift the geometry overall which is creating the
existential threat which is now being faced by Europe.
Now, this new paradigm; this is exactly what we have been
talking about for quite a while, but I think the foundation for a
new paradigm cannot be seen as merely some sort of extension of
former or present geopolitical ideas about how the world works.
This is not merely a rearrangement of political and economic and
strategic alliances between countries that would still be
dominated by the same axiomatic world view which is what has
brought us to this crisis point to begin with. Rather, there
needs to be a true renaissance; a new calibration, a
re-examination of what our view of mankind is. What our view of
man as a species is, and what mankind’s role within this galaxy
and his relationship to the entire universe; and indeed, what his
responsibility is as a uniquely creative species in this universe
must be.
So, on that subject, Jason Ross is joining us from the
LaRouche PAC Science Team, and I think we’re going to have a
somewhat exciting discussion of what are the implications of the
really profound work that Albert Einstein engaged in over a
century ago; and which is now grabbing the headlines again in the
form of this experiment that has revealed the affirmation of
Einstein’s hypothesis concerning the shape of space-time.
JASON ROSS: Thanks. As I imagine everyone has heard by now,
on September 14th of last year, a gravitational wave was detected
by the interferometer experiments that we had set up in
Washington state and in Louisiana. Over a few months, that signal
was studied to make sure that that really was what had occurred;
and a paper was submitted in January and published in February
announcing the news that a gravitational wave phenomenon
representing the merging of two black holes had been detected.
This meant that a change in space-time had been experienced in
that detector; where maybe we don’t know how the experiment
worked.
Very briefly, two tracks at right angles to each other,
allowed light to move up and down those tracks. Those tracks
reach 4 kilometers long. Due to some very clever engineering, the
effect of length was 100 times that; and by the motion of these
gravity waves — meaning a change in the shape of space due to a
varying intensity of gravity due to these two black holes
spinning around each other — the length of the two tracks varied
by an amount that was about 1/10 the diameter of a proton over a
track length of 4 kilometers. This is equivalent to the star
nearest to us getting closer and further away by the width of a
hair. It’s amazing that was actually able to be measured; that’s
an astonishingly tiny change.
And it says something about the difficulties and why it’s
been — as Matt said — it’s been a century since Einstein had
proposed the existence of these gravity waves; and now they’ve
been detected. So, the recent upgrades to these detectors here in
the US made this possible; there are other detectors around the
world. Some of them are being upgraded; new ones are being
brought on line. There is a proposal for a space-based
interferometry experiment — the Lisa experiment; which NASA had
been a part of, and has now left it to the European Space Agency,
currently scheduled to launch in 2034. Perhaps it’ll be sent
sooner than that, based on this news.
But what does all of this mean? What does it tell us about
— what are the implications? Well for one thing, this means we
really have an entirely new tool for looking at the universe that
we live in. All of our knowledge about the heavens beyond us,
comes from sight, or various forms of sight. You can’t smell a
star, you can’t taste it; you can’t hear it, you can’t fell it.
You can see it. So various forms of seeing are the way we learn
more about our surroundings. From simple observations with the
eyes here on Earth, which were all that were available to Kepler
when he determined how the planets moved; the use of telescopes
in the optical range — simple telescopes that could be seen with
the eye — into more complex telescopes, including ones that see
what we wouldn’t typically call light; radio telescopes.
Telescopes in Earth orbit, looking in other wavelengths of the
electromagnetic spectrum; infrared telescopes, ultra-violet
telescopes, x-ray telescopes. We’ve got a lot of ways of
side of the Moon, where China is going to be within just a
few years sending a lander. The potential to do long wavelength
radio telescope work from that location; this represents
something new.
But what we’ve got with this successful detection based on
the change in space-time with the LIGO [Laser Interferometer
Gravitational-Wave Observatory] experiments, this is something
totally different. This is like bringing in a new sense all
together. We’ve been seeing the universe; now we can probably
hear it would be the best analogy. It represents a vibration,
like the sound vibrations our ears are able to pick up. Only this
time, it’s incredibly faint, and it’s about space itself
vibrating; that really is what it is. So, that’s tremendously
important.
On the history of this, it’s important to keep in mind
people are very excited about this; there’s good reason to be,
it’s quite a development. But this can only indirectly be called
a scientific breakthrough; the science behind this — Einstein
proposed this in 1916. He had some more thoughts and wrote
another paper in 1918; some more discussion about it. Hypotheses
about black holes, breakthroughs in computing ability to try to
model these types of things; all of that took place. But what
could be called the fundamentally scientific change occurred 100
years ago with Einstein’s theory of relativity; with gravity
waves being one of the implications. Being able to detect them is
wonderful; it’s an amazing technological advancement. It shows
that we are capable of precision that was totally undreamed of in
Einstein’s time, certainly, or even a few decades ago. The
development that we’ve made has been tremendous.
But I think it’s fair to say this was not a scientific
breakthrough in the real sense of science. It is a new sensation;
it is a new technology. It is a whole new way of looking at
things; and that is tremendously important. I think that if we
look back at what Einstein did that made his hypothesis possible,
we can compare it to the really awful influence of Bertrand
Russell.
So, first on Einstein. We’ve got to recall that what
Einstein did in laying out his revolutionary theories was not
something that he derived; it wasn’t something that he proved. It
wasn’t something that he showed was true based on what was
already known. What Einstein said about the universe contradicted
the Newtonian view of space and time that had become dominant.
Einstein said that that simplistic view of space and time, which
went along somewhat intuitively with our senses, was in fact
untrue; and that basic concepts like simultaneity, or knowing
that two events happen at the same time, such a basic concept as
that. That there’s one time that applies everywhere; Einstein
showed that was untrue. That’s a very unintuitive thought. The
idea that space could have a shape to it; that’s a very
unintuitive thought. It’s not suggested by appearances.
But what Einstein was doing was implementing a world outlook
that goes back to Cusa — although I’m not going to talk about
him right now — but to Leibniz and to Bernhard Riemann. If we
consider the work of Leibniz, 1646-1716, the founder of physical
economy; there’s plenty to say about him, and plenty will be said
on this website. One of the specific things that he looked at was
in the world of physics, Leibniz’s demonstration that there was
no absolute space; that there was no absolute time. This was
contrary to Descartes, Newton, and others. Leibniz said there’s
no distinction between rest and motion, for example. If there’s
no absolute space, you can’t say that anything is at absolute
rest; that was a concept used by Descartes. Absolute space was a
concept used by Newton. But Leibniz was in a fight about this,
saying that space was a relation between concurrently existing
things; but it didn’t exist on its own. In a debate that he had
with a top Newtonian — Samuel Clarke — this seemingly physical
discrepancy about is space absolute or not, turned into very
directly a political one. That, both of these two — Leibniz and
Clarke — used their concept of space to make a point about God,
and implicitly also about government; about the basis of the
legitimacy of a ruler.
Clarke, the Newtonian, said that because everything could
have been created anywhere in space once God decided to do the
Creation, that showed that God made a choice without any
necessity; that it was just because God felt like doing then and
felt like doing it where he did, because he felt like doing that.
Sort of like a dog deciding to his business wherever he feels
like it. Leibniz said that if God had to do something without a
good reason, that God would be only all-powerful, but not good or
wise. And Leibniz said that that conception of God has to include
those perfections as well; goodness, wisdom, and power.
Now between the lines, what these two were also saying was a
view of government and a view of society. Implicit in this is
Leibniz’s view that the legitimacy of a ruler or of government is
not simply from having gathered power; but from using it in a
wise way to achieve good ends. That may seem a little bit far
afield, but it’s true; and this is part of the background on this
concept. That from the necessity for goodness came the
nonexistence of absolute space; that’s how Leibniz showed that.
He was right.
Bernhard Riemann, in 1854, delivered a presentation, wrote a
paper on the shape of space. And Riemann said that since the time
of Euclid up to his time, no one had ever really taken on in a
realistic way, what the basis of the shape of space is. That
Euclid said things like the sum of the angles in a triangle are
180; Riemann said that may or may not be true. On a curved space,
for example, it’s not true. The most important aspect is that
Riemann didn’t propose replacing Euclid with a similar geometry;
it’s that he said that the basis of our understanding of space
has to be the physical causes that make things occur within
space. He was right; that was Einstein’s approach. With
relativity, he said that our understanding of space can’t start
from a box; it has to start from physical principles that give
rise to the effects in space, and to the relationship of objects
in space. So light, gravitation, these became the basis of space
for Einstein; and those concepts lie outside of space. They
aren’t geometrical concepts in the way Euclid’s concepts were
geometrical. Light is a real thing; gravity is a real principle.
So, Einstein, in following on this and implementing it, and
developing his theories, developing his breakthroughs of
relativity, created something that contradicted; he made a new
hypothesis. To contrast that, let’s look at the past 100 years.
We’ve now affirmed something that Einstein had proposed 100 years
ago; but where are the new Einsteins? Where are the new theories
that contradict? Where are the new concepts that don’t follow
from what we already know, but introduce fundamentally new
principles? And more importantly, why is that not understood as
what science really is?
To say just a little bit about Bertrand Russell’s role in
all of that, LaRouche has called Russell the most evil man of the
20th Century; and we have given ample demonstrations of that.
Some of the more straightforward evidence of it is his views
about keeping the world population down; especially dark-skinned
races, who Russell particularly was upset about there being more
of. Proposing a scientific dictatorship, using murder to
eliminate people who became intelligent and opposed the ruling
class, keeping science secret from the majority of people; this
is some of the nice outlook that Russell had on things. He also,
in his own work as a ”professional” you might say, worked on
destroying the concept of science and turning it into
mathematics. He did this before and after the year 1900; this is
somewhat earlier in his life, where he wanted to throw away what
Einstein ended up doing, which was creating a new concept that
contradicted the past. And say instead, that every thought in the
future, will have to derive from thoughts in the past; that we
can replace creativity with logic.
Russell really put that into practice. Many people who are
familiar with Russell might think of him as being an anti-war
demonstrator, as being a peace-loving activist. Somebody who was
opposed to war, to conflict; especially to nuclear weapons. And,
included in that, technology itself; the concept that science is
dangerous, that perhaps science should be held back, because
these technologies allow us to exterminate ourselves. The idea
that the appropriate response to that would be to eliminate
technologies, rather than to have a productive, future-oriented
basis for relations among nations. This really sprung up in a
major way around anti-nuclear activism, of which Russell was a
major proponent.
So, I think what we can reflect on, what we can take from
the excitement around these gravitational findings, is that: 1)
it’s an opportunity to really go back and really develop and
understanding of who Einstein was. How did he think? Who was this
man, who a century ago, put forth the hypothesis that was
detected in this way only this year. Who was Riemann? How did he
actually think? We can reflect on the opportunities that we have
for the use of these kinds of instruments to provide us an
entirely new window to understanding the universe around us. Not
only are we seeing things in a different band, we’re using a
different sense all together. We’re hearing the universe; we’re
able to listen in on a completely different kind of physical
process than the electromagnetic ones that are the basis of all
astronomy otherwise. Using light, radio waves, x-rays and that
sort of thing. And I think it also demonstrates that the ability
to develop new technologies, to rise to a challenge, certainly
exists. And we saw this in the Apollo program, which similarly,
going to the Moon itself did not involve as much new science as
it did new technologies, new social organizations to implement
those technologies. Which we saw with some of the breakthroughs
of the truly amazing apparatus used to detect these gravitational
waves. But we have to have grand objectives. I mentioned the LISA
experiment; a space-based interferometry experiment, similar to
ones which did this recent detection, which NASA had been a major
player in and then pulled back on, as part of the Obama
destruction of a national mission, a natural future. NASA, as the
leading representative of that future orientation of the nation.
So, we have to have human objectives for the nation, for
ourselves. We have to, as a nation, have objectives like what
China’s doing now; as represented by China’s moves towards the
Moon from the Helium-3 standpoint. From the sheer excitement of
the population of China being asked to put forward proposals for
experiments to take up to the Moon. This is something that people
are actually thinking about as citizens of this nation. ”Wow!
What are we going to send up there?” ”What are we going to take
to the Moon for the next trip?”
We’ve got a lot of objectives that have been defined that we
have just been sitting on for decades. And if we eliminate the
source of this culturally, the frankly unscientific view of
science, this anti-human view of humanity, we can do great
things. And we can do it by removing Obama and giving this nation
a future-oriented mission again.
OGDEN: Well thank you very much, Jason. I think that’s
certainly exciting; the idea to be able to directly perceive
changes in space-time itself. So, I’d like to thank Jason for his
presentation, and I’d like to thank Jeff for joining us remotely
today. And I’d like to thank all of you for joining us; and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.
Dette fredags-webcast vil fokusere på LaRouches nødmobilisering for at genoprette det amerikanske rumprogram og gøre Barack Obamas ødelæggelse af rumprogrammet til det mest fremtrædende tema i spørgsmålet om nødvendigheden af at stille ham for en rigsret som præsident for USA. Engelsk udskrift.
This Friday’s LaRouchePAC webcast will focus on LaRouche’s emergency mobilization to restore the American space program and make its destruction by Barack Obama the most prominent feature of his necessary impeachment as President of the United States.
Transcript-MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly Friday evening broadcast, here, from larouchepac.com. This is our webcast for February 12, 2016. Today is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. I’m joined in the studio today by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review magazine, as well as Megan Beets and Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC science team. I’m also joined, via video, by a special guest again this week — Kesha Rogers, joining us from Houston, Texas.
We have all just come from a discussion that we had with both Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. I think the content of the presentation that you’ll hear tonight is directly informed by the tenor of that discussion. It’s very clear that there are immediate problems, an immediate crisis, which must be addressed and must be resolved, that are right in front of us as we speak. However, that will be the subject of the answer to our institutional question, which we have decided to leave to the end of tonight’s broadcast.
To begin with, we have the responsibility to take a step back and look at the much bigger picture. We have a responsibility of leadership, as an organization, and as a movement which involves the viewers of this webcast tonight. That responsibility of leadership requires us to go far beyond these immediate challenges, to look into the future, and to imagine what mankind can be, what mankind must be, and to take the necessary action to bring that future into being.
The recent attention to the incomparable genius of Albert Einstein that has been forced upon us by a very interesting outcome of an experimental investigation that has just had results that were reported yesterday, forces us to consider, however, not just the outcome of that experiment, but forces us to consider what mankind as a species is capable of, and what the identity of mankind as a species must become in a self-conscious way.
This is something that we’re going to take up in much more detail a little bit later in the broadcast tonight, but what we begin to consider, is that the space program as we knew it from President John F. Kennedy and others, is the necessary ingredient of a mission of any civilization which is worthy of representing mankind as a species on this planet. Mankind must not be a creature of the Earth. Man is not an Earthling. Mankind must be a creature of the stars! He must learn, both physically and mentally, how to navigate that wide ocean which is outer space. He must come to know what he does not know. He must come to understand the inner workings of the galaxy which he is an integral part of, and also other galactic systems. And, he must come to know his role as a species within that complex of galactic systems which comprise the Universe as we know it today.
In doing so, man affirms his nature as a species completely unique from all other species. Mr. LaRouche was emphatic that the insights of Vladimir Vernadsky and his understanding of the noösphere, and the uniqueness of the human mind and the human species as a whole, setting mankind apart from the animals, is something which very few people understand today, but was a very crucial investigation into the nature of the human race. Coincidentally, Vladimir Vernadsky and Albert Einstein were direct contemporaries.
We made great leaps, giant leaps, in this direction of man as a galactic species, not an earthbound species, with our landing of men on the Moon during the Apollo project of the 1960s and 1970s, and other great accomplishments of that era. To a certain extent, the legacy of that era has continued along certain trajectories. But since that time, when the mission of man leaving this planet was a professed mission of the United States government itself under the figure of John F. Kennedy, since that time, our progress in that direction has been moving backwards, compared to where we should have been, where we should have come by now, had we continued that directionality, and especially compared to what other countries, most notably China, have now accomplished and are committed to accomplishing further in the very near future ahead.
As President John F. Kennedy was wont to say in several speeches that he made, where he quoted Scripture: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” And that is absolutely true today. That is what the last 50 years of a “backwards progress” has brought us, as an American people — as we’ve presented repeatedly over the past several weeks in this webcast — and as a trans-Atlantic system, where face an absolutely dire crisis — economic, social, and military crisis today.
Our job here this evening, is to take the necessary steps to restoring that vision, and there’s nobody more qualified to that, in my opinion, than my good friend Kesha Rogers. Following the remarks that Kesha makes, we will have follow-up remarks from Megan Beets, who will elaborate much more on what China is doing in their ambitious space program and where that’s come from in the recent years, and where that’s going towards. Ben Deniston will follow up immediately after her, to elaborate a little bit more of what the necessary insight into the genius of Albert Einstein and Vladimir Vernadsky must be, from the perspective of this recent experiment that affirmed many of Einstein’s hypotheses that he made nearly a century ago.
For those of you who may not know, or may need to be reminded, Kesha Rogers was the Democratic nominee for Congress in Texas’s 22nd District two years in a row — the 2010 elections and the elections in 2012, which, I’m sure, was a real thorn in the side of the political hacks in that area. She established her campaign based on the idea that we must revive NASA, restore NASA, despite the attempts by the Obama administration to destroy what NASA was committed to doing.
In 2014, Kesha expanded on her successes as an electoral candidate in the previous two elections, and declared a state-wide race for United States Senate, which, despite the fact that she was massively outspent by the Democratic Party establishment and by their chosen candidate, she came so close in the preliminary primary elections, that she forced those primaries into a runoff election, and received not just national prominence, but international prominence as a very significant political figure.
So, without more said about Kesha’s unique role in this mission to restore the vision to the American people, I’d like to introduce to you, Kesha Rogers.
KESHA ROGERS: Thank you, Matthew! Well, I think what you’ve laid out, and also in the discussions we had from Mr. LaRouche, one thing that’s important to point out is, this is the level of discussion which is absolutely critical to revive the educational and human commitment that has been lost in our society. The real question is, when we’re dealing with the space program — and this is what’s not being discussed in any of the political debates or amongst the space community itself — is this question of what is the nature of man; what is the responsibility to the understanding of the mind of man as different from any other species, animal species, out there.
I’ve gone to a number of events in the NASA community with certain representatives of the space community. You have this discussion where people want to talk about innovation or something of that nature; but what’s missing right now, is that there’s no real discussion on the principle of true discovery, on the principle of true creativity. If you’re going to get back to the foundation of what our space program truly represents, then that has to be the focal point of what is understood and what we’re fighting for. Looking at the space program, one of the things that is extremely important right now, is that what has been a dividing line, is this very question of what is the nature of man. It’s not about money, or it’s not about what projects are more reasonable or will actually work better; but more so it is what is the destiny of mankind to discover and to do what has never been done before.
I love the remarks from Mike Griffin, former NASA Administrator, who I believe made them in 2006, working under the [George W.] Bush Administration, who demonstrated the idea that mankind has always committed itself to doing that which is going to leave something behind for the children, grand-children, next generations — the building of great cathedrals. We think about Brunelleschi or Charlemagne, those individuals who played a significant role in creating something that they weren’t going to be able to see themselves, that they may not be able to participate in; but knew that their responsibility was to actually create for the future. I think that’s the ultimate question right now. What has been done in the progress of the society of mankind has been with the intention of creating for the future.
When you take the conception of the future out, and that human beings have no ability to actually determine or act upon that future, that was the understanding of the fight between Zeus and Prometheus, [where] Prometheus had a higher conception that mankind can know, and not only know, can actually act on and create the future.
How do we do this? We do this through the basis of discovery. We do this through the basis of understanding that human beings don’t have to live like their fathers and grandfathers before them, like the beavers, before them. We can create new discoveries! And that’s what we’re finding and which has been essential in understanding what the space program brings us, and the understanding of the new principles that were put forth in development of what you see in terms of the beautiful ideas that foster the creation of such wonderful and beautiful cathedrals; that mankind not only just enjoys, in terms of aesthetic beauty, but also which has created the ability for a mastery of science that had never been known before.
That’s what the space program represents! The same idea is actually recognized, when you look at music, what great Classical composition truly represents. The fostering of our society has been, always, to take the discoveries of mankind to the next level, to a higher conception, to a higher principle of mankind. The space program represents not just a program itself, but is what is the destiny of mankind.
I want to reiterate the beautiful example, again, of Krafft-Ehricke, because I think this gets at the truly beautiful and fundamental idea of that conception, as to why we have to have a space program. It is only for those very reasons, on the conception of what is the destiny of mankind, what is our responsibility. This is what we should be addressing in our education systems; that, as [krafft-]Ehricke explained, “The concept of space travel carries with it enormous impact, because it challenges man on practically all fronts of his physical and spiritual existence. The idea of traveling to other celestial bodies reflects the highest degree, the independence and agility of the human mind. It lends ultimate dignity to man’s technical and scientific endeavors. Above all, it touches on the philosophy of his very existence.”
And what we have to address in terms of looking at what has been lost in the space program, is that very conception of touching on that which is human. And identifying that which only mankind has the ability, based on our creative powers based on the image of the Creator, to be able to actually participate in. And we have taken that away. We’ve taken it away through the actions of the last two administrations through a policy of capitulation to Wall Street and a bankrupt financial system. The idea that our mission, as China has clearly set forward, and the paradox in that is the fact that we have been denied access through the insanity of certain Congress members and people who have taken away the collaboration, for human beings to collaborate on discoveries that are going to impact all of mankind. By denying the access of NASA per se to work with China, this was known as a clear understanding that nations had to work together if we were going to actually address the problems on Earth facing mankind, that were going to be addressed through discoveries that were going to benefit all mankind.
So that’s what we have to address right now. Can we get back to that understanding once again? What is going to be our direction? What type of future are we going to see — are we going to create, I should say, on the progress of where society and civilization are going. And I think what we are seeing coming down the pike in terms of a continued escalation toward war and chaos, we have a clear dividing line in front of us. And this is extremely important that the space program has — what it represents gives us a commitment again toward restoring a new direction for mankind. And doing what it is that is our responsibility and intention to do.
OGDEN: Thank you, Kesha. Now let me ask Megan Beets to come to the podium.
MEGAN BEETS: So Kesha referenced German space pioneer Krafft-Ehricke. I’d like to reference another German space pioneer, who lived at the beginning of the 1600s — Johannes Kepler. And Kepler also identified the Moon as a very unique place, and a unique destination for mankind. In 1608, he authored a really beautiful, fanciful document called “The Dream”; in which he imagined a journey to the Moon, and described and unfolded in his imagination what astronomical observation would be like from the vantage point of the Moon. Taking man off of Earth, taking man’s mind off of Earth and reconstructing the structure of the Solar System as seen from the vantage point of the Moon.
Now, very interestingly, he also discussed and imagined what the unique differences might be between the near side of the Moon — which we see every night when we look up into the sky and see the Moon — and what the differences would be with the far side of the Moon, and what those unique characteristics might be.
Now, 400 years after Kepler wrote this, man for the first time is finally planning to land on that far side of the Moon. Just a little over two years from today, China plans to send its Chang’e 4 lunar mission to go to the Moon, and for the first time in mankind’s history, to perform a soft landing on the far side of the Moon. The far side of the Moon is a very unique place; it’s unique in terms of the Moon itself. It presents geological characteristics which we believe to be quite different from the near side. It presents resources such as Helium-3, which might be in higher quantities than on the near side of the Moon. But it’s also a very unique vantage point in terms of the Solar System itself; allowing us to perform astronomical observations in wavelengths which we just simply can’t see from anyplace near Earth or Earth’s orbit.
So, as Kepler foresaw in a sense, the far side of the Moon is a beginning point for us to begin to exercise our creative play; and to begin to peer out into the Solar System and the galaxy beyond and reconsider the processes of that Solar System as something that might be different than anything we’ve known before. So this landing on the far side of the Moon will come precisely one year after China does something else; which is sending their Chang’e 5 mission as a sample return mission, to land on the surface of the Moon, sample lunar material, rendezvous with an orbiter, and sen this lunar sample back to Earth. This is the first time this has occurred in over 40 years, and using entirely new and different technology. Now that 2017 sample return mission is coming roughly after three years after something which happened just one year ago; which was China’s Chang’e5T — for test — mission. Which sent an orbiter to the Moon which went around the back side of the Moon, sent back some beautiful images from its orbit around the Moon; sent a capsule from lunar orbit back to Earth orbit, which was able to make a successful re-entry onto Earth and be recovered by Chinese space scientists. Again, this is the first time anything like this has happened in over 40 years.
Now, an important element for China’s space program is its quest for a very rare isotope for helium. Helium-3, which, as has been said by the father of the Chinese lunar program, Ouyang Ziyuan, is a unique fusion fuel which could power the Earth as far into the future as we could think. This is a fusion fuel which is very, very rare on Earth; but which exists in abundance on the Moon. Another promise of the Moon drawing mankind in to a higher level of power and a higher level of existence.
Those are the very recent and also immediate future plans and accomplishments of China in space. Going back to 2007, just prior to the launch of the very first phase of their lunar program, the Chang’e 1, China’s newspaper interviewed 10,000 Chinese youth. And of those 10,000 young Chinese, 99% were following the developments of the lunar mission; another 90% believed that they one day would travel to the Moon. This remarkable progress of China in their Moon program has been complemented by a very robust, in terms of the success of the accomplishments, manned space program — the Shenzhou program; which began in 1992, and is coupled with the Tiangong program, the space station program. So, it was in 2003 that China put its first man into space. It was five years after that that China put the first man into space to perform the first space walk of China; which was beamed back down to Earth in a live broadcast. In 2012, China sent a Shenzhou mission up into space to rendezvous and dock with the first component of their space station; the Tiangong I. The crew rendezvoused with the space station, opened the portal and entered the space station to beam photographs and video back down to Earth. Only one year after that, the next Shenzhou mission rendezvoused with the same component of the space station; the astronauts entered the space station, and one of the astronauts taught a simple physics class, performing simple physics experiments live to 60 million Chinese students in classrooms on Earth.
This year, 2016, the second phase of the space station, the Tiangong 2, will be sent up; shortly followed by the next manned mission to rendezvous with the space capsule. Now this is progress towards a full-size space station, which is expected to be launched in the early 2020s; which will permit long-term habitation and scientific work in space. Which is expected to be completed roughly at the same time as the International Space Station is decommissioned.
So, that’s a very brief overview, but I want to make two points on this. Number one, the entire Chang’e lunar exploration program and the manned space program, including the space station, is vectored toward establishing mankind on the Moon; not simply a mission to plant a flag and go home. The idea of China is to begin folding the Moon into mankind’s sphere of influence; fold the Moon into the noösphere in the sense of Vladimir Vernadsky. But also, to allow the Moon to transform mankind; to allow the discoveries that we make and the secrets of the Moon to change and upgrade man’s power in and over the universe. They also plan to use the Moon, very clearly, as a launch pad, a base for further expansion into deep space.
The second point to be made is, that while this progress is being made by China, these missions are being launched by China, this is an international program. This is not for the Chinese; and they’ve been very clear about that. China has nearly 100 agreements for space cooperation with over two dozen countries, which is part and parcel of their win-win cooperation vision for collaboration among all mankind.
Having said all of this, I think it’s important to back up and look down on the whole thing. It’s not the specifics of what China is doing here which are really the most important thing. What is important is the modality which China has committed itself to. The fact that the minds and the lives of the Chinese people are being engaged in the kind of creative play which we see in the manned space program, and the joy in the accomplishments of that. In the space station program. In their plans for the exploration of Mars and further out into deep space. And especially in their lunar program. This kind of creative play and progress is moving mankind as a species closer to what the German space pioneer Krafft-Ehricke called not homo sapiens, but “homo extraterrestris”. Mankind becoming a new species which is not based on Earth, but which is based in the Solar System as a whole. It’s in that sense that China today, with their commitment to their space program, with their commitment to involving people around to the world to participate in these kinds of accomplishments. It is in this sense that China today is leading the cause of humanity.
BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Megan and Kesha. Maybe just to pick up off directly what we were just presented with China’s focus, I just wanted to highlight some of what Mr. LaRouche was emphasizing today on the importance of this for uplifting mankind to a new level. And as we discussed last week, we have some very important elements with the lunar far side, which Megan referenced. This is a unique capability mankind will have when accessing the far side of the Moon, to give us a completely new perspective on the universe. But I want to just — coming off of Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis earlier today, and what Kesha was just bringing up, I want to emphasize that this is not just the ability to discover the currently unseen. We’ll see new things, but the point is, this will give us the ability to discover what is currently unknown. What does that mean? What does the unknown mean? This requires a fundamental return to real science, is what Mr. LaRouche was emphasizing earlier today. A real, true scientific conception of mankind as a creative force in collaboration with a creative universe. And today, as was mentioned, we have the excellent standard of Einstein brought to us again today, with the confirmation of something he had forecast a century ago; which was the existence of so-called “gravitational waves”, or waves in the space-time characteristics of the universe. This is getting all kinds of media headlines, media attention, coverage all over the place. I think it’s a pretty remarkable thing to reflect upon; just the very conception of waves, changes in the structure of the very space-time fabric of the universe; which Einstein had forecast, and expected to be there. And we’re finally with our technology, catching up to where Einstein had said we would be, over a century earlier; confirming what he had expected with his conception of gravity.
You can read plenty of media coverage about this particular confirmation of Einstein all over the place now. But take a look at Einstein himself; look at Einstein’s conception of gravity as a curved space-time. And Einstein, as a scientific thinker coming out of very specific scientific tradition, explicitly referencing back to the work of Riemann and Gauss. Riemann, somebody who overturned the entire chessboard of science, so to speak, with his calling for the ending of a priori notions of science, of geometry. Including conceptions about space and time, for example, which Einstein demonstrated. You see a direct reflection of orientation of this in Riemann’s work, in Gauss’ work earlier, who Riemann picked up on.
Look at this another way; what were they overturning? They were saying science, the process of mankind’s understanding of the relation of the universe, that must completely rid itself of these a priori notions about space, time, geometry, or what became even worse, the mathematical approach pushed by Russell and his followers. That science must rid itself of these a priori conceptions The kind of a priori sense perception, that type of a priori geometry of absolute space, absolute time, for example; which are really just a reflection of a sense perceptual reflection of the universe. That real science must rid itself of these conceptions.
What does that leave us with? If we are not going to base, premise science on these a priori notions — or I would say, sense perceptual notions, or you could maybe even say a kind of an animalistic notion, a biological notion of your interaction with the universe. Then what’s the basis, what’s the substance of mankind’s ability to have science, to change his relationship with the fundamental nature of the universe? It’s in human creativity; the human mind. The process of human discovery, is the substance of the ability of mankind to change his relationship to the universe; become a more powerful creative force in the universe. And that’s what’s primary; human creative thought is what tells something about the fundamental nature of the universe, because that’s the basis of the ability of mankind to come into a higher degree of coherence with the fundamental organizing principles of that universe. That it doesn’t come from sense perception; it doesn’t come from sense perceptual notions. It comes from a specific quality of the human mind, which we can define as human creativity; which is a non-logical, non-deductive process, a uniquely creative process which can’t be explained away as a phenomenon of something else. It’s its own capability, that Einstein knew; that Riemann knew. That this competent true current of scientific thought has been premised on the knowledge, the recognition, that this is the basis of science; this is the basis of our ability to understand the nature of the universe. This is the basis of the nature of the universe itself, if you invert it and understand it that way; that human creative thought is the key issue. Which means that mankind is a creative force in a creative universe. We’re in a very real scientific sense, a co-creator in a process of creation.
And I think it’s worth just highlighting another of Einstein’s insights into this reality of the true nature of science, the true nature of mankind. Interestingly, this takes us away from the very large, as Riemann had discussed, into the very small. And if you look at Einstein’s work on the very small, on the nature of atomic processes, sub-atomic processes; the activity in the very, very small, so-called quantum processes. And this was, as most people are familiar, this was the subject of a major scientific debate and fight at the time about what is the nature of causality? What is happening on these very small quantum scales? And Einstein was adamantly fighting against this hardcore reductionist approach that tried to just say everything on this level is purely statistical; there’s no cause that can be known, it’s just a statistical random process with no causality and no ability to know causality.
And people are probably more familiar with Einstein’s famous quote that he doesn’t think God plays dice; he doesn’t think the universe is, in its essence, just organized around completely random randomness. That’s the more well-known quote. He clearly had more developed thoughts than just that. In another discussion, he had said, if we want to actually understand causality on this level, understand the nature of quantum processes, perhaps it’s our own notion of causality which is what needs to be overthrown. It’s not, is the quantum world, the very small, deterministic in the way we were thinking about deterministic causality before, vs. just statistically random; or is it that our idea of causality is too simple, is wrong? And he used the example of a Bach fugue, a musical composition; and he said, our current notion of causality is equivalent to a very beginner trying to play a Bach fugue on the piano by just going one note to one note to the next note to the next note, in a linear fashion. And he says, you ruin the piece that way; the conception doesn’t come across, because a Bach fugue is not organized as a linear sequence of notes. There’s a certain conception and intention governing the piece as a whole; and all of the individual components, the keys are organized in a completely different fashion than a linear causality.
So if you want to understand quantum processes, if you want to understand what’s happening in the very small, we should reflect upon the ignorance of our own notions of causality; and look to insights to causality and organization which are coherent with the characteristics of human creative thought. That human creative thought and human creative discovery are what we know are the things that enable mankind to create higher states of organization; to make new fundamental scientific discoveries. And that is what therefore tells us something about the nature, the fundamental organization of the universe as a whole.
So, I think we look to the Moon, we look to mankind going into space; but we need to look to this prospective future from this proper standpoint of mankind having an obligation to be a fundamentally creative driving force in a fundamentally creative universe. That the only real science is a science of mankind as a co-creator in a creative universe. And Einstein certainly understood that from his own perspective, and the future development of mankind requires the Einstein standard today to be applied.
OGDEN: Thank you very much. What we’re going to do next is, I will read our institutional question for this evening; and Jeff Steinberg will deliver a more elaborated answer encapsulating some of Mr. LaRouche’s responses to it. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche: The World Health Organization has declared the Zika virus a global public health emergency. The National Institute of Health calls it ‘a pandemic in progress’. The infection is suspected of leading to thousands of babies being born with under-developed brains. Some areas have declared a state of emergency; doctors have described it as a pandemic in process, and some are even advising women in affected countries to delay getting pregnant.
“Mr. LaRouche, in your view, could the Zika virus become a major global pandemic; and in your opinion, how can the spread of the virus be stopped?”
STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I’ll refer people to an article that’s published in the current issue of Executive Intelligence Review, the issue dated February 12, 2016, which takes up some technical questions which I’m not going to get into here. There are serious questions about whether or not a British company produced a genetically modified mosquito, ostensibly aimed at curbing the spread of Zika virus and other mosquito-borne viruses; and that there were poor controls over it. There were other factors that may have contributed to this now becoming a very dangerous global pandemic.
But I think we’ve got to step back and take a different perspective on this. As early as 1975, Lyndon LaRouche directed a biological holocaust task force with the question on the table of whether or not the conscious policies of the British monarchy and other allied institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, were creating the conditions willfully for a new biological holocaust by virtue of austerity policies. Literally genocide policies that would have the effect of breaking down the systems that had been built up over centuries for dealing with and avoiding the spread of the kinds of diseases than can create mass-kill pandemics of the sort that we saw in Europe in the 14th Century, where one-third of the population and half of the parishes of continental Europe were wiped out in a relatively small period of time. In other words, the question is, are we dealing with the consequences of what can justifiably and fairly be called a Satanic policy coming from certain leading British oligarchical circles with their co-thinkers and allies around the world?
That biological holocaust project, that was directed by Mr. LaRouche, came as the result of the ending of the Bretton Woods system, and the shift of the IMF and World Bank towards policies of promoting population reduction, the fraudulent concept which you should understand as the result of what we’ve discussed here this evening, of limits to growth. And in particular, from that period of early 1970s moment onward, the advent of a fundamental assault against basic science, taking the form of various Green policies that repudiate the very nature of man as a creative species; whose very existence is based on the idea that mankind will make discoveries that will give mankind a greater understanding of how the universe works. Knowing that those discoveries will lead future generations to make even greater discoveries.
And that basically, within that possibility, every child born on this planet, should have the ability — through proper nurturing, proper education — to be able to make the kinds of discoveries that were made by people like Einstein, like Kepler, and others. This is the nature of mankind. And to the extent that there are polices that are put forward that deter mankind from realizing its true nature as the only known creative being in the universe; this is, in fact, indeed, a Satanic policy.
So, we’re dealing with a situation where there will be concrete initiatives taken to come up with an understanding of how the Zika virus has been spread; an understanding of what emergency measures can be taken; plus, the development of protective measures like vaccines and things like that. But on a much larger scale, we’ve got to look at the massive crimes against humanity that are being committed by virtue of the conscious assault against the kind of scientific education that leads to more and more people being actually able to participate in what it means to be truly human.
So, if you want to talk about a deadly virus that has to be stopped, let’s talk about President Obama’s policy; which has been to systematically shut down the entire NASA space program. Remember that at the beginning of the Obama administration, there were plans under way to replace the Shuttle program with the Constellation, which was to be a new rocket system for delivering man into space exploration. In his very first budget, President Obama canceled the Constellation program; knowing full well that with the cancellation and ending of the Shuttle program and the ending of Constellation, that there would be wide gap in the ability of the United States to even engage in any kind of manned space activity without hitching a ride from China or Russia, or one of the other nations that was going ahead with these programs.
Now we find that the rationale that President Obama used for canceling Constellation was that there was another rocket program called the Orion, which offered better prospects than Constellation. Well, what’s happened systematically over the course of the Obama Presidency, is once Constellation was canceled and literally shut down, you had the cancellation through attrition of budgeting, to where now the Orion program has been canceled as well. Major projects for the kind of exploration that Megan described; developing windows into the universe through the back side of the Moon have been shut down, and stripped or greatly reduced from the NASA budget in favor of “Earth science”. Which means the spreading of the false propaganda about the causes of global warming.
These are the policies that kill. That’s why the term “Satanic” can be appropriately used. If you take what’s happened under the last 15 years, particularly under the last 7 years of the Obama administration; the take down and destruction of America’s ability to participate as a qualified partner with nations like China, like Russia, like India in exploring mankind’s next discoveries of the universe; you realize that the United States has been done a terrible injustice — it is literally a crime against every citizen of this nation, both current and future citizens — that this has been done, that these programs have been shut down. We know that President Obama, every Tuesday, relishes the idea that he holds a kill session, and comes up with a target list of people to be executed during that next 60-day period; but when you consider the killing of the space program, you’ve got to consider that this is an act of mass genocide, not just against the present generation, but against future as yet unborn generations that will be dependent on making these kinds of discoveries, branching out deeper into the universe.
And if you take that idea, that understanding of what has been done to us, particularly over this last 7-year period under Obama, and go back and remember; have a clear image in your mind of President John F Kennedy announcing the Apollo program, and announcing that we are going to do this because it represents the challenge to mankind to make great leaps of discovery and to better understand man’s position in the universe. And if you consider that his brother, Robert Kennedy, would have revived and continued exactly that program; had Robert Kennedy not been assassinated, had John Kennedy not been assassinated, where would the United States be today? Would there have been anyone who dared to shut down our space program, our scientific research?
So, this is where we are. Remember the image of John and Robert Kennedy; and remember that we can once again resume that quest for mankind’s role in the universe, and to create future generations of geniuses. Because that’s the nature of mankind; and it’s a sin every time an individual child is denied the capacity to be that kind of creative individual who makes a discovery that impacts on mankind as a whole.
OGDEN: Thank you very much to everybody who participated tonight: Jeff, Megan, Ben, and especially Kesha. Mr. LaRouche, of course, has been very emphatic, as many of you heard him even in the discussion last night during the national activists’ call — the Fireside Chat — that Kesha has a very special role to play in her ability to mobilize the American people to restore that vision of the future once again. So, I’d like thank Kesha very much for joining us here tonight. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, and good night.
Uddrag af LPAC Fredags-webcast, 5. feb. 2016. Så hvis man ønsker at standse en umiddelbar krigsfare, hvis man har noget som helst ønske om, at USA skal genoptage sin indsats for menneskehedens fælles mål – hvilket vil sige en alliance med Rusland, en alliance med Kina for at avancere med disse store projekter i rummet, i vores Solsystem, for at udforske disse dybder og dernæst fortsætte ud i galaksen – så må man træffe visse omgående hasteforanstaltninger for grundlæggende set at afskære faren for krig, før vi befinder os i en situation, hvor denne planet vil befinde sig i den største fare i hele menneskehedens hidtidige eksistens.
LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast 29. jan. 2016.
Ved at genindføre Glass-Steagall gør man en ende på den idé, at der kommer nogen redning fra skatteborgernes penge (bail-out) til dette massive bjerg af ulovlig og illegitim gæld. Jeg siger ulovlig, fordi en af de største komponenter i denne gæld er de illegale fortjenester fra den internationale narkohandel og anden international kriminel aktivitet, der har fået lov at passere igennem de amerikanske banker som en del af hele Bush-Cheney-politikken først og nu, Obama-politikken. Så der er et kriminelt element i systemet i øjeblikket, der gør krisen i amerikanske husstande større ved at sprede afhængighed af narkotiske stoffer i et hidtil uset tempo over hele landet.
Så man må spørge sig selv, hvordan er dette sket? Hvor kom dette fænomen fra? Og igen: Hr. LaRouche har understreget, at, hvis man ikke forstår Det britiske Imperiums had til det, som USA repræsenterede som en revolutionær, republikansk kultur i sin første generation, så kan man ikke forstå, hvad der skete i løbet af det 20. århundrede og nu ind i begyndelsen af det 21. århundrede. Man kan ikke forstå, hvad det er, der er blevet gjort mod USA, med mindre man går tilbage og ser på denne faktor med det britiske angreb, det britiske had. Det, som vi, da vi skrev Dope, Inc., kaldte »den britiske opiumskrig« imod USA. Husk, at, i midten af det 19. århundrede lancerede briterne krige med henblik på at påtvinge den kinesiske befolkning afhængighed af opium og således ødelægge den, som en del af et plyndringstogt, der tog form af to opiumkrige og en massiv, påtvungen kinesisk afhængighed af opium. Vi ser det samme ske her i USA i dag; og det er ikke nogen ny historie.
Kina er mere end rede til at investere i den form for afgørende infrastruktur, der ville opbygge det eurasiske område som en zone med fred, stabilitet og fremgang. Men Europa må rette op på sig selv, hvilket betyder at dumpe briterne, og at dumpe de britiske agenter som Schäuble, og som driver Europa hen imod en intern konflikt og imod kaos. Hvis Europa falder ned i kaos og kollaps, i særdeleshed i sammenhæng med det europæiske banksystems fallit, og Mellemøsten forvandles til en zone med permanent krig i den islamiske verden, mellem sunni og shia, mellem arabere og persere, så vil man få et masseslagteri i hele Eurasien; koncentreret i den transatlantiske del og med en forlængelse ind i Mellemøsten, og udsigten til eurasisk fremgang vil blive dræbt.
»Vi står nu over for den kendsgerning, at, i morgen er i dag. Vi konfronteres med nuets intense uopsættelighed. I denne livets og historiens gåde, som udfolder sig, findes der noget, der hedder at komme for sent. Sendrægtighed er stadig tidens tyv. Livet lader os ofte stå bare, nøgne og modløse over en tabt mulighed. De menneskelige anliggenders tidevand bliver ikke ved med at være flod; der kommer også ebbe. Vel kan vi råbe desperat, at tiden skal holde pause i sin passage, men tiden er døv for hver en bøn og haster videre. Hen over de blegnede knogler og virvaret af rester af utallige civilisationer står de ynkelige ord, ’For sent’. Der er en usynlig livets bog, der skæbnesvangert optegner vor årvågenhed eller vor forsømmelse. Fingeren i bevægelse skriver, og går derefter videre.«
(Dr. Martin Luther King, 1967)
LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast 8. januar 2016, dansk udskrift.
Vi har altså en situation lige nu, hvor tingene, over hele planeten, befinder sig på den yderste rand. På et hvilket som helst tidspunkt – mandag morgen, f.eks. – kunne vi vågne og finde, at hele det europæiske banksystem er gået ind i et kaotisk kollaps, der omgående vil spilde over til USA. Der vil være en indvirkning på Asien, men samarbejdet mellem Kina, Rusland, Indien og andre lande, i det asiatiske Stillehavsområde og i det eurasiske område, vil tage af for virkningen. Og krisens epicenter vil således være det transatlantiske område. Og det er grunden til, at briterne vil gøre fremstød for en krigsprovokation, en »bluff«-konfrontation, med Rusland og Kina for at få dem til at kapitulere og udplyndre dem, for at holde deres eget ynkelige, døende imperium gående i endnu et par dage. Der er vi kommet til i de globale anliggender.
Hvorfor tolererer man i Europas tilfælde fortsat eksistensen af en Eurozone, der idémæssigt var bankerot fra første dag, den blev skabt? Hvorfor tolererer man fortsat en Europæisk Kommission i Bruxelles, og en Europæisk Union, der er en rent destruktiv, bogstavelig talt satanisk institution? Hvorfor tolererer man, og går på kattepoter rundt om, den kendsgerning, at Paven, i sin encyklika om global opvarmning, accepterede en britisk politik for folkemord?
Engelsk Udskrift. Vi står nu på tærsklen til året 2016, og hr. LaRouche advarer om, at dette er en af de farligste perioder i nyere historisk tid. Vi står over for en umiddelbart forestående nedsmeltning af det transatlantiske finanssystem, med mindre der tages skridt til de nødvendige og presserende forholdsregler for at forhindre dette. Vi står også over for en umiddelbart, overhængende konfrontation mellem USA under Obama, og bade Rusland og Kina, der, hvis den får lov til at udløses, ville føre til en global, atomar storbrand.
Engelsk udskrift.
SPECIAL International LaRouche PAC Webcast Wednesday December 30 2015
IT’S ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT; WE MUST FORCE ACTION NOW!
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s December 30, 2015. My name
is Matthew Ogden and you’re watching an emergency New Year’s Eve
broadcast here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio
tonight by both Jeffrey Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence
Review}, and Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team, and this broadcast is immediately following a meeting that
the three of us had earlier this morning with both Lyndon
LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
Now, right off the bat, I want to emphasize that immediately
following the conclusion of this broadcast here tonight, there
will be a live question and answer session with Mr. Lyndon
LaRouche personally, which is taking place as a broadcast of the
regular weekly LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat. Many of you may have
participated in this before. It’s a national telephone
discussion, which takes place at 9 o’clock Eastern Time. If you
do not yet have the information on that, please contact the
LaRouche PAC national office.
Again, let me just emphasize: Immediately upon the
conclusion of this broadcast, we encourage you to participate in
this live Fireside Chat with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.
Now, to begin our broadcast tonight, let me just summarize
very quickly what you’re about to hear. Obviously, we’re on the
threshold of the end of 2015, and the beginning of 2016, and Mr.
Lyndon LaRouche is warning that this is among one of the most
dangerous periods in recently recorded history. We have the
impending blow-out of the trans-Atlantic financial system, if the
necessary urgent measures to prevent that are not taken. And we
also have the impending, looming confrontation between the United
States, under Obama, and both Russia and China, which, if it were
allowed to be unleashed, would lead to a global thermonuclear
conflagration.
Now 2015, I think, can best be summarized by a series of
failures that have been taken by those who should be the
responsible leadership of the United States. Number one — the
failure to have effectively opposed and defied Obama’s unlawful
violations of the United States Constitution, which are indeed
impeachable offenses. Number two — the failure, going all the
way back to 2007-2008, to restore the Glass-Steagall Act, and to
reorganize and shut down the entire Wall Street casino
speculative system. Number three — the failure, going all the
way back to 2000-2001, to dismantle and expose the Saudi-British
apparatus that was responsible for the terrorism of September 11,
2001, and continue to exist, and continue to plague the world
with the increasing threat of this kind of terror. And number
four — perhaps most fundamentally, the failure to fundamentally
reverse the 100-year trend toward scientific and cultural
degeneration, which has reigned increasingly since the turn of
the 20th Century. This has brought the entire trans-Atlantic,
extended European system to the point of an existential breakdown
crisis, and this will not be addressed unless we address the
fundamentally failed model which has reigned over the last 100 to
120 years.
Now, this will be the subject of a much broader discussion
later in the broadcast, but I think it sets us up directly for
our first question, which was the subject of a lot of discussion
earlier today with Mr. LaRouche.
The question is our institutional question for the evening,
which addressed exactly this coming, looming failure of the
extended European system. The question reads as follows:
“Mr. LaRouche. Columnist Leo McKinstrie in an article featured by the
{Daily Telegraph} predicted that 2016 could be the year that the
EU falls apart. What are your thoughts on the EU’s immigration
and economic challenges in 2016?”
So, in order to answer that question directly, and also to
give us a broader context from the discussion earlier today with
Mr. LaRouche, I’d like to ask Jeff Steinberg to come to the
podium.
JEFF STEINBERG:
Thanks, Matt. I would say that, barring a
dramatic change in policy, really a revolutionary change in
policy, the future of the European Union is absolutely doomed,
and that what we’re looking at is the fact, as of January 1,
under the diktats of the European Union, under agreements that
were reached at the very outset of the Obama Administration
during the very first meeting of the Group of 20, a system of
bail-in has been established. It goes into effect in Europe,
European-wide, as of the 1st of January of 2016. In the United
States it has already been policy, although the overwhelming
majority of Americans have no idea of this. In fact, most members
of Congress don’t even know that Section 2 of the Dodd-Frank bill
of 2010, which was written on Wall Street, and dictated through
the likes of the Obama White House and people like Barney Frank
on Capitol Hill, already provides for bail-in.
What this means is that, as financial institutions go
through a spiralling collapse, which is already underway —
you’ve had quite a number of hedge funds, a number of European
regional banks in Italy and elsewhere, have already collapsed in
recent weeks and months. Under bail-in, depositors’ funds,
bondholders’ money, shareholders’ funds in those banks will be
looted as the first step towards trying to salvage a system that
is already hopefully and irreversibly bankrupt. In other words,
the entire trans-Atlantic region is on the very edge of
extinction. The danger of a complete catastrophic financial
collapse is imminent, as of the beginning of next week. Friday
obviously, New Year’s Day, the banks are closed; the weekend
they’re closed. But as of January 4, Monday, this coming Monday,
anything goes; and there is an increasing likelihood that the
whole trans-Atlantic system will blow up in the early days, if
not the early weeks of 2016.
Now, those are knowable and virtually irrefutable facts.
It’s been widely discussed in the trans-Atlantic financial press.
The {Daily Telegraph} article referenced in the institutional
question is but one of the recent flurry of articles that have
basically said, 2015 was a nightmare, but 2016 will be radically
worse, and could be the end of the system, the European Union,
and most trans-Atlantic nation-states as we know them.
There’s a report today in the international edition of
{Handelsblatt}, the major German financial daily newspaper, which
talks about a proliferation of zombie banks in Europe, and says,
get on with the bail-in immediately. The whole system is coming
apart. Yes, it’s Mediterranean regional banks, but it’s German
banks as well, and therefore we’ve got to take advantage of these
new laws, and literally loot the population to the point that
there’s nothing left to loot. That’s the significance of policies
that go into effect as of the first of January.
Now, the discussion that we had with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche
today took this question up from a very different standpoint.
Because the appropriate question that really must be asked right
now, well, if these facts are known, if the doom of the
trans-Atlantic financial system is widely known and understood,
then why is it that nothing is being done to stop it from
happening? Why is it that Congress did not stay in Washington to
enact Glass-Steagall, before they left for the Christmas recess?
That would have meant the doom of Wall Street. It would have
bankrupted the entire British system, and set forward at least an
initial framework for beginning an economic recovery, modelled on
the policies of Franklin Roosevelt.
Why in the case of Europe, is there toleration for the
continuing existence of a Eurozone which was bankrupt
conceptually from the day it was created? Why is there a
continuing toleration for a European Commission in Brussels, and
a European Union, that is a purely destructive, virtually a
Satanic institution? What is there toleration and a tip-toeing
around the fact that the Pope, in his encyclical on global
warming, embraced a British policy of population genocide?
Well, the simple answer comes down to the fact that the
population of the trans-Atlantic region has become generally
very, very stupid, very corrupt, very immoral, bordering on
Satanic. In fact, some leading political figures in the
trans-Atlantic — Schäuble in Germany, Blair in Britain and the
whole Blair tradition, the entire Bush-Obama succession of
presidential administrations over the last 15 years in the United
States — these could all very appropriately and scientifically
be defined as outright Satanic.
This was the point that Mr. LaRouche was making
emphatically.
But to understand why we have reached this point, you can’t
just look at explanations that date back a week, or a month, or
even a decade. You can’t look at 2008, or the end of
Glass-Steagall in 1999, and appreciate why these things happened,
unless you’re willing to take a much longer-term and deeper look
at the actual roots of this entire degeneration of the
trans-Atlantic region. It goes back to the transition from the
19th to the 20th Century.
Look at the 19th Century. You had enormous scientific
breakthroughs. You had the work of Gauss, you had the work of
Riemann. You had the revolution in Classical culture through the
likes of Beethoven, of Brahms, of Schubert, of Schumann. The 19th
Century was a period of a Renaissance in the trans-Atlantic
region. In the domain of politics, you had the emergence of
Germany as a modern and sovereign nation-state under American
System economic policies during the period of Bismarck. There was
a spreading, a proliferation, of the Hamiltonian concepts of how
to build a nation-state, and how to create truly cooperative
relationships among modern nations.
Today, most everyone alive is familiar with the fact that
China has initiated a “One Belt, One Road” policy, otherwise
known as the New Silk Road, as the Eurasian Land-Bridge, and that
this policy offers a tremendous opportunity for the integration
and economic development of not just the Eurasian region, but the
Eurasian region stretching into Africa. Through the prospect of
the Bering Straits tunnel program, which has been on the books
since the end of the 19th [Century], you could integrate the
entire Western Hemisphere into this Eurasian-African development
region.
Well, the fact of the matter is that these ideas were not
only prevalent, but were being fully implemented in the last
decades of the 19th Century. You had in 1869 the completion of
Lincoln’s great project to bind the nation together under the
Transcontinental Railroad. Although Lincoln was assassinated by
the British, precisely for those policies of saving the Union and
going on for this kind of economic development, those policies
nevertheless continued, and were realized.
President Ulysses S. Grant was the continuation in many
respects of the policies represented by President Lincoln. You
had leading American friends and advisers working closely with
Bismarck in Germany. Bismarck, in his office as Chancellor, had a
portrait of Ulysses S. Grant on the wall. They visited together
when Grant made his world tour following his Presidency. In
Russia, beginning in 1890, you had the construction of the
Trans-Siberian Railroad. Many of the American Army Corps of
Engineers participated in that project, which was completed by
the end of the 1890s. The original locomotive that was the first
to pass along the Trans-Siberian Railroad was built in
Philadelphia.
You had a flourishing of international collaboration for
great projects of development. Bismarck himself had the Berlin to
Baghdad rail project. In France, under Hanotaux and Carnot, you
had plans for a crisscrossing of the African continent with
railroads. You had the Paris to Vladivostok planned rail routes.
Czar Nicholas himself proposed in the 1890s that there should be
a bridge or tunnel across the Bering Straits, to establish the
obvious and natural links between the Western Hemisphere, and the
Eurasia. You had Sun Yat-sen in China, during the transition into
the 20th Century, and in the 1870s you had the Meiji Restoration
in Japan. Again, leading American advisers were involved in all
of these projects.
What was the response? There was a proliferation of
Classical culture, of great Classical musical composition. There
were scientific breakthroughs. The work of Riemann anticipated a
20th Century that should have been an era of man beginning to
venture out into the Solar System, and on into the Galaxy, to
make great discoveries about the nature of mankind in the
universe. Instead, the British Empire stepped in decisively.
You had the British manipulation of regional wars throughout
Eurasia. You had the Japanese wars against China, the Japanese
wars against Russia. You had wars in the Balkans. You had the
Crimean War, and ultimately the British strategy was to destroy
the American System expansion into Eurasia, by launching what
came to be known as World War I.
On a much more profound level, individuals like Lord
Bertrand Russell launched a vicious assault against the
foundations of science that had been established through people
like Kepler, like Gauss, like Riemann. Earlier, [people] like
Leibniz, and before that, Nicholas of Cusa, and back in the
Renaissance, Brunelleschi. This entire sweep of scientific
progress coming out the Renaissance was crushed and destroyed,
and a tyranny was established. Europe went through one of the
most hellacious wars in history in World War I. Atrocious crimes
were committed. Cities were destroyed. Populations were ruined.
At the end of that war, the Versailles Treaty imposed a
looting scheme on Germany that led inevitably to another world
war; in effect, the First World War never really ended. There was
an interwar period of preparation for the next phase of that war.
Science was destroyed. Education came under vicious attack
because the Classical culture tradition that had been alive in
the 19th Century, was destroyed in the sweep of cultural
pessimism that hit Europe and the United States throughout the
20th Century.
The British resorted frequently to political assassinations
of leading figures. You had the assassination of Sadi Carnot in
France; you had the assassination of William McKinley in the
United States, following off of the assassination earlier of
Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, going all the way back to Aaron
Burr’s assassination, for the British, of Alexander Hamilton.
You had the assault on science as I indicated, through the
work of Bertrand Russell and his cohorts in the Solvay
Conferences, to where you could say that the entire sweep of the
20th Century — now well into the 21st Century — the only truly
sovereign scientific genius of that entire period was Albert
Einstein. There were engineering discoveries, but the general
course of science was a digression, not an advancement. So, we
find ourselves today with a population in the trans-Atlantic
region that has been deprived of a competent education; with each
successive generation the degeneration has accelerated. At one
point, it was something important to be a physicist or a
bio-chemist; now, if you study these areas, you’re told that it’s
a waste of time and that the only true science is computer
science.
So, we’ve got this process of cultural, educational,
scientific degeneration; and about the only point during the
entire 20th Century when you had any kind of significant pushback
against the trend line, was during the Presidency of Franklin
Roosevelt. And if the truth be told, the assault against the
policies of Franklin Roosevelt had already reached the point
where his Presidency had been destroyed even before his untimely
death. The Republican Party was used as one of the instruments
of that destruction; the FBI emerged as the literally blackmail
arm of Wall Street, deployed against Franklin Roosevelt. So, you
had effectively only a brief period in the entire sweep of the
20th Century, where there were genuinely American System policies
being carried out here in the United States; the place of origin
of those concepts. Now you look at the last 15 years, it makes
sense how it is that a degenerate population could vote in a
George W. Bush; could then follow that up by voting in a Barack
Obama. And then tolerate the bail-out of Wall Street after the
2008 crash; could tolerate President Obama openly holding kill
meetings at the White House every Tuesday, to map out the latest
targets for assassination. There is no accounting for how many
American citizens have been assassinated under Obama orders
without any due process, or without any even public
acknowledgment.
So, it’s very important today to realize that the current
generations are the fruits of 100 years or more of persistent,
cultural moral degeneration in which science has been destroyed.
Now, this is not irreversible, because human beings are
fundamentally creative; but it’s very important to recognize that
we are at a minute before midnight. And the reality is, that we
have very few opportunities left to buy the time to turn this
situation around. If President Obama remains in office as this
financial blow-out hits, then the prospects of being able to
avert a catastrophic destruction and a degeneration into chaos
across the entire trans-Atlantic region converge on zero. And
that’s if we are lucky enough, through the strong leadership in
China and Russia, to avoid the kind of thermonuclear war that
Matt mentioned a few moments ago; because that is the policy of
the British Empire. And President Obama is really not a
President of the United States; he’s a stooge of that British
Empire system.
Now, that system is, itself, bankrupt and doomed; but they
are more prepared to bring the entire population of mankind down
with them, if there’s a prospect of them genuinely losing power.
So, there are a few options: The removal of President Obama is
absolutely existentially essential. The immediate re-instatement
of Glass-Steagall as the concrete measure that wipes out Wall
Street’s existence; and along with it, wipes out the power of the
City of London and the power of the British Empire. These are
the measures that have to be taken in the immediate days ahead.
As soon as the new year commences, we are already well into the
danger zone, where there is no alternative left to those critical
actions. The question is whether or not there will be enough of
a return of reality to where the successive degeneration of
thinking among leading strata and the general population of the
trans-Atlantic region, reaches a point where the threat is so
immediate and existential that the right steps will be taken. Up
until this moment, that has not happened; and therefore, we go
into the new year facing the greatest peril that mankind has
faced probably in history.
OGDEN: Very quickly, I just want to address one thing, and
ask Jeff to comment on it briefly before we get to Ben Deniston.
But the bail-in law that is going into effect in Europe on
January 1st — just within a few hours — is something that as
Jeff said, is already written into the law in the United States;
in Dodd-Frank, Title II, where derivatives get priority and
people’s deposits are no longer protected as they formerly were.
Now the architect of this law is none other than Barney Frank;
who, despite the fact that he is no longer an active member of
Congress, is still playing a very active and destructive role
within the politics of the United States as an agent of the Wall
Street faction inside the Democrat Party. And as one of the
leading proponents of the lies that are being told against
Glass-Steagall; for example, in an article which exposes the fact
that Barney Frank is one of the leading economic advisors of the
Hillary Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton being up to this
point, an opponent of the restoration of Glass-Steagall. Barney
Frank says, “The Glass-Steagall debate is an artificial debate at
this point. It’s 85 years old. Most people can see if it had an
effect, it wouldn’t have stopped AIG; it wouldn’t have stopped
sub-prime mortgages that shouldn’t have been granted. This is
the lie that has been used for the last five years or more
against the restoration of Glass-Steagall; and I think that I
would Jeff to address this just very quickly. When Franklin
Roosevelt became President, he became President despite the fact
that most of the leadership of his own party were agents of the
Wall Street interests; and he had to, in order to both secure the
nomination and also in order to win the election as the United
States President, had to identify and root out exactly who were
serving the interests of Wall Street in the leadership of his own
party.
If we’re going to save the United States, Obama has to be
identified as an agent of those Wall Street interests; Barney
Frank as well, and others. And I would just like Jeff to comment
very quickly what Mr. LaRouche’s remarks were concerning how we
can restore the Franklin Roosevelt precedent on an emergency
basis right now, in opposition to these agents of the Wall Street
interests who are dominating the Democratic Party as we see it
right now, as well as the Republican Party.
STEINBERG: Well, I think that you’ve got to take the case
of Barney Frank as a perfect example of what I was discussing
just a few moments ago. Long before the Glass-Steagall which
Barney Frank personally played a leading role in, and long before
the 2008 crisis, Barney Frank got in a whole lot of trouble
because his roommate, his lover was running a pedophile
prostitution ring out of his apartment. And this was not
something that was a deep dark secret; it came out in all of the
major Washington DC and related newspapers at the time. The fact
that there was a toleration for this kind of person, this kind of
behavior, is indicative of the deeper cultural issues that I
addressed earlier. In effect, Barney Frank was the Roy Cohn of
the Democratic Party.
So, I think that the measures themselves are clear and
straightforward; there are bills in both houses of Congress to
re-instate Glass-Steagall. The very first act of business when
Congress returns next week should be a debate and vote and
immediate passage of Glass-Steagall. Time is running out; it may
even be that as of Monday of next week, we see the first
explosions, the detonations of this crash. Glass-Steagall merely
clears the decks; it means that undercapitalized commercial banks
can be restored, and all of the zombie debt of Wall Street, all
of the derivatives, all of the other kinds of exotic financial
instruments that are un-payable and worthless, are going to be
written off the books. And as a result of that, Wall Street will
disintegrate; the power of Wall Street to dictate terms to
Congress will disintegrate. And I think along with the
disintegration of Wall Street, you will see an immediate meltdown
of the Obama Presidency.
But once you’ve re-instated Glass-Steagall, all you’ve done
is created a clean platform to begin a much more significant and
challenging process. There has to be a massive emission of new
Federal credits into the commercial banking system, for
ear-marked projects of real economic development, job creation.
We’ve got to have a clear concept of reversing the last 100 years
of decline in productivity of labor power here in the United
States, in Europe. So, we’ve got to develop, on the model of
Franklin Roosevelt, a series of initiatives that will create
jobs, that will rebuild infrastructure; but on a higher level.
We’ve got to do several other things as well. Number one,
we’ve got to really launch a serious revival of science; we’ve
got to basically revive all of the NASA programs. We’ve got to
conquer the final remaining steps towards having thermonuclear
fusion power. These are big projects, and they’re more
challenging today than they were 20 or 30 years ago. When
President Kennedy announced that we were going to put a man on
the Moon before the end of the decade, and launched the Apollo
project, there was a scientific capability still in place to have
done that. That capability has been severely, severely eroded;
so we’re going to have to do an enormous amount of rebuilding.
In a sense, the productive powers of labor today are less than
they were on the day Franklin Roosevelt took office as President
in March of 1933.
We’ve got to launch a cultural revival. We had a foretaste
of what can and must be done in the Handel’s {Messiah} concerts
that took place in Manhattan and Brooklyn one week ago. They
were a shining example of how you can begin to draw out the
humanity in people, using Classical music as a medium to do that.
So, all of these things have to be done; but they will not happen
if the American people don’t immediately develop the moral
courage to face reality. To face the fact that it’s a minute
before midnight; and take the necessary steps, starting with
removing this President from office, re-instating Glass-Steagall,
and going on from there.
OGDEN: Now, let me just announce that, as many of the
viewers of this webcast may already know, the LaRouche Political
Action Committee has released a new very important Special
Report, which is entitled “The United States Joins the New Silk
Road; a Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance”. This is
a supplement to the much longer report that was published by
{Executive Intelligence Review} a number of months ago, called
“The New Silk Road Becomes the Eurasian Land-Bridge”. And this
specifically addresses the role the United States must play in
this development perspective for the entire globe. The
electronic version of this is available on the LaRouche PAC
website; however, we do intend to print a large number of
physical copies of this to get out across the United States,
particularly in Manhattan and elsewhere.
Now, I’m going to ask Benjamin Deniston to address some of
the crucial factors that are contained within this report, which
apply directly to what’s been discussed here tonight. But let me
just put it into the context of the fact that if you look at over
just the last few days, there has been a concerted propaganda
effort in some of the leading United States media, in order to
slander China, and especially China’s President Xi Jinping; who
as you all probably know has made the Silk Road policy, the One
Belt-One Road policy as he calls it, the cornerstone policy of
the Chinese economic development perspective. Now, the Chinese
Foreign Minister responded to these slanders that have been
appearing in the {New York Times} yesterday, and today in the
{Washington Post}; saying the One Belt-One Road policy, the Silk
Road policy, which was put forward two years ago, has now
attracted the interest of more than 60 countries and other
organizations along the One Belt-One Road corridor, who have
responded positively to participate in its initiative. And he
stated, “Many countries have signed cooperation agreements or
reach consensus on aligning their strategies for development with
China. These include multi-lateral and bilateral cooperation
projects. Emphatically, the One Belt-One Road initiative is not
a tool for geopolitics,” the Foreign Ministry said. “China has
not political motives to seek in so-called ‘spheres of
influence’. The principle is that of jointly building the
initiative in order to meet the interests of all, and to deepen
cooperation in various fields of development along the One
Belt-One Road corridor in order to achieve win-win results.”
Now, it’s exactly this principle of the “win-win” policy
which serves as the principle behind the composition of this
Special Report; why the United States must join the New Silk
Road. And if you just look over the last 8-16 years of the
United States, the period defined by the Obama Presidency, and
then preceding that, the Bush/Cheney Presidency, and compare it
to a similar period in China, you can see exactly what the effect
of these two opposite policies have been. During Obama’s
Presidency, you’ve had a substantial increase in poverty in the
United States; where prior to Obama’s Presidency, 37 million
Americans were officially living in poverty. Now, that’s risen
to 47 million Americans. Prior to Obama’s Presidency, those
receiving food stamps were 28 million; now that has risen to 47
million. And currently, one in every five children in the United
States, lives below the Federal poverty line. And if you look at
blacks, African-Americans, that’s two out of every five children
live below the Federal poverty line. Compare that to what
China’s done over the last decade, over the last several decades.
Over the last 30 years, China has lifted 600 million people out
of poverty; they have built 11,000 miles of high-speed rail in
scarcely a decade, and they have plans on the books to triple
that number of miles by the year 2020. In comparison, the United
States has a grand total of just over 450 miles of so-called high
speed rail, and it barely fits the definition.
Now, as people might recall, during the APEC summit of 2014,
contrary to this being a geopolitical strategy on the part of Xi
Jinping for some sort of revival of Chinese imperialism — as is
being claimed by the {New York Times} and the {Washington Post}
— Xi Jinping actually offered to President Obama that the United
States could join this New Silk Road policy in addition to the
new Asian Infrastructure Development Bank policy. This was an
offer to say you can participate in this win-win policy. Now, of
course, Obama has not reciprocated that offer, but we can see the
foundations for a completely new vision of international economic
and strategic relationships among nations; based on this win-win
policy. So, that is the substance of this new report from
LaRouche PAC, “The United States Joins the New Silk Road”; and
that’s what I want to ask Ben Deniston to elaborate on in a
little bit more depth in the conclusion of tonight’s broadcast.
BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Matthew. I think just picking
up off of what Matthew said, I think that’s the most —
obviously, if you believe the media today in the United States,
I’ve got some unfortunate news for you. This is ridiculous
propaganda that’s been coming out, attacking China, attacking
Russia. So, if you still believe that stuff, you’ve got to start
reading our website much more in depth and thoroughly.
This is ridiculous; this is an offer to the United States to
join in a new orientation for the planet. And I think this
report we put out is — not only should you read this, you should
be circulating this to your friends, to your neighbors. This is
a life or death issue for the United States right now; this is an
opportunity for us to actually save our nation by moving into a
new future of cooperation and development. So, we have put out
now what’s on the site, and what we’re asking you to contribute
to support the printing of, is a life or death roadmap for the
United States to join into this new orientation led by China,
Russia and other nations.
I just want to take a couple of minutes just to emphasize
the importance of this offer. Because as Matt said, this is
explicitly not a geopolitical move by China; this is not an
attempt to defeat the United States. This is not an attempt by
China, or China in cooperation with Russia, to control resources
to the detriment of the United States; or to control regions of
the planet to the detriment of the United States. This, as was
stated repeatedly, explicitly by China, is based on a conception
of win-win cooperation. And understanding that the development
of fundamental science for mankind in cooperation with different
nations, creates a net increase in the amount of wealth and
resources available to everybody. And we’re at the point in
mankind’s development that if we don’t rise to a level of
international relations and global cooperation premised on that
understanding, we’re not going to be able to exist as a species
on this planet. If we continue this mode of geopolitical
conflict, we’ll destroy ourselves; as Obama is threatening to do
right now.
But as Mr. LaRouche was discussing on Monday earlier this
week, there is a true higher form of natural law that we have to
come to now organize ourselves around; to rise to. And that is,
mankind’s fundamental nature is to progress, is to develop; this
idea of win-win cooperation. I think you see maybe the most
stark difference between China’s orientation, the New Silk Road
orientation, premised on this idea of win-win cooperation and
development; and you compare that to what the Pope is now
supporting with this Green policy, with this British Malthusian,
global population reduction program. Premised somehow on this
insane idea that the climate never changes unless mankind eats a
hamburger or drives his car around the corner or something
ridiculous like that. You have this typification of the
genocidal, zero-growth imperial policy, with this Green movement,
with this climate change fraud. And with the Pope now supporting
this entire fraud; on the one side typifying the evil of this
anti-human anti-mankind view, which needs to be eliminated,
versus this other direction that’s now available for us.
But the fundamental premise of the whole thing is that
mankind has to progress, that creative progress is not just nice;
it’s not just good, it is absolutely necessary for mankind to
exist. If we ever stop progressing, society degenerates like
we’ve been discussing here; like the 20th Century typifies,
already shows us. If you stop progressing, society destroys
itself. But progress not in mathematical forms, not in logical
forms, but the type of unique, human, creative scientific
progress typified by Kepler, typified by Einstein. That that’s
what’s been attacked by Russell; attacked by this British
imperial system, attacked throughout the 20th Century. It’s this
understanding of human creativity as a unique principle in the
universe that is the only substance; the cause of what enables
mankind to act differently than animals, to fundamentally
increase his relationship to the universe. As we’ve discussed,
to in effect, begin to separate himself from being just an
Earth-based species; and being able to exist in the universe by
mediating his existence through his relationship with the Solar
System as a whole. That’s a creative act that doesn’t come from
the fraudulent type of science that Bertrand Russell had
attempted to impose on the world; that comes from a unique form
of human creative generation, unique acts of the human mind that
do not come from sense perception, do not come from your
empirical study of the world. But come from human creativity per
se; the process of human creative development, which again, has
been attacked throughout the 20th Century. So that I think is
the challenge we have; is not just to reverse the degeneration
that’s occurred. But we need a new fundamental law of human
creative progress to rise as the guide stone for where mankind
must go. Mr. LaRouche has been explicit on this; we’re not just
talking about reversing some policy. Mankind’s survival today
depends upon a new Renaissance. A new creation of a higher
understanding of mankind’s nature and unique purpose and mission
in this universe as a creative force going into the Solar System.
Going beyond the Solar System into the Galaxy; and understanding
that it is something unique about the human mind and its creative
potential that gives mankind the ability to do that. So, this is
not just about reversing some bad policy; this is about
developing a positive conception, a new discovery of what it is
that enables mankind to progress. What it is that enables
mankind to fulfill his true nature; what it is that makes mankind
a unique force on this planet. A potential that no animal
species exhibits. If we don’t understand that, it we don’t
premise the future on a new pursuit of those capabilities,
mankind is not going to make it. Because that is what defines
our existence; that is what defines the future. And if we don’t
rise to that level, as Mr. LaRouche has been warning, we’re not
going to make it through the current crisis.
So, I think that’s the challenge we have before us. And I
would refer back to Mr. LaRouche’s remarks on Monday, in his
discussion with the Policy Committee on the LaRouche PAC website.
We have to come forward with this higher conception of the true
natural law that mankind must rise to; and I think we have to
come to it today.
OGDEN: I would like to thank both Jeff Steinberg and Ben
Deniston very much for joining me here tonight. Again, the full
contents of this “US Must Join the New Silk Road” report is
available on the LaRouche PAC website; but we would ask you to
donate and make sure that this can be spread as widely as
possible. This is a crucial document for the future of the
United States.
Now, as I announced at the very beginning of this broadcast,
immediately following the conclusion of our broadcast tonight,
there will be a live question and answer session with Mr. Lyndon
LaRouche on the normal channels of the Fireside Chat. This is a
telephone discussion; if you’ve not been a participant in these
before, please contact the LaRouche PAC office, and you can get
the information to become a participant. And please ask Mr.
Lyndon LaRouche a question; these are crucial opportunities for
the American people to engage in a live question and answer
dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche. So we would ask you to go
immediately from viewing this broadcast to participating in this
emergency Fireside Chat, which is taking place tonight, December
30, as part of our emergency initiatives on the threshold of the
new year. So thank you, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.
Vi er nu ved et punkt, hvor konsekvenserne af at tolerere disse handlinger og denne politik og disse politiske personer udgør USA’s undergang, såvel som også hele det transatlantiske områdes undergang og muligvis også verdens undergang, hvis vi degenererer til omstændigheder med atomkrig. Så dette er et ekstraordinært øjeblik; og det er noget, der kræver handling fra ledende borgere i denne republik. Jeres folkevalgte repræsentanter, og først og fremmest USA’s præsident, har opført sig som britiske forrædere, og ikke som de patriotiske personer, der skal forestille at gøre tjeneste i landets højeste embeder.
Blot få timer før denne udsendelse blev der udsendt en nøderklæring, der blev udlagt på LaRouchePAC’s website, og som cirkuleres via de sociale medier og som et flyveblad på Manhattans gader og andre steder i hele USA. Teksten (findes som selvstændigt Flyveblad her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=10843) lyder som følger (oplæst af Matthew Ogden):
Julebudskab: Den 1. januar 2016 er dommedag! Kun et initiativ som Franklin Roosevelts kan redde os
(23. december 2015): Præsident Barack Obama og hele den Amerikanske Kongres har forrådt jer, det amerikanske folk, ved af fejhed at nægte at tage skridt til de nødvendige nødbetingede initiativer for at forhindre det største finansielle og økonomiske krak – langt værre end dem i 1929 og 2008 – i at ske i de umiddelbart forestående dage og uger. Med mindre I, det amerikanske folk, rejser jer og kræver omgåede handling, vil nationen og en stor del af menneskeheden blive konfronteret med en katastrofe i begyndelsen af det nye år.
Hele det transatlantiske finanssystem står for at nedsmelte. Blot i løbet af de seneste uger er junk investment grade-obligationer til 15 mia. dollar blevet udslettet. Dette er blot et forvarsel om et umiddelbart forestående, totalt sammenbrud af den transatlantiske boble. Fra og med 1. januar 2016 er en gældsboble på 72 mia. dollar indstillet til at eksplodere i Puerto Rico. Kongressen havde muligheden for at tage initiativ til at forhindre dette, før de forlod byen, men tog ingen skridt til handling.
En gæld på skønsmæssigt 5 billion dollar, der er knyttet til USA’s nationale, kollapsende sektor for skiferolie og -gas, er i færd med at nedsmelte. I det vestlige Canada er denne boble allerede bristet og har udløst tabet af 100.000 arbejdspladser i 2015 – svarende til 750.000 arbejdspladser i USA – samt et kollaps i ejendomsmarkedet og et samfundsmæssigt sammenbrud. Denne samme krise er på vej i USA i accelererende tempo, men på en langt større skala.
I Europa træder der nye love i kraft fra den 1. januar 2016, som fjerner enhver beskyttelse af bankindskydere, der vil få deres sparepenge stjålet under »bail-in«-regler (ekspropriering), sådan, som det allerede er sket på Cypern. I Italien fik flere end 10.000 indskydere – bankkunder – deres opsparing eksproprieret under en delvis bail-in under fire bankers kollaps i denne måned. De samme forholdsregler findes inkluderet i Dodd/Frank-loven her i USA. Hvis ens bank kollapser, kan man få sin livsopsparing stjålet for at redde banken. Det kan og vil ske her, takket være fejhed og korruption hos jeres valgte regeringsfolk, der har holdt jer hen i uvidenhed og overtrådt den ed, de har aflagt i deres embede.
Kongressen havde, før den tog på ferie, mulighed for at forhindre denne nu fremstormende krise. De blev advaret. De kunne have vedtaget love, der allerede var blevet fremstillet i begge Kongressens huse, til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, den af Franklin Roosevelt indførte lov, der opdelte Depressionens for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker, ved at adskille kommerciel bankvirksomhed fra alle hasardspilsaktiviteterne. Men Kongressen var købt af Wall Street og svigtede jer. Præsident Obama er totalt ejet af Wall Street og [City of] London, som har skabt ham. Wall Street er håbløst bankerot, og de har til hensigt at klamre sig til magten ved at stjæle jeres penge og fjerne jeres sundhedssystem samt lukke ned, hvad der måtte være tilbage af realøkonomien, den fysiske økonomi. Inden for et tidsrum af blot få dage eller uger kunne I blive konfronteret med fødevaremangel, hyperinflation og et totalt sammenbrud af alt, hvad I ellers anser for at være normale tilstande.
Præsident Obama fremprovokerer også, på vegne af Wall Street og London, en konfrontation med Rusland, der driver verden frem mod global krig, en krig, som nogle amerikanske og russiske militære topkommandører advarer om kunne blive en termonuklear udslettelseskrig.
Den 1. januar 2016 vil Ukraine, med USA’s og IMF’s godkendelse, gå i betalingsstandsning mht. sin gæld på 3 mia. dollar til Rusland, en åbenlyst provokerende handling fra Vestens side mod Moskva, der kommer oveni de allerede eksisterende sanktioner, NATO’s udvidelse mod øst og andre, direkte provokerende militære handlinger.
Alt dette er dødsens alvorligt. Verden befinder sig på spidsen af et krak værre end under den Store Depression, og en ny verdenskrig. I må nu tage skridt til handling, for jeres valgte regeringsfolk, kongresmedlemmer osv., har overgivet jer, på grund af deres egen fejhed og fordærv. De har, sammen med præsident Obama, gjort sig fortjent til jeres foragt og vrede pga. deres feje opførsel.
Der er løsninger forhånden. Wall Street må omgående lukkes. Der skal ikke betales en øre mere for at redde disse forbrydere! Kongressen må fjerne Wall Street-marionetten Barack Obama fra embedet, gennem en rigsretssag eller ved at påkalde det 25. forfatningstillæg, der fastsætter bestemmelser for fjernelsen af en præsident fra embedet, når denne præsident er mentalt uskikket til at fortsætte sit hverv. Glass-Steagall må omgående genindføres og en række initiativer må tages, der alle er modelleret efter det, som den store, amerikanske præsident Franklin Roosevelt gjorde i løbet af de allerførste måneder af sin embedsperiode, for at skabe millioner af produktive jobs, genopbygge nationens kollapsede infrastruktur og genrejse nationens værdighed.
Kongressen kan i løbet af få timer tage skridt til disse handlinger, men de vil kun handle i tide, hvis I vågner op og kræver det.
Alternativet er Helvede på Jord, fra og med det nye år. Er I, jeres venner, jeres naboer, i besiddelse af det moralske beredskab, der skal til for at overleve? Det er det spørgsmål, der er på bordet her, denne Juleaften, 2015.
Matthew Ogden: Lad mig nu introducere Jeff Steinberg fra Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), der i større detaljer vil gennemgå diskussionen med hr. LaRouche her til morgen.
Jeffrey Steinberg: Tak, Matt. Der er et par andre [kan ikke høres; 09:33] for jeg tror, at billedet af det finansielle [kan ikke høres; 09.39] er tydeligt. Mange mennesker derude har allerede fået færten af det; men det vigtigste er, at det er en umiddelbart forestående situation. Det er en situation, der vil eksplodere på ethvert givent tidspunkt, når vi først kommer over den 1. januar; en dato, hvor vi netop har meddelt nogle af de særlige begivenheder, der vil finde sted i de første dage af det nye år. Når alt er medregnet er der en spillegæld på mere en 1,5 billiard dollar, der er akkumuleret siden vi havde krisen i 2008; og det hele er en tidsindstillet bombe. Eksplosionens epicenter er USA og Vesteuropa.
Der er yderligere et par elementer, der må med i billedet, for at I, det amerikanske folk, kan få en komplet vurdering af, hvor kritisk det øjeblik er, som vi er nået til. For det første må man stille det spørgsmål, om Islamisk Stats angreb i Paris den 13. november, og senere i San Bernardino, Californien, repræsenterer en Rigsdagsbrand-begivenhed i det tidlige 21. århundrede. Vi ved, at disse jihadistiske netværk er blevet skabt og promoveret af førende nationer i denne vestlige kombination; startende med briterne og med Saudi Arabien. Der er fraktioner her i USA, der har været udtrykkeligt indblandet – al-Qaeda, Nusra Front, Islamisk Stat – alle på vegne af et engagement for, blandt andet, at vælte Assad-regeringen i Syrien. Så det, vi i realiteten ser på, er en kapacitet, der er blevet udløst i Europa og USA under visse vestlige kredses kontrol; og hvis hensigt det er at skabe de omstændigheder, under hvilke den form for politistat kan etableres, som vil være nødvendig for at takle det sociale kaos og for at gøre fremstød for en global konfrontation, der er umiddelbart forestående.
For det andet, så afslørede de andre begivenheder omkring COP21-konferencen om global opvarmning, at Pavestolen, selve Paven, var blevet kapret af en person, som kun kan beskrives som en satanisk person – John Schellnhüber; en ridder af Det britiske Imperium, hvis politik, der nu er blevet vedtaget af Paven, ønsker at se det store flertal af menneskeheden elimineret gennem en række [kan ikke høres: 12:37] i kombination med faren for krig og i kombination med de økonomiske katastrofer, som allerede er i gang med indgangen til denne nedsmeltnings-periode, lige efter den 1. januar.
Pointen er, at man har løjet for jer, det amerikanske folk; jeres folkevalgte regeringsfolk har svigtet jer ynkeligt. Og nettoresultatet er, at der, ét minut i midnat, ikke foreligger nogen forpligtelse over for jer til at tage skridt til den form for afgørende handlinger, der nu kræves som en bydende nødvendighed. Kongressen kan vende tilbage til Washington [fra juleferie, -red.], men vil kun gøre det, hvis I skræmmer livet af dem; hvis I rejser jer i denne juleferie og kræver, at de tager skridt til at foretage den form for nødhandlinger, som er det eneste handlingsforløb i dette øjeblik, der kan afværge denne absolut katastrofale situation, der potentielt blot ligger timer eller dage ud i fremtiden. Kongressen kan vende tilbage til Washington og nægte at betale Wall Streets gæld. Der er intet at være bange for på Wall Street, for de er håbløst og uafvendeligt bankerot. Det er frygten for det ukendte, der får medlemmer af Kongressen til at kapitulere og tillade Obamas præsidentskab, som er en hån mod nationen, at fortsætte; og til at tillade Wall Street fortsat at diktere betingelserne i Washington.
Vi er nu ved et punkt, hvor konsekvenserne af at tolerere disse handlinger og denne politik og disse politiske personer udgør USA’s undergang, såvel som også hele det transatlantiske områdes undergang og muligvis også verdens undergang, hvis vi degenererer til omstændigheder med atomkrig. Så dette er et ekstraordinært øjeblik; og det er noget, der kræver handling fra ledende borgere i denne republik. Jeres folkevalgte repræsentanter, og først og fremmest USA’s præsident, har opført sig som britiske forrædere, og ikke som de patriotiske personer, der skal forestille at gøre tjeneste i landets højeste embeder.
Det påhviler således os at tage skridt til de handlinger, der i dette øjeblik kan synes at være højst upraktiske; men som i virkeligheden er de eneste praktiske forholdsregler, hvis vi ønsker at overleve og få fremgang i dette nye år, vi har for os. Løsninger ligger parat; erklær Wall Street bankerot – det er allerede gået nedenom og hjem. Lancer den form for lovgivningsmæssige initiativer; vi så, hvor effektivt det var fra Franklin Roosevelt-præsidentskabets allerførste øjeblikke. Politikken dengang tilbyder os retningslinjer for handlinger, der bør udføres i dag! Af sig selv vil Kongressen ikke gøre det; det har de vist ved at flygte ud af Washington i sidste uge. Jeg vil blot afslutte med at sige, at den dag, Washington (regeringen, Kongressen) forlod byen, var jeg i D.C. på Capitol Hill; jeg talte personligt med mindst 40 individuelle medlemmer af Kongressen. I hvert eneste tilfælde var de fuldt ud klar over nedsmeltningen af junk-obligationerne; af de andre økonomiske katastrofer; af den umiddelbart forestående nedsmeltning af sektren for skiferolie og -gas; og dog tog de benene på nakken. De ignorerede og undveg det ansvar, der påhvilede dem. Det påhviler derfor nu os, og jer, at konfrontere virkeligheden direkte; og tage skridt til den form for nødhandlinger, der kan redde dagen, selv på dette fremskredne tidspunkt.
Matthew Ogden: Mange tak, Jeff. Hvis man tager fortilfældet fra 1933 og ser på den kendsgerning, at med det, som var det hidtil største finanskrak i den transatlantiske verdens historie, og fascisme fejede hen over Europa. Og i det vakuum, der ville have eksisteret, hvis ikke Franklin Roosevelt havde været præsident og havde gennemført de nødforanstaltninger på dette tidspunkt for at lukke Wall Street og mobilisere det amerikanske folks produktive evne, kunne fascisme meget vel også være kommet til Amerika. Så med studiet af dette fortilfælde bør vi tage meget alvorligt det, som hr. LaRouche har gjort i løbet af det seneste års tid for at mobilisere det, der udgør en lederskabskerne det sted, han kalder et gearingspunkt eller et omdrejningspunkt for den mobilisering, der er nødvendig for at ændre politikken, og det sted er på Manhattan i New York City.
De af jer, der havde lejlighed til at lytte til LaRouche Policy Committee sidste mandag, vil vide, at hr. LaRouche lagde meget stor vægt på en række musikalske opførelser, der fandt sted i New York City i sidste weekend. Det var to opførelser af Händels Messias, der blev sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet og medsponsoreret af Fonden til Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur. Dette vi Diane [Sare] sige mere om. Dette var programmet. Den første opførelse blev afholdt om lørdagen i Sacred Heart Kirken i Brooklyn; og den anden blev afholdt om søndagen i Manhattans Upper West Side i All Souls Unitarian Kirken. Jeg vil derfor gerne introducere Diane Sare, som vil sige noget mere om betydningen af disse begivenheder, og hvad implikationerne af det, der i øjeblikket sker på Manhattan, er for fremtiden.
Diane Sare: Hej. Jeg kan sige, at disse to musikbegivenheder var fuldstændigt ekstraordinære med hensyn til kvalitet og effekt. Denne effekt er, at hr. Larouche for lidt over et år siden, i oktober 2014, besluttede at genoplive vores organisation i New York City. Dette er meget vigtigt i USA’s historie, for det var med New York City som udgangspunkt, at Alexander Hamilton førte en afgørende kamp for at forene De forende Stater imod forkæmpere, som Thomas Jefferson og andre, for delstaternes rettigheder; sidstnævnte, som i dag er blevet nedarvet i form af Wall Street og Det britiske Imperium. Der er derfor en afgørende rolle, der skal besættes; og dette kan man se i befolkningen i New York City – Jeg kom til at tænke på det, som Jeff netop henviste til, med ISIS osv. – og man har disse 11. september-terrorangreb. Det var meningen, at det amerikanske folk skulle jages ind i regimeskift og krig med Irak, Libyen, krig overalt; og befolkningen i New York City afholdt en af de største demonstrationer i landet imod en invasion af Irak, i 2003, under Bushregeringen.
Vi befinder os nu i et lignende, farefuldt øjeblik, hvor befolkningen over hele landet er tilbøjelig til at være dybt pessimistisk. Vi har haft 15 år med Bush og Obama; levestandarden er kollapset; en halv million midaldrende amerikanere er døde, unødvendigt. Man får meget ofte en pessimistisk respons; jeg er sikker på, at alle her har oplevet at tale med deres nabo, deres venner. »Vi må smide Obama ud af embedet; vi må få Glass-Steagall; vi må organisere et transkontinentalt jernbanenet i USA; fusion.« Folk siger, »Åh, det kommer aldrig til at ske. Åh, det kan man ikke gennemføre; åh, de er alt for korrupte.« Jeg ville sige, at dette meget ligner den kamp, som George Washington i 1776 stod overfor, han, der havde tabt samtlige slag fra Uafhængighedserklæringen og frem til jul. Og den daværende befolkning i USA var ikke i overvældende grad for at bryde fri af Det britiske Imperium; de fandt, at det ikke var umagen værd. New Jersey, som var det sidste sted, hvorfra han havde trukket sig tilbage for at krydse Delaware-floden, var fuldstændig under de hessenske lejesoldaters og Toriernes kontrol; hans beslutning om at krydse Delaware-floden Juledags nat (den 25.-26. december 1776, -red.) var derfor ikke alene anti-pragmatisk, men gik også imod den daværende offentlige mening. Men han vidste, at dette måtte gøres; og det lykkedes ham at fremkalde en bestemt, inspireret respons fra de lasede, forfrosne, forarmede soldater, som han anførte.
Manhattans befolkning er måske ikke så faldefærdig som George Washingtons hær dengang var; men vi har alle været underkastet en utrolig kulturel og moralsk fordærvelse, der, som hr. LaRouche har omtalt, kan ses i ungdommen osv. Så, måden, vi arrangerede disse koncerter – den i Brooklyn fandt sted i en historisk, gammel kirke, der var tæt knyttet til kredsen omkring Moder Cabrini, hvis folk er bekendt med hende; hun organiserede de italienske immigranters ankomst til USA; hun etablerede børnehaver, skoler og hospitaler og alt sådan noget. Koncerten på Manhattan fandt sted i All Souls Unitarian Kirken, der har en bestemt arv med støtte til Unionshæren, hospitaler og genopbygning; og senere, med borgerrettighedsbevægelsen. Vi gik ind i lokalsamfundet og organiserede for en opførelse af Händels Messias i den rette, videnskabelige Verdi-tone; den blev holdt sammen af et kor, der bestod af folk fra New York City og vore Schiller Institut-aktivister fra New York, New Jersey, Virginia. Matt, du spillede basun i orkesteret; men det var en del af, at befolkningen kom sammen. Mange af folkene blandt publikum var folk, der havde været rundt om koret og besluttet, at det måske ikke var noget for dem, men at de ønskede at engagere sig i dette. Så vi havde over 1.000 mennesker, der kom til koncerterne. Og responsen – for det første skabte den sænkede tone (Verdis oprindelige tonehøjde) og det arbejde, som John Sigerson har udført mht. spørgsmålet om placering, en meget tydelig forskel. Og publikums kommentarer – vi bad folk om at give os deres kontaktinformation, fortælle os, hvordan de fandt ud af, at denne begivenhed fandt sted, og tilføje deres eventuelle kommentarer. Folk sagde ting, som »Vi hørte koret på en måde, vi aldrig før har hørt; lydens egenskaber var meget varmere, end vi havde forventet. Det var professionelt.« John [Sigerson] påpegede, at vi på en måde står over det professionelle niveau, fordi vi ikke er interesseret – det er sådan lidt en antiseptisk idé – men dette er menneskelig indgriben, der samler befolkningen. Meget lig dengang Händel skrev og opførte Messias; den første opførelse fandt sted i Dublin, Irland. Og det skete for at adressere spørgsmålet om fattigdom og for at rejse penge til et børnehjem for forældreløse og lette gældsætning.
Amerikaneren Alexander Hamilton var en del af kredsen omkring Jonathan Swift og andre; og Benjamin Franklin skulle angiveligt have deltaget i en opførelse af Messias, der blev dirigeret af Händel selv. Så selve dette musikstykke, dets idé, forbindelsen mellem mennesket som Skaber, mellem menneskeslægten og universets skabelse; og en fejring af dette, er, hvad vi har presserende behov for, for at samle befolkningen. Og [vi har behov for] at skabe en kvalitet af lederskab, der på en moralsk måde kan respondere til denne krise; i modsætning til den afskyelige opførsel hos denne stinkende flok feje personer uden mod i Kongressen, der, som Jeff netop har beskrevet, vel vidende, at kollapset stormede frem, ville storme hjem for at holde juleferie snarere end at blive og tage initiativ til de nødvendige handlinger for at beskytte den amerikanske befolkning.
Så en proces en nu blevet sat i gang, som må optrappes i tempo; vi kan ikke give den lov til at udvikle sig i det nuværende tempo, som er fint, bortset fra, at hele systemet er klar til at bryde sammen den 1. eller 2. januar. Så spørgsmålet handler om at tage denne styrke og dette princip og bruge det til at samle vore styrker i hele USA, og i hele verden, for at adressere den situation, som menneskeheden i dag står overfor.
Matthew Ogden: Mange tak. Videoen og lydbåndet fra den ene eller begge disse koncerter, der fandt sted i New York i sidste weekend, skulle være tilgængelige meget snart; og vi vil opfordre alle til, at dette må være en del af det, de foretager sig i løbet af de allernærmeste dage. En lille rettelse: Det faktum, at Benjamin Franklin skulle have været til stede under en opførelse af Messias dirigeret af Händel selv, er tilsyneladende ikke helt bekræftet; vi ved imidlertid, at han faktisk var til stede under en opførelse af Messias. Jeg mener, at Händels revolutionerende opråb til handling, »Lad os sønderbryde båndene, og kaste deres åg af os« (eng.: »Let us break the bonds asunder, and cast their yokes from upon us«), er noget, der blev aktuelt under Benjamin Franklins og George Washingtons Amerikanske Revolution. Så det er et meget passende kampråb for i dag.
Jeg vil gerne appellere til alle om at tage teksten til det flyveblad, som jeg oplæste i begyndelsen af denne udsendelse, »Nytårsbudskab: 1. januar 2016 er dommedag! Kun et initiativ som Franklin Roosevelts kan redde os« og uddele det så vidt omkring, som I kan i de kommende dage. Dette bør være samtaleemnet ved familiemiddage og andre begivenheder, der finder sted i løbet af de næste 24-48 timer. Og være en del af diskussionen, der finder sted i de næste minutter. Lige efter denne udsendelse kommer der kl. 9pm Eastern Time en live nødudsendelse af ’Fireside Chat’ med hr. LaRouche, som diskuterer med det amerikanske folk. Dette finder normalt sted torsdage, men man kan deltage, hvis man har adgangsnummeret.
Jeg mener, at vi meget klart har fremlagt billedet. Den 1. januar er i realiteten en deadline; der er betalingsstandsningen på det puertoricanske lån, der er Ukraines betalingsstandsning på deres russiske lån på 3 mia. dollar, der er blevet promoveret af IMF og USA som en direkte provokation. Og der er en deadline den 1. januar, hvor de nye bail-in-love træder i kraft i Europa; bail-in-love, der allerede har dræbt mennesker i Italien og har eksproprieret 10.000 italienske indskyderes penge i dette område. Der er sammenbruddet i sektoren for skiferolie og junk-obligationsboblerne. Der er allerede tab for hundredetusinder i Canada; dette kommer til USA. Alt dette bryder sammen nu; og de nødvendige forholdsregler og løsninger er forhånden. En omgående lukning af Wall Street, en omgående reorganisering af hele dette bankerotte finanssystem gennem Glass-Steagall; en omgående mobilisering af hele den amerikanske arbejdsstyrke, meget ligesom Franklin Roosevelt gjorde det; fjernelsen af denne krigsmager Barack Obama fra embedet, og at håndtere den kendsgerning, at hele det transatlantiske område bliver domineret af et britisk monarki, der er besat af den folkemorderiske idé, at vi må reducere verdens befolkning og kaste mennesker tilbage til en dyrisk tilstand.
Så dette er virkeligheden ved slutningen af 2015 og i de første timer af 2016. Og det påhviler jer at tage det, der er blevet fremlagt her i aften og handle på det omgående; alle redskaberne er tilgængelige for jer. Vi beder jer indtrængende om at gå direkte fra dette webcast for at deltage i live-diskussion med hr. LaRouche under ’Fireside Chat’-udsendelsen, der starter om få minutter.
Jeg vil gerne takke alle for at være med os her i aften; og jeg vil gerne takke både Jeffrey Steinberg og Diane Sare for at være vore gæster ved denne udsendelse. Bliv på kanalen og lyt til larouchepac.com i den kommende tid.
Matthew Ogden: God aften, det er den 23. december 2015, Lillejuleaften. Jeg er Matthew Ogden, og jeg byder jer velkommen til det, der under normale omstændigheder ville være vores regulære Fredags-webcast; vi har imidlertid besluttet at udsende denne begivenhed allerede i aften pga. den aktuelle nødsituation. Vi har altså i aften en nødudsendelse af LaRouchePAC webcast, her, onsdag aften, den 23. december. Jeg vil lige sige, at vi umiddelbart efter aftenens udsendelse også afholder ’Fireside Chat’ live med hr. Lyndon LaRouche i hele USA; det begynder kl. 9pm Eastern time. Det vil jeg sige noget mere om, om lidt.
Men for at komme i gang med aftenens diskussion vil jeg introducere vore to gæster her i aften. Jeg har Jeffrey Steinberg med os over Google on Air; han er chefredaktør for Executive Intelligence Review (EIR). Vi har også Diane Sare med os, der er medlem af LaRouchePAC Komite for Politisk Strategi, som er med os fra New Jersey, ligeledes over Google video.
Hvis I har fulgt med på LarouchePAC websiden i løbet af de seneste timer, har I set den nøderklæring, der er blevet udsendt; den er i bogstavelig forstand blevet udlagt på vores webside for få timer siden og cirkulerer nu via de sociale medier og i fysisk form, som et flyveblad på Manhattans gader og andre steder i USA.
Engelsk udskrift.
TRANSCRIPT
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s December 23, 2015, the day before Christmas Eve. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for what would normally be our regular Friday evening LaRouche PAC webcast; however, we have decided to pre-broadcast this event tonight because of the emergency nature of the current situation. So, what you’re watching is an emergency broadcast of the LaRouche PAC webcast, here Wednesday night, December 23rd. Now, I’ll just say right off the bat, immediately following the broadcast of this event, there will be a live Fireside Chat, which will be occurring across the United States with Lyndon LaRouche; which will be initiated at 9pm Eastern time. I will say more about that in a moment.
But in order to start off tonight’s discussion, first I would like to introduce the two guests that we have joining us tonight. I have Jeff Steinberg joining us over Google on Air; he’s the executive editor of Executive Intelligence Review. And we also have Diane Sare, who is a member of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, whose joining us currently from New Jersey; she is also joining us over Google video.
Now, if you have seen the LaRouche PAC website in the recent hours, you’ve seen an emergency statement that’s been issued; it was issued on the LaRouche PAC website literally just hours ago, and it is now currently circulating via social media, and in physical form as a leaflet on the streets of Manhattan and elsewhere across the United States. The title of that statement is, “Emergency Christmas Eve Message: January 1st Is Doomsday! Only an FDR Action Can Save You”. What I’m going to do is, I’m going to read that leaflet in full, and then I’m going to introduce Jeff Steinberg so that he can give us a little bit more of a sense that both he and Diane had a chance to participate in just a few hours ago this morning, with both Lyndon LaRouche and Helga LaRouche. So, the text of this emergency statement reads as follows:
“President Barack Obama and the entire U.S. Congress have betrayed you, the American people, by refusing, out of cowardice, to take the necessary emergency actions to prevent the greatest financial and economic crash — far worse than 1929 and 2008 — from happening in the hours and days just ahead. Unless you, the American people, stand up and demand immediate action, the nation and much of mankind is facing catastrophe at the start of the New Year.
“The entire trans-Atlantic financial system is about to blow. In just the past few weeks, $15 billion in junk and investment grade bonds have been wiped out. This is but a harbinger of an imminent total crash of the trans-Atlantic financial bubble. As of January 1, 2016, a $72 billion debt bubble is set to explode in Puerto Rico. Congress had the opportunity to act to prevent this before leaving town, but failed to act.
“An estimated $5 trillion in debt, tied to the collapsing U.S. domestic shale oil and gas sector is blowing up. In Western Canada, this bubble has already been shattered, triggering the loss of 100,000 jobs in 2015 the equivalent of 750,000 jobs lost in the United States — a crash of the real estate market, and a social breakdown. That same crisis is coming to the United States, at an accelerating rate, but on a much larger scale.
“In Europe, starting on January 1, 2016, new laws go into effect, eliminating all protections for bank depositors, who will have their savings stolen under ‘bail-in’ regulations, as has already happened in Cyprus. More than 10,000 Italian depositors had their savings ‘bailed in’ [expropriated] in the collapse of four banks this month. The same measures are included in the Dodd-Frank bill here in the United States. If your bank collapses, your life savings can be stolen to save the bank. It can and will happen here, thanks to the cowardice and corruption of your elected officials, who have kept you in the dark and violated their oaths of office.
“Congress had the chance, before leaving town, to prevent this now onrushing crisis. They were warned. They could have passed bills, already introduced in both Houses of Congress, to reinstate Glass-Steagall, the FDR legislation that broke up the Depression era too-big-to-fail banks, by separating commercial banking from all of the gambling activities. But Congress was bought out by Wall Street and failed you. President Obama is a wholly-owned creature of Wall Street and London. Wall Street is hopelessly bankrupt, and they intend to cling to power by stealing your money, wiping out your health care, and shutting down what is left of the real economy. Within days or weeks, you could be facing food shortages, hyperinflation and a complete breakdown of everything you think of as normal.
“President Obama, on behalf of Wall Street and London, is also provoking confrontation with Russia; driving the world towards global war, a war that some top American and Russian military commanders warn could rapidly become a war of thermonuclear extinction.
“On January 1, 2016, under U.S. and International Monetary Fund approval, Ukraine will default on $3 billion in debt to Russia, an act of open Western provocation against Moscow, on top of the already ongoing sanctions, the eastward expansion of NATO, and other acts of direct military provocation.
“This is all deadly serious. The world is on the cusp of a worse than Great Depression crash and a new world war. You must now act because your elected officials have abandoned you out of cowardice and corruption. They, along with President Obama, richly deserve your derision and anger, for their cowardly behavior.
“There are solutions readily available. Wall Street must be shut down immediately. Not one penny more to bail out these criminals! Congress must remove Wall Street puppet Barack Obama from office, through impeachment or through invoking the 25th Amendment, which provides for the removal of a President from office who is mentally unfit to continue to serve. Glass-Steagall must be immediately reinstated, and a series of initiatives must be taken, all modeled on what the great American President Franklin Roosevelt did in his first months in office, to create millions of productive jobs, rebuild the nations collapsed infrastructure, and restore the nations dignity.
“Congress can take these actions in a matter of hours, but they will only act in time if you wake up and demand it.
“The alternative is Hell on Earth, by the start of the New Year. Do you, your friends, your neighbors, have the moral fitness to survive? That is the question on your table this Christmas Eve.”
And as I said, the text of that statement is available on the LaRouche PAC website, and it is your prerogative to get that out to everybody that you can over the coming hours. And as I said at the beginning of the broadcast, immediately following this live broadcast, at 9pm Eastern time, there will be an emergency live Fireside Chat with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche; beginning at 9pm Eastern time, which you can get on via phone. And if you don’t know the details on that, get in touch with our LaRouche PAC office in your area, and they can get you further details.
So, let me introduce Jeff Steinberg, of Executive Intelligence Review, to go over a little bit more in detail what the discussion was with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche this morning.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Matt. There’s a few other [inaud; 09:33] because I think that the picture of the financial [inaud; 09:39] is clear. Many people out there already have a whiff of it; but the imperative is the immediacy of the situation. It’s a situation that will blow up at any moment once we get into the first of next year; where we’ve just indicated some of the particular events that will be happening in the first days of the year. All told, there is more than $1.5 quadrillion of gambling debt that has been piled up since the time of the 2008 crisis; and it’s all set to blow. The epicenter of it is the United States and Western Europe.
Now, there’s some additional elements that have to be put into the picture, so that you, the American people, have a complete estimate of just how critical a moment we have arrived at. Number one, the question must be asked whether or not the attacks by the Islamic State in Paris on November 13th, more recently in San Bernardino, California, represent the Reichstag Fire events of the early 21st Century. We know that these jihadist networks have been created and promoted by leading nations of this western combination; starting with the British, with Saudi Arabia. There are factions here in the United States that have been explicitly involved — al-Qaeda, the Nusra front, the Islamic State — all on behalf of the commitment to among other things, overthrow the Assad government in Syria. So, in effect, what we are looking at is a capability that has been unleashed in Europe and in the United States, under the control of certain Western circles; with the intention being to create the circumstances to put into place the kind of police state that will be necessary to deal with the social chaos and the drive for global confrontation that’s immediately before us. Secondly, the other events around the COP21 conference on global warming, revealed that the Papacy, the Pope himself, have been won over to a figure who can only be described as a Satanic figure — John Schellnhüber; a knight of the British Empire, whose policies which have now been adopted by the Pope, would see the elimination of the vast majority of humanity through a series of [inaud; 12:37] combined with the war danger and combined with the economic catastrophes that are in the works as we go into this blow-out period right after the first of January.
The point is, that you, the American people, have been lied to; your elected officials have failed you miserably. And the net effect is that it’s not encumbent upon you, a moment before midnight, to take the kind of decisive action that is now urgently required. Congress can return to Washington, but will only do so if you put the fear of God in their hearts; if you stand up this Christmas season and demand that they take the kind of emergency actions that are the only course of action at this moment that can avoid this absolute catastrophic situation that is potentially hours or days away. Congress can go back to Washington and repudiate Wall Street. There’s nothing to be afraid of in Wall Street, because they are hopelessly and irreversibly bankrupt. It’s the fear of the unknown that is prompting members of Congress to capitulate and to allow the continuation of the Obama Presidency, which is an affront to the nation; and to allow Wall Street to still dictate terms in Washington.
We’re now at the point where the consequences of toleration for those actions and those policies and those political personalities is doom for the United States and the whole trans-Atlantic region, and perhaps the world if we degenerate into conditions of thermonuclear war. So, this is an extraordinary moment; and it’s something that requires the action of leading citizens of this republic. Your elected officials, starting with the President of the United States, have behaved like British traitors, and not like the patriotic figures who are supposed to be serving in the highest positions in the land.
So, it now falls on your shoulders to take the actions that would seem at this moment to be highly impractical; but which, in reality are the only practical measures if you want to survive and prosper going into this new year. The solutions are clearly there; bankrupt Wall Street — it’s already gone. Launch the kind of legislative initiatives; we saw how effective it was from the early moments of the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency. Those policies offered the guidelines for actions to be taken today! Congress on its own will not do it; they’ve demonstrated that by fleeing Washington last week. I’ll just close by saying that the day before Washington left town, I was in DC on Capitol Hill; I personally spoke to at least 40 individual members of Congress. In every single instance, they were fully aware of the junk bond blow-out, of the other economic catastrophes, of the imminent blow-out of the oil and gas shale sector; yet they were running for the hills. They ignored and dodged the responsibilities on their shoulders. So, now it falls on our shoulders and yours to face the reality squarely; and take the kinds of emergency actions that can save the day even at this late moment.
OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. And I think if you take the 1933 precedent and look at the fact that what was at that point the largest financial crash in the trans-Atlantic in world history, fascism swept Europe. And in the vacuum that would have existed had Franklin Roosevelt not been the President, and not taken the emergency actions that he had taken at that point to shut down Wall Street and to mobilize the productive powers of the American people, fascism very well could have come to America, too. So, as we look at that precedent, I think it’s important to take very seriously what Mr. LaRouche has done over the course of the last year, to mobilize what is a kernel of leadership in what he’s calling the leverage point or the focal point of the mobilization necessary to change the policies, which is New York City in Manhattan.
For those of you who had the chance to listen to the LaRouche Policy Committee this past Monday, you’ll know that Mr. LaRouche put a major premium on a series of musical performances that took place in New York City over the course of last weekend. These were two concerts of Handel’s Messiah that were sponsored by the Schiller Institute and were co-sponsored by the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture. Diane can say more about that. This was the program. The first one was held on Saturday at the Church of the Sacred Heart in Brooklyn; and the second one was held on Sunday in the Upper West Side of Manhattan at All Souls Unitarian Church. So, I’m going to introduce Diane Sare to go a little bit more into the importance of those events, and what the implications of what is happening in Manhattan right now are, going forward.
DIANE SARE: Hi. Well, I can say these two musical events were completely extraordinary in quality and in effect. And it is the effect that approximately a little over a year ago, in October 2014, Mr. LaRouche made the decision to revive our organization in New York City. And this is very important in the history of the United States, because it was from New York City that Alexander Hamilton waged a critical battle to unify the United States against states’ rightists like Thomas Jefferson and others; what has become the modern Wall Street and British Empire legacy today. So, there is a crucial role that has to be played; and you see in the population of New York City — I was thinking about what Jeff was just referencing with ISIS and so on — you have these terror attacks of September 11th. And the American people were to be stampeded into regime change, into war in Iraq, war in Libya, war everywhere; and the population of New York held one of the biggest anti-Iraq invasion demonstrations in the country in 2003 under the Bush administration.
So here we are at a similar moment of peril, where the population across the country is inclined to be deeply pessimistic. We’ve had 15 years of Bush and Obama; the standard of living has collapsed; half a million middle-aged Americans have died unnecessarily. And you get a response very frequently of pessimism; everyone watching this I’m sure has had the experience of talking to your next-door neighbor, talking to your friends. “We have to throw Obama out of office; we have to get Glass-Steagall; we have to organize the transcontinental rail grid in the United States; fusion.” People say, “Oh, that’ll never happen. Oh you can’t do it; oh they’re too corrupt.” This I would say if very similar to the battle in 1776 being faced by George Washington, who had lost every battle from the Declaration of Independence until Christmas. And the population of the United States as they were at that time, was not overwhelmingly in support of breaking from the British Empire; they were finding it not to be worth the effort. New Jersey, which was the last place he had retreated from to get across the Delaware, was completely under the control of the Hessians and Tories; and therefore, his decision to cross the Delaware on Christmas was not simply anti-pragmatic, but it went against everything that the majority of popular opinion held in that day. But he knew that this had to be done; and was able to invoke a certain inspired response from the tattered, weather-beaten, impoverished soldiers he was leading.
Now, the population of Manhattan is perhaps not as bedraggled as George Washington’s army at that time; but we have all been under an incredible cultural and moral depravity which Mr. LaRouche has mentioned, you see in the young people and so on. So, the way we organized these concerts — the one in Brooklyn was in an historic old church, which was closely tied to the circles of Mother Cabrini, for people who know her, she was organizing the Italian immigrants into the United States; setting up nursery schools, schools, hospitals and things like that. And the concert in Manhattan was at All Souls Unitarian Church, which has a certain legacy in terms of support for the Union Army, hospitals and reconstruction; and later, the civil rights movement. And what occurred is that we went into the community, organizing for a performance of Handel’s Messiah at the Verdi scientific tuning; held together by a chorus made up of people of New York City and our Schiller Institute organizers from New York, New Jersey, Virginia. Matt, you were playing the bassoon in the orchestra; but it was part of the population getting together. And many of the people in the audience had been people who had been through the chorus and decided that perhaps it wasn’t for them, but they wanted to be engaged in this. So, we had over a thousand people in attendance. And the response — First of all, the lower tuning and the work done by John Sigerson on the question of placement, created a very obvious difference. And the people who attended who had comments — we asked people to leave us their contact information, tell us how they found out about the event, and then add any comments that they had. And people were saying things like “We could hear the chorus in a way we hadn’t heard before; the quality of sound was much warmer than we expected. It was on a professional level.” And John pointed out that in a sense, we are above a professional level, because we’re not interested — that’s sort of an antiseptic sort of idea — but this is human intervention that brings the population together. Very much as it was at the time when Handel wrote and performed the Messiah; the first performance was in Dublin, Ireland. And it was done to address a question of poverty and to raise funds for an orphanage and alleviate indebtedness.
Hamilton was in circles of Jonathan Swift and others; and apparently Benjamin Franklin had been at a performance of the Messiah conducted by Handel himself. So, this piece itself, the concept of it, the relationship between man the Creator, between human kind and the creation of the universe; and a celebration of that is what is urgently needed to pull the population together. And to create a quality of leadership that can respond in a moral way to this crisis; unlike the despicable behavior of this stinking bunch of gutless cowards in the Congress, who as Jeff just described, knowing that the collapse is onrushing, would be rushing home for the holidays rather than to stay and take the actions necessary to protect the American population.
So, a process has been unleashed now, which has to be accelerated; it cannot be allowed to develop at the pace at which it’s developing, which is fine, except that the entire system is prepared to implode on January 1st or January 2nd. So, the question is, to take the strength from this and the principle of this and use it to rally our forces across the United States and across the world to address the situation facing mankind today.
OGDEN: Thank you very much. And the video and audio of one or both of these concerts that occurred in New York last weekend, should be available very soon; so we encourage everybody to have that be part of what you do over the coming days. One note of correction: Apparently the fact that Benjamin Franklin attended a performance of the Messiah conducted by Handel is not quite confirmed; however, we do know that he did attend a performance of the Messiah. And I think that Handel’s revolutionary call to action, “Let us break the bonds asunder, and cast their yokes from upon us,” is something that gained actuality in Benjamin Franklin’s and George Washington’s American Revolution. So, it’s a very appropriate rallying call for today.
So, what I’d like to do, is appeal to everybody to take the text of the leaflet that I read at the beginning of this broadcast, the “Emergency Christmas Eve Message: January 1st is Doomsday! Only an FDR Action Can Save You” and distribute this as widely as you can over the coming days. This should be the subject of discussion at family dinners, at other events that are taking place over the course of the next 24-48 hours. And also, become a part of this discussion in the next few minutes. Beginning right at the conclusion of this broadcast tonight at 9pm Eastern time, will be a live, emergency Fireside Chat that Mr. LaRouche will be conducting with the American people. This is what’s normally taking place on Thursday nights; but if you have the access number, you can access that also. If you do not know how to participate in that; get in touch with the LaRouche PAC office nearest to you, and you can get the information on this Fireside Chat.
So, I think we’ve laid out the picture very clearly. January 1st is, in fact, a deadline; you have the Puerto Rican bond default, you have the default that’s been pushed by the IMF and the United States by Ukraine on $3 billion worth of debt that they have going to Russia, as a direct provocation. And you have the January 1st deadline in which the new bail-in laws are going to be coming into effect in Europe; bail-in laws that have already killed people in Italy and have expropriated 10,000 Italian depositors money in that area. You have the collapse of the shale oil and the junk bond bubbles. You already have hundreds of thousands lost in Canada; this is coming to the United States. All of this is coming down now; and the measures that are necessary, the solutions are available. An immediate shutting down of Wall Street; an immediate reorganization of this entire bankrupt financial system through Glass-Steagall; an immediate mobilization of the entire American workforce, much in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt did it; the removal of this warmonger Barack Obama from office; and an addressing of the fact that the entire trans-Atlantic region has become dominated by a British monarchy which is obsessed with a genocidal idea that we need to reduce the world’s population and cast people back into the state of mere beasts.
So this is the reality as we approach the end of 2015 and the first few hours of 2016. And it is incumbent upon you to take what has been presented here tonight, and to act on it immediately; all the tools are available to you. We implore you to go directly from this webcast here to participate in the live discussion, the Fireside Chat with Mr. LaRouche which is beginning in just a few minutes.
So, I’d like to thank all of you for joining us here tonight; and I’d like to thank both Jeffrey Steinberg and Diane Sare for being our guests on this broadcast. So, please stay tuned to larouchepac.com over the coming hours and days.
Kasinoøkonomien er i færd med at kollapse. Skiferolie, junk-obligationer, Italien … WALL STREET. Er der en gruppe af ledende demokrater og republikanere, der er villige til at fortælle sandheden om Wall Street, og lukke det ned? Engelsk udskrift.
The gambling economy is collapsing. Shale oil, junk bonds, Italy… WALL STREET. Is there a leading group of Democrats and Republicans willing to tell the truth about Wall Street, and shut it down?
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s December 18, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re watching our weekly LaRouche PAC webcast here on larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team, as well as Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review. And the three of us had a chance to have extensive meetings with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier this morning, and early this afternoon.
Now, those of you who have been watching the LaRouche PAC website over the course of this week, especially starting with the Policy Committee discussion which Mr. LaRouche held this past Monday, you’ll know that we are in a week of heightened mobilization as an organization, and as a national movement with the LaRouche PAC; because of Lyndon LaRouche’s analysis of the proximity of a total meltdown of the Wall Street-centered, trans-Atlantic speculative financial system. Mr. LaRouche has made very clear calls every single day of this week, for a very explicit program of a return to Franklin Roosevelt, a complete shutting-down of the Wall Street speculative so-called assets, and a revival of the kind of emergency mobilization that Franklin Roosevelt enacted in his first days in office.
Many of you might have participated in the Fireside Chat which Mr. LaRouche held yesterday with activists nationwide, and many of you also may have seen that a leaflet has now been posted on the LaRouche PAC website titled, “The New Policy for the USA Now”. Now this leaflet contains a transcript of remarks that Mr. LaRouche made during an emergency meeting with his associates on Wednesday night, and if you haven’t gotten a chance to read through the text of it yet, I wish to read just a few short excerpts to give you a flavor of what Mr. LaRouche’s analysis of the current situation is. What Mr. LaRouche had to say during this discussion is the following:
“We are on the edge right now. We’re on the edge of a totally uncontrolled global process of self-accelerated collapse. In other words, the acceleration accelerates the rate of acceleration. There is no existing solution to this problem,” he said, “and it is on a global scale, or at least a trans-Atlantic scale immediately, and will of course affect Asia as well, and Russia also. And the only thing you can do is Franklin Roosevelt’s policy. You have to say, ‘Declare Franklin Roosevelt’s policy now against Wall Street.’ That’s the only way we can solve this problem. Otherwise, you’ve got something that’s going to accelerate and there’s nothing that you can do about it. And what you have to do, is pose the fact that there will be no solution unless Wall Street is put out of business right now. That’s what Franklin Roosevelt did in effect; he shut down Wall Street, which ended the inflation that was going on at the point before his election. And the only way you can do this, is to shut it down.
“What you do is you cancel all the so-called assets that are not appropriate for this role, and you simply say: ‘Look buddy, you don’t get any money at all. You get no compensation whatsoever. You’re shut out of business. You don’t exist.’ And that’s what Franklin Roosevelt did, in effect, in his operation to shut down Wall Street.”
Now later in the discussion, Mr. LaRouche came to the question of what the necessary solution must be. And he said:
“If you realize that this is reality time, none of the rules that have been pushed along recently have any merit whatsoever. They’re canceled. And the first thing we cancel is Wall Street. Then what we’re talking about, is the Franklin Roosevelt-style of a new system of the creation of a new system of government, of financial management by government. And it has to be that way, because a lot of these categories are things that are put up as well — will we bail this out, will we bail that out—forget it,” he said. “It’s dead. It’s a dead issue. What you’re talking about is the practical activity of creativity, productive creativity, and you have to define it as such. What is actually productive creativity, which is actually what we will have to defend.
“And that’s what we have to do, and that’s what Franklin Roosevelt did. He managed this thing by going through the whole process about these emergency bail-outs of people, who were jobless, who were without hope. And what we have to do is now, with the background of the experience of Franklin Roosevelt’s work, you simply say, ‘We’re going back to Franklin Roosevelt’s policy, while we still have a chance to do it.’|”
So, Mr. LaRouche said, we have to make the announcement, and this is what we’re doing over the course of this week. We make the declaration that we have come to a conclusion, a solid conclusion; and we have to get more and more people to jump in onto this policy that we’re presenting. And very rapidly, you will find that this will become the trend of policy-making inside the United States, in particular. And if you just consider the crucial evidence that we have here at hand, if you just consider the developments that have broken out in the recent period, when Mr. LaRouche said, you just have to say, “This is the greatest Christmas present that we could possibly give you — the opportunity to shut down Wall Street, and save the United States.”
Now, let me, in that context, present the institutional question that we got in for this evening, and ask Jeff Steinberg to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche. In recent weeks four Italian banks have collapsed, along with a number of U.S. hedge funds. There’s a $3 trillion junk bond exposure in the U.S. domestic shale oil and gas sector, with prices continuing to fall, even in the winter period of maximum demand. How do you assess the financial and economic situation in the trans-Atlantic region going into 2016, and how do you propose to address these problems?”
JEFF STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. We’re at a point right now where tomorrow morning, Monday morning, almost at any given moment going forward from today, we could experience the complete collapse of the entire trans-Atlantic financial and monetary system, which would in turn have repercussions on a global scale. There is nothing within the internal features of the current situation that can avoid this outcome. And look at some of the elements of this picture.
As the question indicated, we’re seen four Italian banks go under in the recent weeks, and we’ve seen bondholders and stockholders in those banks wiped out through bail-in — in other words, the grabbing up of their assets as a first stage towards a bail-out of those banks. And this has already resulted in widespread protests in Italy. It resulted in a suicide that is now being investigated by Italian authorities. You’ve got Ukraine facing a $3 billion unpayable debt to the IMF that comes due very soon; and the IMF has indicated, because of the geopolitical significance of Ukraine, despite the fact that Ukraine is a failed state, it is thoroughly bankrupt — that the IMF is going to pony up a bail-out of Ukraine that violates all of the IMF’s rules.
On Jan. 1, Puerto Rico has a billion dollar debt due — it’s part of an overall $35 billion in debt. They’ve made clear that they cannot make payments on that $1 billion debt due at the start of the new year. A number of U.S. hedge funds have already gone under, because of their exposure to that Puerto Rican debt.
The shale oil and gas sector, which has been touted by President Obama and others as the great driver for the U.S. so-called economic recovery, is in a state of complete collapse. Normally, going into the winter months, you would expect a substantial increase in oil and gas prices, because of the increasing demands, both for transit and also now for home and business heating. In contrast to that, the price in this past week has collapsed even further. Every time some of the major shale oil producers bring a barrel of oil out of the ground, and put it on sale on the market, they lose $30. There is a total of a $5 trillion amount between junk bonds and major bank lending into this shale oil and gas sector, that is about to blow up.
In the case of Canada, in the area around Alberta, in the western part of Canada, this blow-up has already occurred; and Canada is in a state of severe economic crisis. Obviously, on a scale of things, the United States going through the same process will have a far greater impact into Europe, into Asia, around the entire globe.
So, in other words, we are at a moment of reckoning, where the entire financial system is hanging by a thread, and will most certainly blow. There’s no way to predict a date certain, but, as I say, it could happen at any moment from now on; which means that you’ve got to basically shut down this entire system. The system that’s been in place and growing as a cancerous factor on the real economy of the world, going back for the last 40 years and more. You could go back to end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, carried out by people like George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, on behalf of the British. You could go back to 1999, when under the impeachment blackmail, President Bill Clinton signed into law the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And, of course, it goes back much earlier than that.
Mr. LaRouche made the point in our discussion today, that you’ve got to look at the degeneration of the entire world system that began at the outset of the 20th Century, when Lord Bertrand Russell launched a tyranny against the kind of scientific breakthroughs that characterized the work of people like Bernhard Riemann in the 19th Century, the work of Leibniz in the 17th and early 18th Century, the work of Kepler in the 17th Century, going back to Brunelleschi and the height of the Italian Golden Renaissance, when modern science was first launched. All of that has been effectively negated and wiped out through a tyranny of mathematics that has been characteristic of Bertrand Russell’s takeover of modern science at the very onset of the 20th Century.
It’s manifested itself in a cultural deterioration. The only major 20th Century scientist to stand up in the face of Russell was Albert Einstein. In a different way, President Franklin Roosevelt stood up against that tyranny. He was confronted from his first moment in office as President, with a population that had been brutalized, had been beaten down, was living through a Great Depression that was already ongoing for a number of years. You had rampant illiteracy in rural America, and he carried out a revolution; a policy revolution that was based on the principles of the founders of the American Republic, the principles of Benjamin Franklin, particularly the principles of Alexander Hamilton. Those same principles were adopted by President Lincoln, and it carried even beyond his assassination by the British.
At the beginning of the 20th Century, end of the 19th Century, you had the British overthrow of Bismarck in Germany; you have the assassination of Sadi Carnot, the president of France; and in 1901 you had the assassination of President William McKinley in the United States. Those British actions, those assassinations, laid the basis for what Bertrand Russell did, wreaking havoc on all of the principles of previous scientific discovery, and the 20th Century, with very few exceptions, has been a total wasteland.
So, that’s the backdrop to the crisis that we are facing today. You not only have a Wall Street-London system that is thoroughly, hopelessly bankrupt. All of the bail-in, and all of the bail-out in the world, cannot come close to dealing with the multiple quadrillions of dollars in purely speculative gambling debt, that have been built up as a cancer that’s eaten away at the real productive economy. You have, in reality, today the Bureau of Labor Statistics is claiming that unemployment has fallen to 5%. This is total rubbish. By using their own statistics, and looking at the entire working age population, rather than just what they call the labor force, you see that real unemployment is more than double the number they claim. And furthermore, 40% of those employed workers in the United States are earning $15,000 a year or less. That is minimum wage, full-time employment.
Half of that number are earning below $5000 a year. If you work one day a month, you are considered to be part of the labor force. So the real conditions of life here in the United States, across Europe, are collapsing at an accelerating rate, as Mr. LaRouche indicated in his discussion with us on Wednesday.
The fact of the matter is that to understand what’s going on to the American people, and to the European population, you’ve got to look at some other statistics. You’ve got to look at the fact that there is a persistent rise in the rate of deaths among middle-aged people in the United States, from the ages of 45 to 54. It’s gone up precipitously. It started in 2001 — not coincidentally when Bush and Cheney came into office. It’s accelerated at an accelerating rate since 2009, when Obama came into office.
The Centers for Disease Control has declared that the United States is experiencing an epidemic increase in heroin addiction, and there has been in the last four years, a 60% increase in heroin addiction among households earning $50,000 a year or more. In other words, the middle class itself is going into a psychological breakdown. So this is the consequence of toleration for Wall Street.
Members of Congress. I was up on Capitol Hill yesterday for a good part of the day. Members of Congress know we’re on the verge of a major junk bond blow-out. They know about the looming crash. They know about the Glass-Steagall opportunity. Yet they’re showing cowardice in the face of the greatest threat that mankind has faced ever. Because this kind of collapse, under the conditions of Obama remaining in office, means that we are also simultaneously on the very edge of potential thermonuclear confrontation with Russia and China. And that would be a war of extinction of mankind.
So the question is: Is there a combination of leading citizens, of Democrats and Republicans, who are prepared to come together and show the courage to simply declare that Wall Street is finished. It’s shut down. No money in. It’s doomed. So shut it down; and if we shut down Wall Street in a timely fashion, that opens the door for the kinds of measures and actions that were taken by Franklin Roosevelt, in the very first days of his Presidency. Massive infusions of Federal investment into real job creation, into vital infrastructure. And we’ve got to then set our sights on the Galaxy. We’ve got to begin a revival of our space program because man doesn’t belong stuck here on Earth. At this point, we have the ability, by coordination and cooperation with other leading nations, like China, for example, in particular — to explore where our Solar System stands in the larger Galaxy. That’s where man’s future. That’s where the discoveries lie that will define and guarantee a bright future for mankind.
But if you don’t start by facing the fact that Wall Street must be shut down totally right now; then there is really no chance.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, when you consider what Mr. LaRouche declared the policy must be, and take a look at the Franklin Roosevelt precedent, you begin to ask yourself the question that Franklin Roosevelt asked himself: When you have a completely broken-down population, when you have a nation in chaos and in desperation, when you’ve had multiple previous administrations which have been disasters, if not traitors, to the people of the United States, how do you have an immediate turnaround from Day One?
And Roosevelt had to ask himself, how do you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate value? How do you distinguish between something which has a productive, creative effect — as Mr. LaRouche said in the remarks I read earlier—versus something which has a destructive cancerous effect. And how do you protect what is legitimate and valuable, while cancelling and writing off everything which is illegitimate and destructive?
And this is exactly what Franklin Roosevelt enacted from the very first day that he was in office with his national bank holiday; shutting down all of the banks, sending in an army of auditors, and not allowing them to reopen again until they reopened under his terms. And this is what he enshrined in the Glass-Steagall Act. There is a bill in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate, as many of our viewers know, ready to be cosponsored, ready to be passed into law, to reinstate Glass-Steagall. And this is obviously urgently what is needed.
When you look at the fact that since the 2007-2008 crash, rather than having the biggest Wall Street banks broken up, the ones that were responsible for the crash in the first place, and having their chief executive officers sent to prison; instead they were bailed out, and now the four largest banks in the United States have accumulated an ever-greater share of the financial bubble, holding, between the four of them, assets of almost $6 trillion concentrated in just these four biggest banks.
With all of the quantitative easing that has been sent nominally into the economy, all of this money has gone into propping this bank gambling financial bubble, while the lending to the real economy has steadily collapsed, showing you exactly what the administration of Barack Obama has been all about.
Now, if you look at Franklin Roosevelt’s actions on the other side, taking a population that was idle, depressed, uneducated, unskilled, wasting away, and immediately putting them to work: this is the precedent for what has to happen right now. Franklin Roosevelt — one of the very first things that he did was to get his adviser from New York State, Harry Hopkins, with whom he had previously worked to enact many of these New Deal measures in the laboratory, in the incubator, of New York State itself, the hometown of Alexander Hamilton, whom Franklin Roosevelt saw himself directly in the tradition of. Even through the lineage of his great-great grandfather Isaac Roosevelt, who worked directly with Alexander Hamilton to set up the first national bank [Bank of New York]. Franklin Roosevelt immediately ordered the large-scale, mass employment of millions and millions of idle and out-of-work Americans.
He did this with the PWA. Later he did it with the WPA for much larger-scale projects. This was done through the TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which absolutely transformed the entire Southern states of the United States, and created the possibility for the United States to fight and win World War II. And emphatically he did it with the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was one of his very first programs that he enacted from the very first day that he was in office. Taking young people from the streets of the cities and from the backwards rural countryside, who were uneducated, many of them completely illiterate and completely unskilled; enrolling them in the CCC program; sending them to camps that existed in every single one of the states of the United States at that time, as well as the territories. And ultimately employing over 3 and a half million young men, and young Americans, in the CCC program over the course of its entire existence — from 1933 until it was disbanded in 1941-42, for the war effort.
These are the precedents that can be taken right off of the shelf, and enacted immediately if we are able to take the Wall Street administration of Barack Obama, shut it down, shut down Wall Street. So, what we’ve done here at LaRouche PAC is, we’ve put together a programmatic sort of outline of exactly what has to be done along these lines in today’s terms, with an eye towards what is being done currently by countries such as China, such as their ally Russia, other nations of the BRICS, other countries in southern Asia — for example, India — and the program which is now become the official policy of the most populous nation on Earth, the so-called Silk Road. What China calls, One Belt One Road, or what originally was called the Eurasian Land-Bridge, when the LaRouche movement conceived of it over 20 years ago.
So, here to present a little bit of the details of this upcoming, forthcoming pamphlet — “The United States Must Join the Silk Road” — is LaRouche PAC Scientific Team leader Benjamin Deniston.
BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Matt. So I think we’ve mentioned this on a few of these broadcasts before, this new report. And to put it in context, we have the EIR full special report on the “New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” and about a month ago, in the process of her work organizing around that report internationally, Helga Zepp-LaRouche put out the call to develop somewhat of an addendum to that report, focused on the United States.
And her idea was that we have to move the U.S. population to fight for its future. And this is how we can do it. We have to give the American people a perspective for what it can mean for their own nation, their families, their legacy to join in this future orientation of the New Silk Road, the World Land-Bridge orientation. So we’ve been pulling together this addendum report as kind of a presentation of this thesis, to really try and give people a clear vision, a clear sense of what we can do with this country; if people decide to fight, if people decide to follow the actions we just heard. Especially now in this immediate day-to-day crisis conditions, we need to also bring to people a real positive conception, as Mr. LaRouche was actually saying emphatically earlier this week. We have to have a positive,— not just attacking the negative — but we have to have a new idea, a new concept, for what the future has to become. And that can give people the strength, the rallying point, to fight to win this fight right now.
So, I have a series of graphics here, and we can go to the first graphic, as a teaser for this report: some of the actual images directly from a draft version of this report, which will I think be available next week on LaRouche PAC. So here we have the cover — “The United States Joins the New Silk Road, a Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance.” [Fig. 1]
If we go to the next graphic [Fig. 2]: It’s broken into a couple main sections, but after the introduction, which covers some of the material which we already discussed here today, the first bulk section of the report is pretty much a reconstruction program for the United States. Something going along with what LaRouche has called for, for a return to true physical economy. We’re seeing the end of this speculative Wall Street system, the end of this fantasy of money having intrinsic value, the end of this speculative insane system, and if we’re going to survive, we need to return to a real conception of physical economics. How do we improve the physical capability to produce the goods needed for society? How do we increase our ability to more effectively, more efficiently produce what’s needed to sustain society at ever higher and higher levels? These have to, again, become the metrics for economics. Wall Street’s metrics are death; and we’re seeing that right now. So, we have to return to a conception of physical production, the physical productive powers of the labor force. How do you increase the ability of the labor force to produce more goods at a higher value and a higher quality with less labor power? These physical economic conceptions. And how do you build up the infrastructure of the nation to most efficiently facilitate that process for the national economy as a whole, as a single, integrated territory?
So, this is some of what is dealt with in this first section; and here is kind of an opening spread, as you can see in this image of a development perspective for the United States. I’m going to go through how each one of these elements are treated in slightly more detail in the next section of this report.
So, if we go to the next image[Fig. 3], we have, in one sense, kind of a keystone for this whole project. Something that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have been very much at the center of organizing for, for decades now. The long-standing proposal for a Bering Strait connection; connecting this relatively small gap between Alaska and Russia. Connecting that with a tunnel, perhaps a bridge, depending on whatever seems to be the best design; and connecting these two major land masses with high-speed rail systems. And this, in a sense literally, but also figuratively, connects the United States and North America directly into this entire New Silk Road orientation, this entire Eurasian Land-Bridge development which is now ongoing, as Matt referenced; this is ongoing. China is leading the way in building the New Silk Road program; extending it into other nations in collaboration with other nations — Russia, India, other major players throughout Eurasia. They’re pursuing this development of their interiors — high-speed rail, water projects, developing more power, more energy. And we can plug directly into this development orientation with the Bering Strait connection. A lot can be said on this project; it’s been on the books for a century, in conception. Now we have the perspective to actually do it; we can extend the rail network of the United States up to Alaska. Russia can extend through Siberia. We can build the connection across the Bering Strait; and we can actually connect these two land masses with this grand project, which will be a keystone for this whole development perspective for the coming time.
If we go to the next graphic [Fig. 4], this would connect directly into what we would need to build as a new high-speed rail system for the United States. Here we have displayed one particular two-phase proposal for the development of an actual modern, high-speed rail network for the United States. Our rail system currently in terms of passenger transport is almost nonexistent; we have a disastrous transportation system. So, if we’re talking about actually rebuilding the physical productive capabilities of the nation as a whole, this is going to be one critical element. Having an effective transportation system increases the physical economic potential of the national territory as a whole. Lowering the cost of transportation, increasing the speed of transportation, increasing the efficiency of transportation for goods and people as a medium to facilitate the increased productivity of the nation as a whole. So, this is going to be a major keystone project.
If we go to the next graphic [Fig. 5], we can see that this is not just about connecting the economy as it currently exists; but this will also open up the potential for the development of new territories. These rail lines you see here aren’t simply a means for getting from point A to point B; but they can also become new corridors of development. Creating corridors of high density of infrastructure, high-speed efficient transportation, canals and water projects as needed, electricity, power, communications. So, we can bring a high density corridor of all the basic advanced infrastructure needed for the development of entire new regions of the country. And I don’t have a graphic of it, but I’m sure many people are familiar with the distribution of population in the United States; and we have entire regions of the country which are virtually empty. Entire regions which have little to no development; so we have huge room and potential for the growth for the development of our territory, including the development of new cities — something that Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been campaigning for in the United States. The idea of actually building new Renaissance cities is part of this whole perspective; cities actually organized around the understanding of mankind as a creative force on this planet. Cities as cultural centers actually embodying and reflecting the conception of mankind which we need to rise to. Cities which actually inspire the population and encourage the population and push the population to rise to a higher cultural level; recognizing mankind as a creative force. The type of cities you saw in certain parts of the great 15th Century Renaissance, for example. We can actually be looking at, instead of disbursing our population in this terrible urban sprawl; we can actually have centralized, highly efficient scientific cultural cities, centered around a high density of creative focus, scientific focus, cultural focus. That’s the center of your city, your cultural process; and you build the city around that.
So, these are some of the things that — again, they’re treated in more detail in the report — but these are some of the basic elements that are just needed right now to save the United States. As Matt had referenced the historical precedent of Franklin Roosevelt, we’re going to need very similar actions in terms of actually retraining and rebuilding our labor force to do this. Just with what’s been put on the table already, this is going to be a major driver to force our nation, our people, to figure out how to re-industrialize our economy; to rebuild our productive capabilities. That means the physical productive capabilities themselves; but that also means the labor force itself, the actual skill set of the labor force itself. Things like a new CCC program to retrain an entire new generation with new skills, new capabilities; so they can become a part of this process of creating a new higher level for the economy for the United States. So, in a sense, this is going to force a driver program to rebuild an entire new generation as a highly productive, advanced section of the economy.
So, this is kind of the leading section of this addendum report, focused on rebuilding the United States. If we go to the next graphic [Fig. 6], we can see it is followed by a section on some of the science driver programs that are part of this whole perspective. Actually looking into pushing into the new frontiers beyond just rebuilding the nation with the available technologies, the available capabilities, and implementing what we have; but also looking into expanding the potential of the economy into new domains, into new levels.
In the next graphic [Fig. 7], we have a section on power, on energy, on energy-flux density. And the longstanding need to finally push for the development of fusion power; the longstanding need to explore, implement, and develop the domain of the nucleus — the nuclear economy. This is something that has been denied and suppressed for decades already now; we’re long past the time where we need to fully develop the capabilities of the nuclear domain for mankind. Giving us dramatically higher levels of energy-flux density; enabling us to power all these programs we’re talking about here, and many more programs. But also opening up a whole new domain of mankind’s ability to interact with the very nature of the universe itself. Moving man beyond just being limited to the domain of chemical reactions, and chemistry on a chemical domain; but moving into a nuclear domain. Not dealing with just the interactions of chemical elements; but dealing with being able to control the very chemical elements themselves on a nuclear level, which opens up whole new potentials for mankind.
This includes areas that are still anomalous — low-energy nuclear reactions, so-called “cold fusion”; hot fusion, advanced fusion power. There’s an entire new domain of potential that is just lying in wait for mankind to develop with this nuclear economy.
If you go to the next graphic [Fig. 8], we have the issue of water; the development of the water supply. And a lot can be said on this issue; there are many available options to develop the water resources needed: water transfer projects, along the line of the original NAWAPA project; proposals for desalination, the processing of ocean water to create new freshwater supplies. Those are available to us. We also need to look into the new frontier areas of being able to control the water cycle on a higher and more fundamental level; and this goes to what we’ve discussed with new methods for controlling the weather, controlling precipitation patterns.
As I said at the beginning, this was called for by Helga out of the need to move the US population; we have to give people a sense of what their potential future is. Not just getting jobs for people; there’s all this talk about jobs, the insanity of Green jobs. You have a bunch of these Presidential candidates still talking about Green jobs as if that would do something for the economy. What we’re talking about here, is giving people a sense of an actual higher level of the economy that we can build; a higher state of existence for the nation; that we can organize society around creating. And we can actually inspire and move our population to fight for this future; to fight for their own ability to have access to creating this new future.
And I think just to round it off, we were talking with Mr. LaRouche about this whole perspective earlier today; and I think what he had to say was also very important as a concluding point in this whole discussion. He said, we have to really go at the core issue; that in essence, underlying, we have these projects; we have the perspective for rebuilding the United States. We have to do this if we’re going to exist as a nation; there’s no ifs, ands, or buts about that. This is the future of our nation if we’re going to exist; returning to this orientation towards a physical economic approach to rebuilding our nation at a higher level. But in a sense, that is just an effect of something more fundamental; which is understanding mankind as the only species which can really do this. Understanding that this process, this ability to change the state of your species from state A to state B, to a higher order existence; is the most fundamental expression of what makes mankind unique as a living form on this planet.
And that, I think, gets at some of what Mr. LaRouche was saying earlier today about what’s happened over the past century; the disaster of the past century. That you had a fundamental attack on the economy, on the population, but also a fundamental attack on this most fundamental principle; the principle of understanding of human creativity. That there is something that the human mind can do uniquely that is the cause, that is the reason we can have these types of changes. That’s the reason we can have a higher population with a higher standard of living, higher population density, than we had before. Because mankind has the ability to create his own future; to create a higher level of existence for society. But where does that come from? You go to education today, people are taught that the human mind, the human brain is just an advanced computer; that thinking is just a deductive process, that the way that human beings think and discover things is essentially just an advanced form of a computer process. That even a basic understanding of human creativity as a distinct potential, as a distinct capability has been not just attacked, but virtually eliminated from society today. That the understanding that the human mind acts in a unique way which I think we don’t really understand yet, in a non-deductive, non-mathematical fashion to generate a new conception, a new discovery which didn’t come from the lower-order understanding; but is a new generation, but it’s that new generation which comes from the human mind itself which is the substance which enables mankind to move to a higher level.
I think that’s what we have to put up front; and this is part of a longstanding fight. If you just look back to the work of Kepler himself, the great genius who completely revolutionized mankind’s existence in the universe by discovering that we’re part of this higher order Solar System. And you look at Kepler’s own understanding of his own discovery process; and if you go to his works — go to the Harmony of the World — go to Book 4 of the Harmony of the World, where he says this is really the essence of my entire discovery process. Where he discusses the actual process of thought of discovery; and he, himself, roots his whole investigation in the continuity of the fight going back to the fight of Plato against Aristotle. The fight over whether the human mind actually generates new discoveries, or is just merely a product of sense perceptions. Kepler right then and there himself declares the evil of Aristotle’s view that the human mind is just a blank slate; that sense perceptions are just written on the human mind as a blank slate, and that’s all you are. That’s the nature of knowledge, is just the impressions upon you through your sense perceptions; which Aristotle posed as an attack against Plato’s idea of recollection, that discovery is more of a process, it’s almost as if the mind is remembering something it had within it. That discovery doesn’t come from sense perceptions from the outside, but there’s a potential in the human mind to generate something for which the potential was already there in the mind itself.
But then you have the fact that what the human mind can do in that regard, actually enables mankind to come to a higher state of coherence with the universe as a whole. And this is what Kepler himself, I think, developed in a new, higher order way in his conception of harmonics, of harmony; that he himself explicitly sided on the side of Plato and Socrates in this understanding of the human mind. He said quite frankly, Aristotle shouldn’t be allowed in the Christian religion; because his views are evil, his views deny this creative capability of the human mind. Kepler himself recognized that Plato was much closer to the truth, and that you have this ability of the human mind itself, of its own potential, to generate new conceptions which are not deductions, which are not mathematical processes; but as a creative process of the human mind. And the amazing thing is that those productions of the human mind itself, of itself and from itself, are the substance of what allows mankind to move to a higher state of organization of the universe; a higher state of coherence with the universe. And that, for Kepler, was the highest sense of harmony, of harmonics. And that’s the current of understanding of real human creativity that Einstein was coming out of; and as Mr. LaRouche has said, was the last hold-out against the attacks against this true understanding of human creativity.
So, I think this is the highest challenge we have in this whole process; that we have to rebuild our nation, we have to move society forward. We have to do it premised most fundamentally on the recognition of human creativity per se as the real force, the real substance of mankind’s ability to exist in the universe. And if we don’t win that fight, then the evil legacy of Russell will just continue to reign. So, I think that’s a challenge that we all have before us.
OGDEN: Thank you, Ben. Now let me just say in conclusion, just to reiterate the point that Mr. LaRouche made in the remarks that I read in the beginning, and what Jeff went over; what’s preventing this vision from becoming an actuality, is the slavish capitulation and acquiescence of the majority of our elected leaders — Congress and otherwise — to Wall Street, and to the wishes and the demands and the frankly extortion that representatives of Wall Street hold as their power over Washington. Now when you examine that though, it’s a ridiculous proposition, because Wall Street is bankrupt; Wall Street has no power. We’re in the midst of a total meltdown of the entire Wall Street-based system. And the only solution for the future of anybody in this country is to take the Franklin Roosevelt precedent and say, “You’re bankrupt; we’re shutting you down.” That’s done through Glass-Steagall and the entire program that’s laid out in this pamphlet, as was just reviewed by Ben.
Now, the other point I’ll make is that Mr. LaRouche has emphasized that the pivot point, the leverage point around which we can move and transform the entire country, is what he’s called the so-called “Manhattan Project”. The highly focused activation over the last 12, 13, 14 months of our association’s activities in Manhattan and the broader Manhattan region. Now one thing about this that many of you may be aware of, is that in addition to the regular Saturday afternoon discussions that Mr. LaRouche holds with a live audience in Manhattan, also this weekend, there will be a series of concerts which are going to be presented by the Schiller Institute Community Chorus of Manhattan, as well as co-sponsored by the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture; which will be presenting a large excerpt of Handel’s Messiah. The entire Part I, and much of Part II and Part III. The performance of this piece — which includes participation from a large array of activists and other volunteers from the New York area, as well as professional soloists and a very highly skilled orchestra — is that this performance will take place at the natural, scientific so-called “Verdi tuning” of A=432. And this is a very significant aspect of what Mr. LaRouche’s association’s intervention into a revival of true Classical culture in the United States and worldwide, is built around. So, one of the performances will be at a church tomorrow afternoon, Saturday afternoon in Brooklyn near the Park Slope area; and the other performance will take place early on Sunday afternoon in downtown Manhattan. So, if you are in the area, and you have not yet gotten the details about that, please make sure that you contact our representatives in the New York region.
So, with all of that said, I thank everybody for joining us here today. I especially thank Jeff and Ben for the presentations that they’ve made here; and I would implore you to keep your eyes glued on the LaRouche PAC website, as the updates on a regular basis over the next coming days and hours. So, thank you very much for joining us here tonight; please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.
LaRouche: Dvs., at der fra begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede og frem til i dag har været en fortsat degeneration mht. de økonomiske tendenser over længere tid i USA og Europa. Vi må derfor lukke alt dette ned, ikke alene Wall Street i USA, men i Canada, Storbritannien og mange dele af Europa: Luk det ned! Og gå tilbage til Franklin Roosevelts intention med sin reform, ved at lukke Wall Street ned og opbygge et nyt, økonomisk system.
Engelsk udskrift.
TRANSCRIPT
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s December 11, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden and you’re watching our weekly Friday night broadcast here from larouchepac.com. Tonight I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review and by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC scientific team, and the three of us did have a chance to have a sit-down conversation with both Mr. and Mrs. Helga LaRouche earlier today.
Now, that discussion was largely a development on a very important policy statement that Mr. LaRouche made last night, and for those of you who had the opportunity to participate in the Fireside Chat discussion last night, you had a chance to hear Mr. LaRouche’s remarks live. But what I would like to do during this initial stage of the broadcast here tonight, is to go through in fairly substantial detail what Mr. LaRouche’s remarks were last night, as sort of a statement of policy right up front here, to begin tonight’s broadcast: In order to put these remarks on the record, and to underscore what Mr. LaRouche’s marching orders are for the present moment.
Now Mr. LaRouche said that we are clearly seeing a current tendency of a handful of decent senior people in both the Republican Party and in the Democratic Party, who are beginning to distinguish themselves as potential sources of qualified leadership, and these are persons who could, under the correct leadership, be brought together into a sort of unified organization to create a functional government in this nation. On the Republican side, you see the huge backlash against the outrageous and frankly fascist statements that were made earlier this week by Donald Trump, and as Mr. LaRouche said last night, disliking Trump is curiously a virtue among Republicans. And he emphasized that Trump is very dangerous, and absolutely must be dumped.
And then on the Democratic side, you have those who are now increasingly allying themselves openly against what both Obama and Hillary represent. So Mr. LaRouche said that if we can take these elements from both of the political parties, and, granted, these are persons who might not agree with each other on everything, but if we can find common ground when it comes to at least the core fundamental principles which are required to save this nation, and if we can unite those elements around these core fundamental principles, then we can create a team which will be qualified to confront the urgent crisis that is now facing the United States.
And let me just read a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche said in his own words, to underscore this:
“That is urgent. That is not a choice, that is an urgent command. Because we’re on the edge, of possibly going into a horrible situation. It’s building up fast and we’ve got to take charge. The people of the United States have to take charge on the basis, of the right people from the Democratic side and the right people, from the Republican side. That is what we must stick to, right now.”
Now this doesn’t mean,” Mr. LaRouche said, that you’re going to have a perfect organization. “It does mean that we can bring together these two major elements of our nation. But, that is still not good enough. On top of this, we’ve got to shut down Wall Street. We’ve got to shut it down right away. You can’t leave it. You’ve got to get rid of it. Get rid of Wall Street, period. Because everything you do to try to defend any part of Wall Street, means that you’re killing Americans. And I’m sure you don’t want to do that.
“Now, among Republicans and Democrats who are sane, and human, unlike the other type, the different type, this will work.”
Then, Mr. LaRouche continued: “What we have to do, is make a fundamental change, from everything that most people in this nation have learned. That is, beginning with the 20th Century policy, and up to the present time, there has been a continuous degeneration, in terms of long-term trends of the United States and European economy. Therefore, we must shut down everything that is like, not only the Wall Street system in the United States, but in Canada, in Britain, and in many parts of Europe: Shut it down! And go back to what Franklin Roosevelt had intended, for his reform, by closing down Wall Street and building up a new system of economy.
“But no more of any of this thing. No deals! No deals for Donald Trump. No deals for Hillary Clinton. No deals for any people of those categories.”
We’re going to get two teams together, Mr. LaRouche said. The Democrats and Republicans and some other people who are fit to serve, and we’re going to get what Franklin Roosevelt aimed to do, when he did it in the 1930s. That’s our policy. There’s a certain element of shambles in this whole thing when we do it, I mean, decent Republicans and decent Democrats don’t always agree; they don’t even have the same agenda. But we have to take that part of the policy, build the organization around that, get some degree of unity among those two elements I’ve indicated, and do the best we can to build up from there.
Now later in the discussion on the Fireside chat last night, Mr. LaRouche responded to a question and he emphasized that what he laid out in the initial phase of that discussion, is something that absolutely can be done. He said, because there are people in our nation who are senior, and very important people in terms of their political and economic functions in the United States — and Mr. LaRouche mentioned that he’s in both direct and indirect dialogue with persons of that caliber. And Mr. LaRouche said that what he’s observed over the recent period, is that there’s been a phenomenon of a sort of division among this group of people, because they haven’t been able to figure out the formula for unity, unity among those people who are prepared to make a reasonable agreement in order to save the United States as a viable organization, but he said that what his obligation is, is to concentrate on what that element, what that recipe for unity is.
And this is how he said it has to be done:
“Once we decide, that a significant number, among the Republican members of the organization, and the Democratic Party part, minus Wall Street and minus what Hillary’s trying to do, and under those conditions, you will find that we have a possibility of a very sudden turnabout, where doubtful people are no longer going to be doubtful. Because if we can bring together that kind of unity, around those kinds of considerations, we are able to pull the United States population together around this issue.
“A lot of people will still disagree, but we have a hard core, of both Republicans and Democrats and the thinking that goes with that, and that is the best thing we can possibly do at this time. It’s from that point of view, if we start that, then a lot of other development can be obtained.”
So, at the conclusion of last night’s discussion, what Mr. LaRouche said was the following:
“The time has come, to take Democrats and Republicans who fit the sanity test, and get them into motion. Because if we can get an agreement within a significant part of the totality of our own Presidency, and spill that same spirit, into other countries which we deal with, I think we can make a good headway quickly, and it’s one which is very much needed….
“Therefore, instead of worrying about blaming people who are making mistakes — without question, making terrible mistakes — you’ve got to take the people, who as a group, will build a force which will spread its influence throughout other parts of the United States.
“Because if you just sit and say, ‘We’ve got a terrible situation out there, it ain’t going to work. It’s not working.’ You’re just asking for the worst kind of effect. You have to get in there, form organization, focus on your issues, and get people together on those issues. Without that, everything you will say will become a waste of time! And we don’t want that.
“We want our citizens, to recognize that what I’m talking about, as some Republicans, a significant number of Republicans, and that’s a late reform; and some other members of the House, are thinking a little more seriously now.
“What you’ve got to do is focus on encouraging, those forces, to become unified forces, with a unified conception of what has to be done! Without that we’re dead. So just complaining and denouncing people will not work. It just makes things worse. You’ve got to get people on the issues that mean something to them! Real issues!
“I need to get Republicans, who are decent, but who are not necessarily very accurate right now; we’ve got to bring them into the fold. We’ve got to do the same thing in other parts of the nation. We’ve got to bring the people together. We’re not going to get them all there at once, in one big swoop. But we can organize very rapidly; there are intelligent people, members of the Congress many of them; members of the House of Representatives; other kinds of people like that; and we have a force.
“Our job now is to bring those willing people, who are willing to do that, and bring them together and enlarge the growth of their movement.”
So, that was Mr. LaRouche’s very clear statement of policy last night, and I wanted to go through it in detail, because it’s very important that it go on record, and that it be underscored in terms of what Mr. LaRouche’s outlook is at the current time.
Now, earlier today, as I mentioned, when we had a chance to meet with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, the discussion developed from there, based off of what Mr. LaRouche had to say last night. And the discussion developed in the context of the following question which I’m about to read, and which I’m going to ask Jeff to elaborate a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche’s answer was. This our institutional question for the week, and it reads as follows:
“Mr. LaRouche, the European Union’s Executive on Thursday stepped up pressure on the Bloc’s governments to enforce migration rules, launching a legal case against Hungary’s stringent asylum law, and advancing steps against Italy, Greece, and others for failing to implement EU legislation. In your view, how should the European Union manage the refugee crisis, emanating from multiple conflicts in countries such as Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan?”
So, I’ll ask Jeff to come to the podium at this point.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. The response by Mr. LaRouche was very immediate, very rapid, and very clear. He said, the problem emanates from the European Union itself, and the only viable solution for Europe is to break up the European Union itself. It’s become a factor chaos in all of Europe, and the basic policies of the European Union are creating the conditions for effectively the sealing-off of the borders of the entire European territory from desperate people, fleeing the wars in places like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, which have been creations of the policies coming from the United States and from Europe over the course of the last 15 years — really, the problems go back even earlier. In effect, the Afghan operation began in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was still President of the United States, and Zbigniew Brzezinski was the National Security Adviser, taking his cue from a high-level British intelligence figure named Dr. Bernard Lewis.
That was the beginning of the promotion of the terrorist apparatus, that at the time was known as the Afghan mujahideen. They were called freedom fighters. A number of years later, they were known as al-Qaeda, and more recently, they’ve morphed into other even more virulent forms, such as the Islamic State.
So, the policies that have come out of the trans-Atlantic region, including policies emanating from the European Union, have been catastrophic, and they’ve brought the entire trans-Atlantic system to a point of absolute breakdown.
Now, at the same time that we’ve seen this policy of building a wall around the European region, and of creating the conditions for widespread deaths of desperate refugees trying to get into Europe, to escape the ravages of the war in Libya, for example, which came about because Britain, France, and the United States, Cameron, Sarkozy, and Obama — with a very strong endorsement from Hillary Clinton, unfortunately — overthrew and assassinated Libyan leader Qaddafi, and opened the floodgates for a jihadist stronghold on the Mediterranean shores of the Maghreb region of Africa.
Weapons flowed out of that area, into Syria, fueling the rise of the Islamic State. So Europe, particularly Britain and France, with the full complicity of the Obama Administration in the United States, created that refugee crisis in Northern Africa. Similarly, the United States and Britain created the catastrophes in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and it’s been the regime change policy of Washington and London to overthrow the Assad government in Syria, that’s led to the rise of the Islamic State, and created yet another major refugee flow into Europe.
So the European Union’s policy of shutting out those desperate people, is basically a condemnation of those people to mass death.
Now, internally within Europe itself, over the past week, we’ve seen four major banks in Italy go bankrupt, and under the policies adopted by the European Union and the European Central Bank, those banks have looted their depositors’ funding in a massive bail-in operation, which has meant the impoverishment of scores of citizens, hundreds, thousands of citizens of Italy, who thought their money was protected under the guideline rules of the European Union, only to find that the Cyprus model of bail-in has looted their accounts. There’s now an ongoing criminal investigation in Italy, because one of the depositors who had his entire life savings looted, committed suicide, and there’s an appropriate investigation now underway, as to the fact that the policies of the European Union, the European Commission, and the ECB, acted upon by the leading management of those banks, was a direct cause for a death.
So, you’re talking about a capital offense having been carried out.
This is the legacy of the European Union. And what Mr. LaRouche said, is that the theft of funds in Italy, along with the sealing-off of the European borders, is a worse form of fascism than we’ve seen since the end of World War II. And the same exact trend is in existence in the United States, under the top-down direction of Wall Street. He said, when you take people’s lives away, this is an act of mass murder, and this is an act of a policy of outright fascism. Wall Street, London fascism.
We’ve seen similar things going on in Greece. And therefore, the starting point for any kind of solution, for Europe in particular, is that you’ve got to destroy the European Union. Whatever benefit some people may have argued in the past, may have been associated with the EU, are now vastly overshadowed by the damage and negative factors. Bail-in as a policy is unforgivable. We already have bail-in in Europe. We already have bail-in in the United States — it’s yet to be acted upon, but it’s there, imbedded in Dodd-Frank, in Article 2 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Anyone involved in these policies deserves to be immediately pushed into jail, immediately. These are mass kill policies. These same mass kill policies are playing out in Paris at the COP-21 forum, and an outright mass genocidalist, Hans Joachim Schellnhüber, one of the leading advisors to the Pope on this issue of global warming, is calling for the Pope to step in and make a “religious intervention” to salvage the COP-21 conference, because leading nations in the developing sector are saying, “This is flat out a policy of genocide; we will not go along with it.” Malaysia, India, in particular, have taken the lead on this issue.
Now, the policies that we’re discussing, in the case of the European Union, are being carried out with the same ferocity here in the United States. And what we’re seeing, in terms of the reaction against the [Dec. 2 mass killing] incident that took place in San Bernardino, California, the overall blanket condemnation of Islam, the stoking up of this hatred ,on the part of Donald Trump, among others, is a further indication of the degeneration of the entire political situation.
Now, as Matt said earlier, quoting Mr. LaRouche from his Fireside Chat on Thursday night, there are clearly people of good will in both political parties, who’ve got to, basically, forge a non-partisan political alliance. We’ve got to clean out the garbage, and we’ve got to create the condition where the Presidential election in 2016 represents a return to core principles upon which this nation was founded. Many people are familiar with the first President of the United States, George Washington’s Farewell Address, from the standpoint of his warnings against foreign entanglements. But, in that same Farewell Address, George Washington warned against the tyranny of political parties, the tyranny of factionalism and sectionalism, and those warnings ring more true today, than perhaps at any point in recent memory.
Now, you’ve got some serious members of Congress, both the House and the Senate, and it’s not surprising that the areas where there is already common collaboration, are areas that are the most relevant to the issues that Mr. LaRouche put on the table, namely, wiping out Wall Street, and wiping out the power of the British Empire system, which still dominates the trans-Atlantic region. You’ve got a large and growing numbers of members of both the House and the Senate, who are supporting the idea of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, which would be an efficient means of bankrupting Wall Street, in one fell swoop.
Many of those same members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are also demanding the release of the 28 pages from the original 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, the September 11, 2011 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Remember, that those 28 pages catalog the role of the Saudi royal family, the role of Saudi intelligence, the role of the Saudi Ambassador at that time to the United States, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, in financing the hijackers who carried out the greatest terrorist atrocity on U.S. soil in recorded history.
So, there are movements that strike at the heart of the problems that are facing this nation and are facing the world — that combination of people, many of them in Congress, others in the military and intelligence domain, former leading military figures, like [ret. Lieut.-]Gen. Michael Flynn, who we’ve talked about repeatedly in recent weeks on this broadcast. Michael Flynn was in Moscow this week, speaking at the 10th Anniversary Conference of RT, along with a number of other prominent American critics of the Anglo-American policy.
And Gen. Flynn correctly emphasized that to destroy ISIS, to defeat the Islamic State decisively, there must be cooperation between the United States and Russia. Others, leading retired military and intelligence figures, have come out publicly and said there must be a joint, unified, military command, conducted by the United States and Russia. Russia is an invited power that’s been asked in to Syria to help the Syrian government to fight the Islamic State. The United States has been, similarly, invited into Iraq, to do the same thing, until our invitation runs out. If there were a joint effort, the United States launching a pincer attack from the Iraq side, Russia launching a pincer attack with Syrian military forces from the Syrian side, you could crush the Islamic State. You could decisively defeat it.
So, there are people who are thinking strategically. We’ve got to take all of those elements, and create the kind of team that can coalesce around a viable American Presidency. And that both can and must happen, in the immediate period ahead. Trump, Hillary Clinton — these are not viable figures. They’ve demonstrated that repeatedly in the recent period. President Obama is not a viable figure. I had meetings, just in the past week, where a number of leading figures were expressing grave concern that the United States will not survive, if Obama remains in office for the next 13 months. There are people now who are openly discussing the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment. We talked about this last week.
Many people were shocked to see President Obama’s psychological meltdown on three recent occasions: first, you had the joint press conference with French President [François] Holland, following the Paris attacks of November 13th, where Holland was clearly in a frame of mind of marshalling for war, and President Obama was disassociated, disconnected, and thoroughly emotionally blocked, on the greatest challenge facing the trans-Atlantic region, in memory. Then in Paris, at the CO-P21 conference, where the [series of coordinated terrorist attacks] that took place on Nov. 13th in Paris, were trumping the issues that were nominally on the table, around “global warming.” Obama’s [Nov. 16th] press conference in Paris was shocking, in terms of the level of disassociation from reality. And so people became openly alarmed. And then, again, last Sunday evening, when the President dragged a podium and a teleprompter into the Oval Office, to deliver what was supposed to be a rallying cry for a war against the Islamic State, after the attacks in San Bernardino. And, once again, it was a disconnected, disassociated, policy statement that had nothing in it of any content.
People are talking about the need for the 25th Amendment. It’s been out in the media. Behind the scenes in Congress, it’s being discussed intensively, to the point that President Obama dispatched [Senior Advisor to the President] Valerie Jarret to Capitol Hill this week, to basically tell Democrats that the Republicans are getting ready for impeachment, and that the Democrats better be prepared to rally behind Obama. This is absolute nonsense, but indicates a further level of paranoia, emanating from the inner circle at the White House.
So, this Presidency has to be ended, using Constitutional means. And, frankly, at this point, the 25th Amendment is far more viable as a means to do it. Either members of Cabinet, or leaders of the Congress, can take action to convene a review, and immediately suspend the Obama Presidency, and move on from there. This is both necessary and vital for avoiding the kind of war danger which continues to emanate from this White House; even as military figures like General Flynn, like former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, echo warnings that we are closer to a thermonuclear war of annihilation than we were even at the height of the Cold War.
So these are real issues. You can’t tolerate the continuation of this existing system; whether it’s in the European Union case or it’s in the case of the Obama Presidency. We need the kind of change that is only going to come about from this sort of rallying of a nonpartisan grouping of leading figures who don’t think of themselves any longer as Democrats or Republicans; but as responsible leaders of a republic facing its gravest crisis in recent history. If we can do that, if we can marshal those forces, with the proper mobilization of you, the citizens of this country, we can get through this crisis and turn things around. But anything short of that, leaves us dangerously on the edge of destruction.
OGDEN: Thank you Jeff. What I read from Mr. LaRouche earlier was sort of a thesis along which lines we were going to follow through on the course of the remainder of this broadcast. And I want to call your attention to one short part of those remarks that I did read, but I want to underscore as sort of an introduction to the next segment of what you’re about to see. One thing that Mr. LaRouche said last night is the following: “What we have to do is make a fundamental change from everything that most people in this nation have learned. That is, beginning with the 20th Century policy and up to the present time, there has been a continuous degeneration in terms of long-term trends of economy and culture.”
Now, last week, at the concluding of the webcast, as an introduction to Benjamin Deniston’s segment, I referenced another very important statement that Mr. LaRouche delivered at the conclusion of his previous Fireside Chat; the one of last Thursday, on the topic of how history actually works in terms of mankind’s obligation to willfully generate his own future. In order to set up what Jason Ross is going to present to us in the remainder of this broadcast tonight, I would actually like to read that statement in full; what Mr. LaRouche had to say on this subject last week. What Mr. LaRouche said was the following:
“There is no such thing as an evolutionary process of development of human culture. There are effects which occur at certain times, but then suddenly, the whole culture collapses; vanishes. Then, somebody else arrives and stimulates something new, and gives mankind another chance at progress. And our job is to understand this question of progress; and progress is not an evolutionary process. It’s always a revolutionary process; it is never evolutionary. And everybody who is sitting around waiting for a revolutionary process is just kidding themselves. A revolution of that type has to be an act of genius, which comes as if from nowhere; but that’s the way mankind succeeds. And I’m looking for people who will do that kind of work, and become the geniuses who cause the future to be reborn again.”
So, let me ask Jason to speak on that subject.
JASON ROSS: All right; thanks. One key figure who LaRouche has pointed to for understanding this notion of breaks, of jumps, of revolutions in human self-conception and in the history of our species, is Filippo Brunelleschi. Who, along with Cusa and Kepler, was one of the three real founders of modern science. I’m going to read another quote from LaRouche; this is from the show this Monday. LaRouche had said, “Most of human history is breaks; breaks in human history, and evil periods and broken periods came into existence in the history. And so then, what Brunelleschi did was, he brought in a concept of science which is unique in terms of what is known today. Most people who were educated in this have no comprehension whatsoever of what Brunelleschi did. It’s all available there for people if they were to study it enough; and it was brilliant, it was absolutely unique. And so, I would say, the problem is that in our location itself, and in other locations, the lack of understanding of the work of Brunelleschi is the reason for the source of stupidity shown by even many of our own members on this. And therefore, it’s extremely important that we realize that we are facing a great challenge threatening us. And the Obama administration is an example of the great danger to the existence of the human species. And this kind of thing, which is expressed by the work of Brunelleschi, is actually the solution; the key to the solution to understand actually how things were intended to work.” What I’d like to do tonight is help give some background to the point that Mr. LaRouche is making by going through some of what Brunelleschi did in his life, and then come to some conclusions from that about intent and about shaping history today.
So, Brunelleschi himself — he lived from 1377 to 1446 — what he’s most known for is the construction of this magnificent dome [Fig. 1]. What you see here is the dome of the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiori in Florence. You can just see from this picture, this is far larger; it dominates the entire city. It’s an incredible accomplishment. And you might be able to make out, standing on top of the red dome at the base of the white lantern as it’s called which tops it, there are people there, standing at a railing which may not even be visible as more than a pixel to you. It gives some sense of how tall this structure is. At the top of that gold ball on the top, which Da Vinci helped create, it rises higher than the US Capitol. This is an enormous building; and it was built over the period of the 1300s and 1400s.
So, to give a little bit of background about the other things that Brunelleschi did as a very frankly, universal genius, I want to step through some other things in his life. These aren’t in chronological order, but I want to give a sense of what he did, to then come back to the dome. Among his accomplishments was the purported first construction of a spring-based watch, so you could actually have a clock that was based on springs, as opposed to weights, as they were made at the time. I’m not really entirely certain that that was done. He did work on perspective; he had created a sort of a “trick” painting that incorporated a mirror; so that if you stood in the right place, you would have an effect where the mirror would become part of the painting. To show his work in sculpting — if we see the next image — he was officially apprenticed as a goldsmith, which is the same occupation that Donatello, his friend the great sculptor, took up. Verrocchio, who was Da Vinci’s mentor, Da Vinci himself; these were goldsmiths. Here you see one of his first projects, which was on the right [Fig. 2] a panel he submitted for a competition to design a set of doors for the Baptistry in Florence there. He didn’t win; this was one of his first tries at getting a commission, but this is from him early in life. You get a sense of what kind of skill he had.
The next image [Fig. 3], we see a painting in Santa Maria Novella in Florence by a colleague of Brunelleschi’s; this is by Masaccio, and it’s painting of the Trinity. You may not notice, but there’s a dove there as the Holy Spirit in between the Father in the back and Christ in the front. This is the first painting that really used perspective, so that on the flat wall of the church, you had a space that was created there; where the boundary, the type of the medium was broken. And something flat turned into something solid. Leon Battista Alberti, later the writer of a very famous book on painting, credited Brunelleschi with the invention of perspective. And this is the work of one of his colleagues.
We see in the next image [Fig. 4], on the left we see an image of a crucifix, Christ on the cross that was made by Donatello. Brunelleschi saw it, and he said that he didn’t really think Donatello had done a good enough job; he thought that Christ looked a little too “meaty” — that wasn’t the word he used. But Donatello said all right; well, you take a shot at it, knowing that this wasn’t exactly Brunelleschi’s foremost skill as a sculptor. But Brunelleschi created the image you see on the right [Fig. 5], and in Donatello’s eyes, it was superior.
The next image, we see a building that he had designed [Fig. 6]; this is a very nice looking building. It’s got what’s called a loggia on the front; a sort of porch, the sort of thing you would see on the front of the house of a wealthy Roman from the height of the Roman Empire, or in Venice. This is a building for orphans, this is the Ospedale degli Innocenti; and da Vinci brought that humanist approach to the beauty of the individual in constructing this building for orphans, where a decision could have been made to do this on the cheap. Let’s throw up something that looks like it might have come out of East Germany in more recent times; but no, this is what he created.
The next image [Fig. 7], we see the interior of a church, Santo Spirito, which was designed by Brunelleschi; and although it’s difficult to get a sense of space when you see still images, these are buildings which give you a sense of goodness and beauty walking through them. They’re beautiful buildings. One more beautiful building we see here in the next image [Fig. 8], is the exterior — unfortunately this is the outside of the Pazzi Chapel that LaRouche has made frequent reference to. Inside the chapel, which was designed by Brunelleschi, there is a really astonishing quality of sound; reverberation, echo, but not simply echo. As LaRouche has put it, if you sing to it, it sings back to you. And I’d like to read some words from the Italian soprano Antonella Banaudi, who spoke about this chapel in a conference of the Schiller Institute in Berlin in 2012. Banaudi said, “I recently went to the Pazzi Chapel in Florence; the Florence of Brunelleschi and Ficino. In its naked proportion and simplicity, in the balance of light and colors, it gave a beautiful resonance to the sound of my voice. A demonstration that it is the proportion, the idea translated into construction, that resonates inside of us. The emotion I felt in hearing a response from the stone that almost supported me in singing; as if the stone were alive and expressing itself through cosmic vibration, made me feel part of a whole that unites stone and man in a harmony that is the reason for the existence for everything. It is the same harmony that we seek and experience when singing together, playing together, participating in a sort of rite or celebration that is beyond religion and is profoundly moral and human.” Pretty good endorsement for a singing space.
So now, let’s come back to the dome; I’d like to talk about its background and creation. The first stone was laid for its construction back in 1296, and construction was continuing through the 1300s; at a time when Florence saw a great period of growth. In 1367, there was a referendum on how to build the cathedral. I know I’ve got local things that come up on the ballot, like school bonds, or things like that. Imagine having this to vote on. There was a referendum for two designs for the cathedral, which at that time was certainly nowhere near complete. And the referendum was to vote between the structure you see here, which is obviously the one that won the referendum. The alternative approach was one that had a different idea of building. You see on the cathedral here, the windows are very small; this is not a bright cathedral on the inside. It’s very spacious, it’s enormous; but there’s not a lot of natural light coming in through those huge stained glass windows that you might associate with the beginning of the cathedral movement in Europe. Those cathedrals with the huge windows, given that they had a lot of glass and not a lot of stone to hold the building up, had those arches on the outside — the flying buttresses to hold it in. But the vote on this referendum, which Brunelleschi’s father voted in, and he voted for this design which eventually won; was to forego the windows for a more beautiful design of the building as a whole. And it laid out some requirements for the dome.
At the time, no one knew how to build the dome, but its general height was proposed; the height of that ring above the height of the rest of the cathedral to the dome was set. So, this occurred in 1367. To give a couple of numbers, the cathedral is 140 feet tall; the timbre, that extra ring before the dome starts, is another 30 feet tall; and then the dome itself goes to 300 feet with another 70 or so for the lantern and the ball and cross on top of it.
Brunelleschi was born ten years after this referendum in 1377. He lived a few blocks from the cathedral; he would have — you couldn’t have missed this obviously, if you lived in Florence anywhere. But living only a few blocks from it, he saw this every day; he saw the construction taking place. This is the kind of thing that would cause a young person to have an incredible sense of wonder. So, as he became a more accomplished sculptor, artist, architect, goldsmith, he entered later in his life, in 1418, another competition. And this was the competition to become the contractor, so to speak, to build the dome.
Now, there’s a lot of difficulty in terms of how you would build the dome; and it raised a very important question of construction. So in the next image [Fig. 9], you see a typical sort of Roman dome; you can barely even see that there’s anything going on there. This is the Pantheon; and you can see there’s a bit of a pimple or something sticking out of the top of it. That dome is about as wide as the one in Florence, but you can barely see it; it’s in the shape of a sphere. It’s 23 feet thick at the base, where the dome starts to come out of the rest of the building; that’s how thick they had to make it to hold itself up, and the way it was built — Let’s see the next image [Fig. 10] for a similar example of construction. If you thing about the images — maybe you’ve seen Roman aqueducts with the semi-circular arches along the way — the way that they’re built, this is the Pont du Gare in today’s France. The way that these arches were built was that you built a scaffolding underneath while you built the circular arch; and once the whole arch was done, and you put the keystone on top, then it would support itself. The two parts that are trying to lean inward on the two sides could lean against each other and hold themselves up. So, here you can see this type of construction being applied to an arch today in the next image [Fig. 11]. This is in Morocco. You can see there’s scaffolding.
Now, the dome is very large. It would have been impossible to build scaffolding under the dome. It began at the height of 170 feet; there are no trees that tall. This is beyond the height of trees. So, if you’re trying to put up a bunch of posts to go underneath this thing to hold up the dome as you’re building it, you’re not going to get enough wood. It would have taken 1000 trees anyway, even if you could have big enough ones; it was basically impossible. So, what Brunelleschi had done in this competition is, he said it’s not an issue. I’ll build this dome without scaffolding. I’ll build this dome without centering, he said.
So, people asked him, “How are you going to do this?” He actually responded with a joke. I don’t know if it’s a true story about him, but a story about an egg, where he said, here’s the challenge; how do you make an egg stand up on its base. And Brunelleschi took the cooked egg and just cracked it down, flattening the bottom, and said, “There you go; see? The egg stands up just fine.” And they said, “Well, if we knew that, we could have put the egg up.” And he said, “Exactly. I know how to build this dome, and you don’t. So, you’re not going to understand it, but I can do it. I’m your man.”
In the construction, he developed a number of new techniques. So, I’m going to talk about the overall shape of the dome; and Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized the importance of the catenary principle in this. The catenary is just a word that means chain; it just means chain-ish. So, the catenary, the shape of a hanging chain, it’s a shape that’s not coming from geometry, it’s not in Euclid; you can’t make it with a compass and a straight edge, the kinds of things you do in geometry class. It’s a physical shape that’s made by a physical thing — a chain; it’s something real and physical. It has a different kind of curvature in every spot of it; and LaRouche sees in Brunelleschi’s use of this principle in the construction of the dome, that Brunelleschi rejected the idea of linearity in the small. That in the infinitesimal, there’s always an activeness to it; it’s not flat, it’s not linear.
In building this dome, let’s take a look at some of the technologies Brunelleschi developed. In addition to being a sculptor and a goldsmith, he was also a very good contractor. The next image [Fig. 12], you see a crane that he had developed. If you’re lifting a bunch of material up to the top of this dome, you don’t want to be carrying it up all those steps. If you imagine you’re carrying every brick up these steps, that would be a very grueling and tiring way to build this. So what he did was, he repurposed, he developed a new way to use a winch system to lift material. Before him, they used cables to lift things up, but they would use people, because people could turn around more easily than animals. So before Brunelleschi, they used basically a giant hamster wheel with people in it, a treadmill. And people would run in it, and that would twist the cranks and lift the bucket up; and when it came time to bring it down, they’d run the other way. The difficulty of using animals — this is a picture of a horse by da Vinci [Fig. 13], but oxen were used is, you can’t make them go backwards; they don’t like to turn around. So, here you see a transmission. Brunelleschi built this with two sets of pegs on the vertical axis to connect to the horizontal one, where you’d change the height of it, and you could make it go forward or in reverse without making the animals change direction. So, what a guy.
In the next image [Fig. 14], you see an interior schematic of the dome itself, where here we see another chain. Four stone chains, a wooden chain which you can see inside the cathedral today, and a metal chain which is believed to exist. Sort of like the hoops around a barrel to hold it in, Brunelleschi built in these chains to help hold in the dome. This let him build it very thin, and actually surprising light. Unlike the dome of the Pantheon, which was 23 feet thick at its base, the inner dome that Brunelleschi built was only 7 feet thick; and the outer dome — the one that you see on the outside of the building — is only 2 feet thick at its base, which is pretty astonishing.
So another aspect we see in the next image [Fig. 15] is the brickwork which Brunelleschi used. Rather than flat layers of brick, where the bricks would basically fall off or cave in, Brunelleschi didn’t know how sheer lines; and with this space that you see here, this is the space between the inner and outer dome that you walk through to get up to the top. This was a new technique that required 4 million bricks; these were custom shaped bricks; all different sizes. He made these bricks very well; he’d season them for two years before he’d bake them. This was a major, major undertaking.
So, the dome is under construction; it takes over a decade and a half. The Pope himself comes to announce that it’s complete. The Council of Florence, which I think people who are familiar with Mr. LaRouche’s work will have heard of; this important council to pull for unanimity and to resolve religious differences, was held here in Florence with this cathedral. Which I’m sure had an amazing impact on the participants. If you’re trying to think through what’s the relationship of God and man; and you’re in this incredible, astonishing, unbelievable construction, I think that’ll have an effect on what you believe man’s identity to be, for sure.
So, shortly after that, Brunelleschi died. The white lantern on the top made of marble — and this terrified people living in the area, because that’s tons and tons and tons of marble. They were amazed that the dome was up at all; when it came time to bring even more weight up on top, to add the marble on those ribs, to add the marble for the lantern, people thought it was going to crack, it was going to break. Obviously, it didn’t; it’s still here. In 1461 it was completed, and as I mentioned, da Vinci was part of the crew that helped build that golden ball that you see at the very top there. So, this takes us from Brunelleschi into da Vinci.
That other image you saw of the light on the ground, in 1475, Toscanelli put a plate inside the lantern to have a nice spotlight come down from the Sun. Since this was the tallest structure around — the top of the lantern is 370 feet up — this is a very good solar observatory. So, you’re able to get a very good sense of how the Sun is moving to correct the length of the year, you have a sense of the timing of the seasons. And this is the kind of thinking that went into Toscanelli’s collaboration with Columbus, and providing him with maps, and the whole voyage to the New World.
So, that’s some about Brunelleschi; let’s talk about the implications for today, briefly. In his approach, Brunelleschi — if you think about in the way that LaRouche like to talk about science vs. mathematics today, for example, if you compare the physical structure built by Brunelleschi to the geometry of the Pantheon, which was just a hemisphere, circle shape, those other arches in the Roman aqueduct. They served their purpose, but they’re very much a shape that’s conceived and then you figure out how to bring it into being. Brunelleschi started with the physical space he was working with, and went from geometry into physics; in a way like what real physics is, as compared to Euclid. In the same way that Kepler, taking the insights from Brunelleschi’s work, taking the insights from Cusa’s work, approached astronomy; from the standpoint not of shapes but of the physical causes that brought about the motions of the planets. Of gravitation, of the need for harmony; this was Kepler’s approach. It was the approach of Leibniz, who, unlike the math and geometry based ideas of motion in physics that came from Descartes; Leibniz said, “No, forget it. We can’t understand the physical world by how it appears to us,” by geometry and by shape. There’s something more there; there’s something physical that’s distinct from the perceptual or from extension and shape and geometry. Leibniz discovered what we would today understand as the force of motion; what he called vies viva, what today people would call kinetic energy.
You think about what Riemann did, where he in his Habilitation dissertation of 1854 said what Gauss knew but didn’t really way, when he said, “Look; we have been using ideas of mathematics and geometry to shape our thinking, but we don’t even know if it’s based on something that’s true.” Are the idea of geometry that we base everything else on, are they true? Is space flat? How would we answer that question? And what did Riemann say? He said, in that tradition of Brunelleschi, get out of geometry; look to physics. In the small, things are happening; it’s something physical, but it’s not a shape you can just imagine.
So, with these kinds of jumps that we saw, with Brunelleschi’s character as a person, he had certain achievements. But what he did was, he made new things happen; that was his personality. He did new things; they don’t happen on their own, he made the leaps. So, think about the kinds of leaps we need to make today. Some of the leaps, like leaping over the crap; throwing out Obama, dumping Trump. And then there are the leaps upward, besides leaping over the pits; the leaps upward, things like developing fusion power. We don’t know how the nucleus works; there’s so much unknown about it. What’s occurring with low-energy nuclear reactions; will that be a viable source of power? Maybe. Will it be an insight into what’s actually going on in the nucleus? Yes. What will it mean to have a fusion power basis for our economy? How will that change our relationship to materials, to resources, to water, when we can produce all we want and not worry about shortages of materials anymore?
What do we have to learn about the galaxy, where the limits of Newtonian gravity are making themselves very apparent with the inventions of dark matter and dark energy to try to keep the old law in place while accounting for new things that don’t fit them? What are we actually going to learn? What are we going to learn about water? About the ability to control water cycles here on Earth? What’s role of the galaxy, of the Sun, in changing how the atmosphere responds to the formation of clouds, to climate over time, to water? How does our Sun’s relationship to the galaxy we are in impact life here on Earth over evolutionary time, over climatic time, over long periods and shorter periods in terms of weather effects?
These are all incredible jumps that need to be made; that will not come from the past, but will come from what we’ll look back on and say, “Oh, that was that necessary step.” And that’s the real basis in economy; the intention to have a leap, the intention to make a jump. The desire to go to a future that hasn’t existed before. This is what Alexander Hamilton’s outlook was in setting up our initial credit system, and his goal for an industrial, scientific, and technologically advancing United States; as opposed to the agrarian dream of Thomas Jefferson.
Here’s one of Hamilton’s mottoes. He said, “As a general marches at the head of his troops, so ought wise politicians — if I dare use the expression — they should march at the head of affairs, insomuch that they ought not to await the event to know what measures to take, but the measures which they have taken ought to produce the event.” We can produce a recovery; we can have direction in our economy. We can have missions the way that Kennedy with the space program; the way Lincoln did with building the transcontinental railroad and other programs even during the Civil War. With the initiatives that Franklin Roosevelt took to create a real recovery and separate the economy from the Wall Street-connected finance that Hoover was tied to.
So, nothing happens on its own. As LaRouche has been saying, you don’t get evolutionary development over time in that sense in human history; it’s revolutionary. Things don’t just happen; you make them happen. You go out and you do them. You throw Obama out, you create a credit system; they don’t just happen on their own.
And I’d like to end what I was going to say with another quote from Mr. LaRouche, from our discussion with the Policy Committee on Monday. LaRouche said, “With the personality of human beings, you can’t say that you located it in the person as such; the living person who dies. That is not the way to define the problem; you have to find the connection which creates the leap into progress, as opposed to a continuity. You don’t know what the process is until you live it, and find out what the mystery is. It’s sort of, when you go to Kepler, you get a leap; when you go to the galactic system, you get a leap. You get all kinds of leaps in the Solar System and through the whole thing itself; and it’s the understanding that this is the mind of man which is creating mankind, and not the other way around.”
OGDEN: Well, thank you very much, Jason. And I think that gives us a very good idea of exactly what Mr. LaRouche was saying; that history is not something that you allow to act on you and just react against. But, history is something which must be understood in terms of the future being something that we must generate. So, I think what Mr. LaRouche has prompted to think about, that that generation of the future can only come through an act of genius, which comes apparently out of nowhere, as Brunelleschi’s did. And as Mr. LaRouche said, “I’m looking for people who will do that kind of work, and become the geniuses who cause the future to be reborn again.”
So, with that said, I would to bring a conclusion to tonight’s webcast. Thank you very much to Jason and to Jeff for joining us here tonight; and thank you to all of you. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.
I løbet af de 10 dage, siden Tyrkiets nedskydning af det russiske bombefly … , har de barske kendsgerninger, som hr. LaRouche har advaret om i årevis, hævdet sig meget levende, og på uigendrivelig måde: at, under denne præsidents fortsatte politik befinder verden sig kun en hårs bredde fra en fuldt optrappet atomkrig, en krig, der kunne bryde ud, hvornår det skal være, og en krig, der ville blive absolut uden fortilfælde mht. det omfang af død og ødelæggelse, som en sådan krig ville udløse. Engelsk udskrift.
Utilize Your Unique Human Potential To Contribute
To the Creation of a Higher State of Existence for Mankind!
International Webcast for December 4, 2015
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s December 4, 2015. You’re
watching our regular Friday evening webcast here from
larouchepac.com. My name is Mathew Ogden, and I will be your host
here this evening. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and by Benjamin
Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team. And the three of us
did have an opportunity to meet with both Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche earlier today, and what we present here tonight will be
informed as a reflection of the outcome of that discussion.
We meet here tonight under very urgent circumstances. In the
10 days since the shooting-down of the Russian fighter jet by
Turkey over Syrian territory, the stark reality of what Mr.
LaRouche has been warning about for years has asserted itself
very vividly, and in an indisputable way: that under the
continued policies of this President, the world is currently only
a hair’s breadth away from all-out thermonuclear war, a war which
could occur any hour of any day, and one whose consequences would
be absolutely unprecedented in the magnitude of death and
devastation which such a war would unleash.
As Mr. LaRouche was very forthright in the hours following
that incident on Nov. 24, and was echoed and confirmed later by
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Turkey was by no means
acting alone in the decision to take this incredibly provocative
action, but must have possessed some sort of prior agreement
directly from the United States to shoot this Russian plane
down-the very first such direct military action against a Russian
military aircraft by a NATO member country in over 60 years, and
one taken with the obvious foreknowledge of everything that such
an attack implies in terms of the rapid chain of escalation of
response, and counter-response, which can very quickly, under
these circumstances, lead to the issuance of a command for the
launch of a nuclear strike.
Thus, as Mr. LaRouche has not ceased to warn in very clear
terms, every day that Obama has his finger on the red button of
the United States strategic nuclear arsenal, is a day of
existential danger to the entirety of the human race.
Now in the aftermath of this incident, the dire urgency of
this grim reality has begun to sink in. We saw the article that
we mentioned last week in {Politico} magazine on Nov. 27, by
Bruce Blair, a nuclear security expert at Princeton University,
and one of the cofounders of the Global Zero movement for the
elimination of nuclear arms. The article was titled “Could
U.S.-Russian Tensions Go Nuclear?”, and described in detail the
so-called launch-on-warning status which have the nuclear weapons
of both Russia and the United States on hair-trigger alert in
which the decision to launch a full-scale nuclear barrage by
either side, must be made within a matter of mere minutes, if not
mere seconds. The author, Bruce Blair, says the following:
“The public doesn’t realize just how little time exists for
our leaders to make a decision to use nuclear weapons, even
today. And if anything, the atmosphere has become even more
hair-trigger. A launch order is the length of a tweet. Missile
crews in turn transmit a short stream of computer signals that
immediately ignite the rocket engines of many hundreds of
land-based missiles. For the United States, this takes one
minute. Given the 1 to 30 minute flight times of attacking
missiles, 11 for submarines lurking off the other side’s coasts,
and 30 minutes for rockets flying over the poles to the other
side of the planet, nuclear decision-making under
launch-on-warning, the process from warning to decision to
action, is extremely rushed, emotionally charged, and pro forma,
driven by check lists. I describe it as the rote enactment of a
prepared script. In some scenarios after only a 3 minute
assessment of early warning data, the U.S. President receives a
30 second briefing on his nuclear response options, and their
consequences. He then has a few minutes — 12 at most — more
likely 3 to 6, to choose one option.”
The author also quotes President Reagan, who in his memoirs
complained of having “only 6 minutes to decide how to respond to
a blip on a radar scope, and decide whether or not to release
Armageddon.” — which, parenthetically, is why President Reagan
decided to take up Mr. LaRouche’s proposal for a joint
U.S.-Russian space-based missile defense system, the so-called
Strategic Defense Initiative, to render nuclear missiles impotent
and obsolete. But as we well know, Barack Obama is definitely no
Ronald Reagan.
Now in addition to this article by Bruce Blair, yesterday
former Defense Secretary William Perry, said in a very
significant presentation which he made in Washington, D.C., the
following: “The U.S. is on the brink of kicking off a new nuclear
arms race that will elevate the risk of nuclear apocalypse to
Cold War levels. ” He said, “We’re now at the precipice, maybe I
should say the brink, of a new arms race,” and called for the
dismantling of the ICBM component of the so-called nuclear triad.
And he went on to say, “the risk of nuclear war is exacerbated by
the dismantling of the relationship between Russia and the U.S.
that had been formed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Without
clear military to military communication between those two
nations, the risk of conflict increases. I probably would not
have said this 10 years ago,” he said. But today we now face the
kind of dangers of a nuclear event like we had during the Cold
War, an accidental war. I see an imperative, therefore, to stop
this damn nuclear arms race from accelerating again.”
And finally, we have the confrontation by Congresswoman ,
Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, during a hearing of the
House Armed Services Committee, of Obama’s Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter, which we’re going to play a video clip for you in
just one minute. Representative Gabbard’s remarks were covered
quite extensively in the press, under headlines such as “Tulsi
Gabbard says, Obama Policies could trigger war with Russia,”
which was in the Huffington Post, and “Democratic Congresswoman
Warns, Obama Could Drag the U.S. into a devastating nuclear war
with Russia,” Daily Mail. What you’re about to hear Congresswoman
Gabbard say, also echoes statements that she made a few days
earlier in a CNN interview, after having returned from Paris, in
which she warned that Obama’s policies in Syria ” put the United
States and Russia into a head-to-head conflict, with the
possibility that one side will shoot down the other’s planes,
kicking of what is much larger, potentially world war, and a
nuclear war between the United States and Russia, and she said,
“We’ve got to ask ourselves: what will the costs of this be? The
devastation to the American people and to the world, and for
what? What’s the benefit? Why are we trying to do this in Syria?
Why are we trying to go to war with Russia over this disagreement
concerning the overthrowing of the Syrian government of Bashar
al-Assad. It’s crazy.”
So let’s see this short video clip of Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard and Ash Carter:
GABBARD: The policy to overthrow the Syrian government of
Assad has thrown us into a potential direct head to head military
conflict with Russia. I have some important questions along this
line. How many nuclear warheads does Russia have aimed at the
U.S., and how many does the U.S. have aimed at Russia?
CARTER: Congresswoman, I will get you those precise numbers
as best we know them. Let me just summarize it by the fact that
we have a, I’m confident, a strong, safe, secure, reliable
deterrent. But it’s also true that Russia, like the Soviet Union
that precedes it, has a massive nuclear arsenal.
GABBARD: Right. And it would be accurate to say that both of
our countries have the capacity to launch these nuclear weapons
within minutes?
CARTER: We do.
GABBARD: I’ve seen pictures, films, and images from Nagasaki
and Hiroshima; I know you have as well. And I presume you would
agree with me that nuclear war would be devastating to the
American people; the amount of suffering that it would cause and
the devastation to our families, our children, our communities,
our planet, our future generations is difficult to imagine. So,
I’m wondering if there’s been an assessment done on how many
lives would be lost and the damage that would be done if this
nuclear war between our two countries were to occur?
CARTER: Congresswoman, I’ve been doing this for a long time,
including during the Cold War, and working on nuclear weapons
since the beginning of my career. And to answer your question,
there have been estimates made right along. When there was a
Soviet Union, then a Russia, and it’s a very simple story; it is
as you say. Nuclear war would be an absolutely unprecedented, and
result in a catastrophic destruction; that is why deterrence is
so important, that’s why prudence in the field of nuclear matters
by leaders all over the world is so essential.
GABBARD: So the fact that we now have our F-15s patrolling
the Turkey-Syria border with a primary air-to-air combat
operation; there’s no air-to-air combat against ISIS. They don’t
have any air assets. So, I can only presume that the purpose of
these planes would be to target Russian planes; is that accurate?
CARTER: Congresswoman, let me answer the point you began
with, which is we have a different view, a very different view
from Russia about what would be constructive for them to do in
Syria. We have that disagreement; we can’t align ourselves with
what they’re doing. We’re opposing and want them to change what
they’re doing in Syria. That’s not the same as the United States
and Russia clashing; I think that the Chairman and his
counterpart in Russia just talked yesterday about making sure
that we didn’t by accident have any incident involving US and
Russian forces. So, we have a sharp disagreement there, but
that’s not the same as blundering into an armed situation with
one another.
GABBARD: But that sharp disagreement — sorry, sir, I only
have a minute here — that sharp disagreement with two
diametrically opposed objectives. One, the US seeking to
overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, Russia seeking to
uphold the Syrian government of Assad, creates that potential;
that strong potential and that strong likelihood for that
head-to-head combat, or that head-to-head military conflict. And
Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile defense
system increases that possibility of whether it’s intentional or
even an accidental event, where one side may shoot down the other
side’s plane. And that’s really where the potential is for this
devastating nuclear war, for something that could blow up into
something much larger.
CARTER: I have to correct something, Congresswoman, that you
said; which is that I would characterize Russia’s prospective
differently. And by the way, what they say and what they do are
two different things. What they said they were going to do was
fight ISIL and pursue a political transition; and not support
Assad endlessly, but instead, try to pursue a political solution.
What they’ve done militarily has had the effect of supporting
Assad, no question about it. And they haven’t gone after ISIL,
they’ve gone after moderate — that’s our source of disagreement.
We’re having that disagreement and trying to get them to come
around; that is what Secretary Kerry is doing, to a more
reasonable and constructive position. But at the same time, as
the Chairman’s efforts indicate — and the Russians agree with
this intent on avoiding an accidental situation in the air over
Syria.
OGDEN: Having seen that, the question that you must ask is,
what is the necessary action that must be taken to defuse this
very real and immediate threat of thermonuclear war which
threatens us as a direct consequence of Obama’s policies, both in
Syria and elsewhere. And I’m going to ask Jeff to come to the
podium to address this question; but as Mr. LaRouche has
repeatedly said, the only guarantee is for responsible parties in
this country to take the Constitutional action necessary to
remove Barack Obama from the Presidency of the United States,
specifically through the activation of the 25th Amendment to the
US Constitution. Which stipulates that if the President is deemed
mentally incapable of serving in the role of Commander in Chief,
he can be removed and replaced through the predetermined line of
succession. Mr. LaRouche has been calling for this measure to be
taken for a number of years; but just this week, discussion of
this measure has exploded into the mainstream press, including
very significantly in an editorial that was published in the
{Washington Times} by staff writer Charles Hurt, which was
titled, “Has the President Lost His Ability to Discharge the
Powers and Duties of Office?” The editorial begins by asking,
“Has our President officially lost his ability to discharge the
powers and duties of his office? Anyone who listened to President
Obama speak to reporters in Paris on Tuesday, would reasonably
conclude that it is high time to start drawing up the papers to
transmit to Congress for his removal.” And after describing in
detail the rambling and largely incoherent performance by Obama
during his press conference in Paris earlier this week, the
author concludes by stating the following: “Someone alert the
Senate Pro Tem; somebody call the Speaker of the House, and let’s
all dust off the 25th Amendment.”
So Jeff, with all this evidence of a growing acknowledgement
in public discussion of the danger which Mr. LaRouche has been
warning about for years, of world war resulting from the
continuation of Obama’s policies, what can you tell us about what
the discussion is among responsible persons behind the scenes,
and what must be done now to remove this imminent threat of a
global thermonuclear war?
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I think it’s important to
take note of the fact that the {Washington Times} did publish
that Charles Hurt piece, but that there were other commentaries
along exactly the same lines. There was a similar editorial
comment, picking up on the {Washington Times} story in the
{Washington Enquirer}; and in both cases, there were references
to a series of commentaries that appeared recently in the
{Washington Post}, which is generally thought of — along with
the {New York Times} as one of the mainstays of the liberal
establishment media apparatus. You had Richard Cohen and Dana
Milbank, two of the senior regular {Washington Post} editorial
columnists taking note of the fact that President Obama was
completely disoriented and when his teleprompter broke down
during the course of his presentations in Paris, he stammered and
staggered 336 times in a speech that ran a total of 13 minutes.
Never mind that the gathered world leaders were told that they
had a firm 5-minute limitation on their speeches. It may have
taken the President 13 minutes to deliver a 5-minute address; I
haven’t reviewed the text, or timed it or anything. But clearly,
he is suffering from severe mental exhaustion, a breakdown;
someone who — as Lyndon LaRouche identified as early as April of
2009 — suffers from a form of extreme narcissism, can’t avoid
the reality that the world is going in a very different direction
than his narcissistic delusions would have him believe.
Just prior to the attacks in Paris, on the 13th of November,
the President issued a statement saying that ISIS was contained
and on the way to being defeated, and didn’t pose a threat.
Earlier he had called them “the junior varsity of terrorism.” I
think reality tells us something quite different.
Earlier this week, he said that there is no measurable
security threat, here, inside the United States. And what we saw
happen in San Bernardino, California several days ago, clearly
demonstrates that that was not an accurate reflection of reality.
The response of the White House has been to put pressure on FBI
Director, [James] Comey, and on the media, to hold back from
drawing the obvious conclusion, that virtually anybody in their
right mind has drawn, from even the media coverage of that San
Bernardino incident, namely, that it was a pre-meditated
terrorist attack. It’s very much reminiscent of what happened on
September 11th, 2012, when President Obama ordered a false
statement, a patently absurd false statement, about the attack in
Benghazi [Libya] that led to the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris
Stevens and three other American officials. And that, of course,
is still an issue that’s pending before the House [Select
Committee on Benghazi]. So, we’re clearly dealing with a
situation where the President’s grip on reality is slipping
precipitously.
Under similar circumstances, back in the early 1970s,
members of President Richard Nixon’s own political party, were
grounded enough in reality that they were willing to recognize
that Nixon was “losing it” mentally, and represented a grave
danger to the survival of the United States, and they were
seriously contemplating invoking the recently-ratified 25th
Amendment, that provides for the immediate removal of the
President of the United States. These recent articles, published
this week, have openly said that Vice-President Joe Biden should
reach out to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and similarly
consult with the Cabinet, and consider invoking the 25th
Amendment. That process can remove Obama from office within a
matter of {hours}. And so, we’re here in a situation. We’ve seen
the developments. We’ve saw the Tulsi Gabbard exchange with
Ashton Carter.
And, I think it’s noteworthy, that the statements that Matt
just quoted from, from former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, have
very much bearing on the situation, because Perry and Ash Carter
have jointly written a number of articles in military journals.
They’re very very close. One could almost say that Perry is
Ashton Carter’s mentor. So, if you’ve got someone like Perry
alarmed enough to come out publicly — and really, in a sense,
reverse his own statements of the recent years — and say we’ve
got to get in synch with the Russians, and you hold that up
against what Carter is saying as an official spokesman for the
Administration, putting the onus on Russia, and really refusing
to directly address the issues that were raised by Congresswoman
Gabbard, you get an idea that there is a disconnect from reality,
with respect to the most pressing and dangerous issue facing
mankind today, which is the question, “Are we close to the kind
of incident that could get out of control and lead to nuclear
war?”
Nobody in the Administration is talking about what the
consequences and implications are, of the fact that President
Obama {publicly, after the fact}, endorsed the actions of the
Turkish government in shooting down that Russian Su-24 over the
border area between Turkey and Syria. I’m told by leading U.S.
military and intelligence contacts that there’s unanimous
agreement among the leading countries of NATO, including the U.S.
military, and all of the major European militaries, that,
basically, the Turks had no business shooting down that Russian
plane; it was an act of {absolute provocation}. If Turkey was not
a member of NATO, with that Article 5 mandate for collective
security backing them up, without the idea that [President]
Erdogan had, that he had the full backing of President Obama,
it’s very unlikely that he would have even remotely considered
ordering the bombing of that Russian plane.
Now, what is the aftermath of that action by Turkey? From a
strictly military standpoint, as we talked about this last week,
leading figures within the U.S. military and intelligence
command, immediately got on the horn with their Russian
counterparts. And there was an agreement reached that this would
not be, in and of itself, a trigger for an all-out war in the
region, a war between Russia and Turkey. President Putin
refrained from any direct military retaliation against Turkey.
And that’s a good thing.
What Russia {did} however do, as Representative Gabbard
referenced, Russia has deployed their S-400 Air Defense Systems
to the airbase in Latakia Province inside Syria. That airbase is
32 miles from the Turkish border. The S-400 Air Defense Systems
have a range of 250 miles. In order words, Russia has the ability
to knock out Turkish aircraft 200 miles {inside} Turkish
territory. That’s an area in which U.S. fighter planes and drones
are also operating.
The Russians have now equipped all of their entire range of
Su fighter planes with air-to-air missile capabilities, so that
you’ve got both American and Russian, and now you’ve got the
added complexities of British and French, perhaps soon German,
planes, all flying within that same general airspace.
So, to say that we are not in a situation where the
conflict, even if it’s a disagreement over policy toward Syria,
that this doesn’t represent a hair-trigger situation for a war
that could directly involve U.S. and Russian forces, not
surrogates, but direct U.S. and Russian military forces, would be
an absolute denial of reality.
Now, a number of military thinkers have come out with
measures that could be taken to mitigate the risk. There are
those, including [ret.] German General [Harald] Kujat, who’ve
called for the re-convening of the NATO-Russia Council, to create
a mechanism for coordination between NATO and Russia, in which
the Syria-Turkey issue would be one element of it. Former top DIA
official and retired U.S. Army Colonel, [W.] Patrick Lang, in his
widely-read website, has said that Turkey should be suspended
from NATO, because their irresponsible behavior could, by itself,
be a trigger for general war. There are proposals, reflected by
[U.S. and Russian nuclear security expert] Bruce Blair; reflected
by Gen. [James] Cartwright, who was the former vice-chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff [and] former head of the U.S. Strategic
Command, our nuclear triad; along with Russian [Maj.] Gen.
[Vladimir] Dvorkin, who was the chief intelligence analyst for
Russia’s strategic rocket force — who’ve all said, “Let’s
immediately abandon launch-on-warning. We’ve got to, basically,
create an alternative to this hair-trigger situation, where a
decision about global nuclear annihilation, has to be made in a
matter of seconds.”
The reality is, that there is another option. It’s the
option that was referenced in the {Washington Times} and the
{Washington Examiner}, and even implicitly in the {Washington
Post}. And it’s the option that Lyndon LaRouche has been
discussing {for a very long time}. You’ve got to {remove} one of
the most crucial factors that continues this threat, which is the
continuation of President Barack Obama in office. The 25th
Amendment is there. His behavior in Paris, his erratic behavior,
has caused alarm bells to go off all over the place, and the
question that’s got to be posed, is: “Are {you}, Member of
Congress; are {you}, American Citizen, willing to run the risk of
maintaining a President in office, who may very well be “losing
it” mentally, and who certainly has exhibited a policy of hatred
towards Russia
and particularly towards President Putin, that under the present
circumstances poses a grave danger of general war, a war that
could be a nuclear war.
So, that’s the question on the table. And now that Mr.
LaRouche is no longer the only leading American political voice
openly talking about immediately invoking the 25th Amendment,
maybe it’s time for a serious national debate and dialogue on
that issue to put the kind of pressure on Vice-President Biden,
Secretary Kerry, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, to not run the
risk, to not play, to use a bad analogy, Russian roulette, with
nuclear warheads, and the barrel of a gun, when the survival of
humanity is at stake.
We are really now in a very different place than we even
were a few weeks ago. The actions taken by Erdogan have brought
us to that moment of hair-trigger, and while there are many
things that could be done to ameliorate that danger, the fact is
that none of them are possible so long as President Obama is in
office. So the tools are right there. The 25th Amendment can be
activated on a moment’s notice. We could have a regime change,
purely constitutional, here in the United States, as a measure of
caution against someone in a state of mental breakdown, being in
a position of having his finger on the nuclear trigger. And I see
no justification whatsoever for running the risk of mankind’s
survival, of waiting another day to activate that potential.
OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. Now, I’m just going to
pose the institutional question for this evening, and Jeff will
deliver what Mr. LaRouche’s response was to this, as well as
Helga LaRouche’s insights. The question reads as follows: “Mr.
LaRouche, the German Bundestag has voted to support the U.S.
coalition military operations in Syria against the Islamic State,
and the British Parliament has also taken similar action. What is
your view of German and British involvement in the fight against
the Islamic state in Syria?”
STEINBERG: Well, I think that one thing that’s obvious, the
first comment from Mr. LaRouche on this was, yes, we’ve got to
defeat the Islamic State. It’s got to be done, and there’s got to
be an alliance of countries involved in doing that, and with
that, he said, of course always be cautious. You can never trust
the British.
Now, the fact of the matter is that there are measures that
could be taken, that would lead to the crushing of the Islamic
State, to the taking back of Raqqa, their nominal capital, to the
ouster of the Islamic State from Mosul–the military options are
all quite clear and are being openly discussed, and are being
proposed around the tables all over the place. Seal the border
with Turkey. The Erdogan government in Turkey through the son
Balal Erdogan, son of the president, has been the major source of
black market revenue for the Islamic State, since the very
beginning. We know that there are massive black market oil deals
going on between ISIS and the Turkish black market, which is
really the mafia underbelly of Erdogan’s AKP Party, and the MIT,
which is the Turkish equivalent of the CIA, run by one of
Erdogan’s very close associates.
So, you can seal the borders. You can start the economic
squeeze against the Islamic State. You could create a single
joint military command operation fully integrating Russia, into
whatever other military operations are going to be run. President
Hollande of France, when he was in Washington, and then in Moscow
last week, specifically proposed that there be a consolidated
unified air campaign against ISIS, and that on the ground the
Syrian army be integrated with some of the rebel groups that are
strictly made up of former Syrian military personnel-some element
of the Free Syrian Army, in particular. That kind of ground
force, maybe with some other assistance from the Iraqi military,
along with a massive air campaign, through a single unified
command, could wipe out the Islamic State, at least in so far as
it’s operating out of a major safe haven territory in Syria and
Iraq.
The problem, however, as has been demonstrated by Paris, by
San Bernardino now this week here in the United States–on a much
lower scale, of course– by the bombing of the Metro jet, Russian
metro jet over the Sinai, by the suicide bombings in Southern
Beirut, all of these things indicate that you’re dealing with a
much larger problem that’s not going to be solved overnight. You
can crush the nominal Islamic State militarily, but you’ve got to
address a much more fundamental issue, which is that the
policies, the geo-political policies coming out of the leading
Western powers-the United States, particularly Great Britain,
France to a degree, certainly Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the
United Arab Emirates, Turkey- there’s been a long-standing policy
of promoting the Saudi-Wahhabi neo-Salafist agenda, and spreading
this disease, this Dark Age ideology, all over the globe.
You have large swaths of territory in the Middle East, in
North Africa, in other parts of Asia, that are ungovernable, and
have been turned into no-man’s lands as the result of the
prolonged policies– I would say that it’s the Twentieth and
Twenty-First Centuries’ Thirty Years War, except it began
operationally in 1979, when Jimmy Carter and Brzezinski were
still in office, when there was a presidential finding
authorizing the assembling of the Islamist mujahideen to drive
the Soviet Red Army out of Afghanistan, except, of course, that
operation began 6 months before the Soviets even went into
Afghanistan.
So, we’re in the throes of a multi-generational process of
creating Dark Age conditions in many parts of the planet. If you
were born 35 years ago in Afghanistan, you’ve never lived under
anything other than 30 Years’ War conditions of violence and
chaos. And don’t say that Afghanistan was always like that,
there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s emphatically not
true. Throughout the postwar period, the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the
United States’ presence in Afghanistan was largely through the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Peace Corps, and other organizations
like that, and the place was relatively peaceful and stable. It
was not the world’s opium production capital. So, the point is
that there are alternative policies that must be enacted to
really defeat this Dark Age phenomenon.
The Chinese have adopted the One Belt/One Road policy of
developing vast corridors of infrastructure, of industrial and
agricultural expansion, of water management, throughout much of
Eurasia. For that program to work, it’s going to be urgent that
we achieve stability in places like Syria and Iraq, and in many
parts of North Africa. So, the real question here is, if you’re
prepared to commit to defeating the phenomenon that ISIS right
now is the most visible representation of, you’ve got to be
prepared to fundamentally change your thinking. You’ve got to be
willing to abandon geo-politics, altogether. Abandon the British
Empire, because this policy of permanent warfare across this
great big crescent running from North Africa through the Middle
East and Central Asia, all along the southern borders of the
former Soviet Union into Western China,–that’s a British
geo-political policy. It was called the Bernard Lewis plan back
in the 1970s, of spreading fundamentalist chaos along that entire
what they called crescent (arc) of crisis.
That program hasn’t changed. It’s British geo-politics at
its worst. It’s population warfare at its worst. And those
policies must be abandoned all together. There was even a
commentary this week in the {Wall Street Journal} of all places,
asking the question of whether or not China’s New Silk Road
policy might not be the key to saving the situation in Syria and
Iraq, and throughout that region. You’ve got to give people hope
that there is a viable prospect for a future, if you’re going to
get those leading strata within Syrian society back from Europe,
where they were driven out by ISIS; back into Syria to rebuild
their country. They’ve got to know that there is a commitment to
a kind of a global Marshall Plan, which the Chinese have proposed
as part of their One Belt/One Road policy. I had the privilege,
earlier this week, of being in Tokyo, attending two conferences.
One where Helga Zepp-LaRouche spoke about the urgent need to
avoid the war dangers by the United States and other western
countries, by becoming fully involved and committed to working in
conjunction with China and the other BRICS countries on this One
Belt/One Road policy. We’ve got to build development corridors
from areas that are now strictly war zones. I spoke at a second
conference earlier this week with Mrs. LaRouche in Tokyo; and we
both took up this question very strongly. You need a new paradigm
of thinking; you need to think at the level of real human beings
who uniquely are capable of thinking about the future. Of
creating a new future; not one that’s defined by the geopolitics
of population war, but one that’s defined by scientific
advancement, by the betterment of all mankind. So, the issue on
the table is, you can defeat ISIS militarily with some readily
available tool; especially if you drop the war confrontation with
Russia, and get into an alliance with Russia, which means getting
Obama out of office under the 25th Amendment. It’s doable, but
you’re not going to solve the deeper underlying problem of the
consequences of the last 35 years or more of this hideous
geopolitics of pitting one nation, one people against another,
promoting irrationalism and fundamentalism. You’ve got to
basically roll up your shirt sleeves and begin real development
of the kind that China has correctly defined as the win-win
policy of the future.
At this conference, there was a leading representative from
Russia, Dr. Yakunin, who said that the Russians have concluded
that their Eurasian development plan for major infrastructure
projects, is completely compatible with China’s One Belt/One Road
policy. India, as a leading BRICS country, is fully on board with
that prospect. We’re about to develop a plan and publish it in
the coming days, for the United States to become fully integrated
into this global World Land-Bridge policy. But this requires an
overhaul of thinking; and that overhaul of thinking is now long
overdue, because the very survival of mankind is literally on the
table is we don’t make that change.
So, we’ve got a much bigger challenge and a much bigger
agenda. Even if we’re serious about defeating the Islamic State
and other manifestations of this Dark Age policy. It’s going to
have to be done through a vast change in thinking, and a return
to real human thinking about what kinds of projects can insure
not just the survival, but the betterment of mankind going into
the future.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Just by way of quick introduction of
Ben Deniston, who’s going to conclude our broadcast here tonight,
I want to pick up here directly off of what Jeff just ended with.
As those who have been following the website this week know; and
who had the chance to participate last night in the Fireside Chat
with Mr. LaRouche, Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis has been one of saying
that this entire Dark Age situation which we now find ourselves
in today — both internationally as Jeff just elaborated, and
also here domestically with the Dark Age of rising death rates,
addictions, violence, and so forth, that is plaguing the American
people as the result of 16 years of a Bush and Obama
Presidencies, Mr. LaRouche said, “The future cannot be created by
a continuation of the failed policies of the past. This Dark Age,
which we now find ourselves in the midst of, cannot be overcome
without the conscious elimination and overturning of the failed
axioms of the present system. A New Paradigm today, as Jeff was
just discussing, just as with the Golden Renaissance of Filippo
Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa, is never something which can
come about through an evolutionary change,” as Mr. LaRouche said
last night, “but only as a consciously revolutionary effect of
the intervention of a great genius. The effect that a great
genius has on history; a genius such as Brunelleschi or Cusa. Or
more recently, you can use the example of Albert Einstein.
Geniuses who reject the failed ideas of the past, and instead
introduce something completely new; a valid, newly discovered
principle upon which a valid and viable future can be built. So
this is something which obviously Mr. LaRouche has done
consistently throughout his life; and has based his entire career
on. But for those of you who had the chance to participate in the
Fireside Chat with Mr. LaRouche last night will know, you heard
him call on all of you; on all of the American citizenry to adopt
that perspective of genius as your personal commitment going
forward. And this is obviously something which all of us have to
think about very profoundly.
So Ben, I guess I would ask you to elaborate for us a little
bit, what is the equivalent of the great Brunelleschi’s dome, you
could say, of today; which can be the herald of this new
Renaissance for all mankind today?
BENJAMIN DENISTON: It’s quite a task, I think, Matthew. But
as Matthew said, I’m just going to pick up off of — we’ve been
working on, the LaRouche PAC Science Team — this program of
putting together a picture for the American people, what it would
mean for the United States to join this New Silk Road
orientation. What it would mean for us as a country to really
return to our roots, as founded by people like Alexander
Hamilton, as Mr. LaRouche has put a great deal of emphasis in his
most recently developing flank in Manhattan being real soul of
the nation where we could pivot the United States back to an
orientation like Matt just referenced in terms of a real pursuit
of mankind as a creative force. What will it actually mean for
the United States to once again participate in that process? And
this is something that, as was referenced, at least a thesis
perspective on what that would look like for the United States.
But I wanted to open by just referencing something that was
mentioned earlier, just to get a sense to get at the real
principle of what we were talking about. There was a rather
unprecedented study that came out, a study that’s rather shocking
that pointed to an unprecedented reality which has been uncovered
in just the last couple of months, which is the realization of
the increase in death rates among white, American, working age
people. And we have a graphic illustrating the comparison of the
death rates for this particular demographic, in comparison with a
number of other developed nations. [Figure 1] And we can see in
red there, from 1990 up to past 2010, the change in the death
rate for, again, white Americans from age 45 to 54. And I just
want to put this on the screen for a minute, because there’s a
lot of stats we can go through in terms of what’s happening, and
a lot can be done to give a sense that I think most Americans
have their own clear sense of, living in this nation, of the real
process of death of the U.S. economy, under the Bush-Obama reign.
But I think this one is rather shocking, because these are
people that are supposed to be in their prime. We’re talking
about people who are supposed to be reaching their, towards the
peak of their productive contribution to society, people who are
supposed to be approaching the pinnacle of their ability to
contribute to the advancement of the society of which they’re a
part. And what are we seeing in that layer of the population?
This dramatic acceleration, continual year to year increase, in
the death rate of this section of the population. As the authors
of the study stated, “We have half a million Americans who are
now dead, who frankly should not be dead,” according to what we
would expect from a healthy economic process.
And what’s the cause of this? What are the major factors
contributing to this increase in the death rate? You have drug
addiction, alcoholism, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse,
heroin abuse, suicides. These are diseases of despair as has been
said. These are diseases of a dying society, where people who
should be at their prime contribution to the economic process,
are instead ending their own lives. They’re killing themselves.
What’s supposed to be our leading productive sector of the
economy is instead destroying and ending their own lives, through
their own willful choice of these substance abuse, drug
addiction, suicide, what have you.
So I think this should be taken as a very clear signal of
what’s happened to the United states, what’s happened to the
American economy. And what we have to reverse. And what I want to
talk about just briefly is trying to get at the essence of the
issue, to the degree possible. Because we can talk about putting
people back to work, we could talk about creating jobs, we could
talk about rebuilding things-but that’s not going to get to the
real essence of what we confront right now as a nation. We have
to really re-find the purpose of the existence of our nation, as
Matthew referenced as Mr. LaRouche said last night, in an
understanding of what is mankind’s purpose as a creative force in
the Universe.
Why do people work? Why do people have jobs? Why do people
work to contribute to society? What’s the purpose of existence?
That’s been eliminated really over two generations, increasingly
though in a rapid acceleration, under the Bush-Cheney regime. The
very idea that mankind is inherently creative species; I mean,
that mankind creates its own existence meaning that {you}, as an
individual part of that species, part of that process, can
participate in the actual physical creation of the future state
of society. That if society moves forward, … And what do we
mean by “move forward”? LaRouche has spent decades developing a
science of physical economy. What is economics for mankind? We
can support a greater population, higher population density, with
better living standards for everybody; that unlike the animals,
unlike the Greenies’ ideology, there’s no zero sum game for
mankind. There’s no finite, fixed amount of wealth for the human
species. That mankind can uniquely create a fundamentally higher
state of existence for his species as a whole.
That doesn’t come from merely finding some new resource, or
exploiting some new resource, but from the unique creative powers
of the human mind. Something {unique} about the human mind that
we don’t see existing anywhere in animal life per se. That that
unique capability is the substance, the principle, underlying
what makes mankind a unique force on this planet. We have to
again find our existence in exercising and implementing that
principle–the idea that based on that principle, we can create
wealth for our nation. We can grow our population. We can have a
large population with higher living standards, better
infrastructure, better conditions of life, better health care. We
can provide all that. Mankind has the ability to do that. But the
way that mankind does that is by the creative contributions of
individuals acting in coordination with society.
We’ve lost the connection to that. We have to re-establish
the connection to that. Really in a scientific sense. That
mankind has a real physical immortality that he can create for
himself. He can be the creation of the future existence, not just
the extension of the past, not just the extension of the present,
but the creation of a state of existence for society which would
not ever exist if not for the actions, the contributions, of the
earlier generation of the earlier state.
That’s what we have to return to. Creation of new states for
mankind, not just perpetuating or rebuilding what we had in the
past, but rising to a new level. And we need that now more than
ever. That has been at the root of our existence as a republic,
again going back to Hamilton, people like Lincoln, people like
Franklin Roosevelt-that’s been understood to varying degrees,
that this is what makes mankind unique, and we have to focus our
efforts of government, of society, in exercising and facilitating
that creative process.
So what do we need to do now, today? Just to go through some
of the obvious things that we should be focused on, and doing as
a nation. One leading element is going to be rebuilding our
nation, rebuilding our infrastructure, and in a sense not really
rebuilding, but building anew, building a higher level of
existence for our nation. And one of the things we’re going to be
featuring in our prospective program for the United States is
actually building a modern, high-speed rail system. This is just
obvious. That transportation in the United States would be a joke
if we didn’t have to deal with it every single day. The idea of
people just wasting their lives on these highways. Hours upon
hours upon hours daily, just wasted.
If you go to the third graphic here, we have a comparison,
just to give people a sense of–in the green, we see existing
high speed rail systems in the United States and China. Now, in
the United States this has been debatable whether we could
actually include the green corridor we’ve included as technically
high-speed rail. Relative to what we have, we could consider it
high-speed rail, but that’s not saying much. It’s stretching the
definition, but it’s the closest we have. and throughout the rest
of the United States, you see one proposal, among a number of
proposals, for what kind of obvious, sane high-speed rail system
we should have: travelling 150 miles per hour, to get people to
different locations in a quick efficient manner.
You see China is doing this. You see China’s program now,
what they’ve built, and what they’re committed to building I
believe out to 2020, for their high-speed rail program. So this
could be done. This needs to be done.
We have the water issue. We have, to put it lightly, insane
governor in California, who, despite living on the coast of the
largest body of water on the face of this planet, seems to think
that we’ve run out of water. Well, we have plenty of means
available to us to provide all the water we need. Some of this is
illustrated in the next graphic, the fourth graphic. This is
something we’ve covered in more detail on the LaRouche PAC
website and other locations. But mankind fully has the capability
of managing the water cycle in completely new ways.
We have desalination. LaRouche has been talking about
desalination for decades. Nuclear-powered desalination, you can
provide the water you need in the coastal areas. You can do water
transfer. There’s rivers that exist that have abundant excesses
of water that just flow into the ocean unused. And we can really
go to the frontiers. We can look at mankind managing the water in
the atmosphere. This is actually happening right now as we speak
in various places around the world. We have technologies now to
actually manage precipitation in the atmosphere; increase
precipitation where we want it. Some of this is drawn directly
from insights into how our Earth’s climate system actually
responds to different galactic environments — the galactic
conditions affecting our climate. Understanding this gives us an
insight into how we can manage those conditions; how we can
increase the rainfall where we need it. How we can actually
direct flows of atmospheric water vapor to where they’re needed.
We could be drawing the atmosphere of water vapor from over the
Pacific Ocean into California and increasing the rainfall in
California. We can do that.
Power, energy, nuclear power; we’ve been sitting on nuclear
power for decades. It’s been suppressed; fusion has been
suppressed. There’s been a conscious policy to not put the
resources into fusion that are needed to develop fusion power.
We’ve had in effect a policy of not developing fusion power for
decades. You just look at the budget compared to what was known
to be required to develop it; it’s obvious. And various experts
have made clear, we can have a demonstration functioning fusion
power plant in 10-15 years, if we decided to do it.
Obviously, all this would require a high-speed rail system,
solving our water crises, mass production of nuclear power, a
crash program to develop fusion power. This would force us to
confront the fact that we need to rebuild our manufacturing base;
rebuild our industrial base. We’d be forced to confront a certain
reality that now we look at an unemployment problem; with this
program, we’re going to be confronted with a little more
frightening reality. We actually have an unemployable problem; we
have people who have no skills. We’re going to need to look back
to things like Franklin Roosevelt’s CCC program, and figure out
how to upgrade that and advance that for an entire new challenge
of taking not just a labor force, a society that’s had no
productive work for a decade or more. And look, we’ve had two
generations of zero-growth policy; two generations of
de-industrialization, a shift towards this insane, so-called
“services economy”. Wall Street bubbles. We’ve had fewer and
fewer people who have any idea of how to contribute a productive
contribution to the economic process.
So, we’re going to need to actually tackle all these issues.
And, again, this is not just rebuilding stuff we had before; it’s
not just rebuilding our infrastructure. It’s not just recreating
the state of the economy as it was 20, 30 years ago. This is
looking at how do we increase the potential productivity of the
economy as a whole to a completely new level? Modern
transportation, water, power. We can open up entire new regions
of the continent; entire new territories of the nation can now be
developed. New agriculture; new production; new industries; new
cities. We could actually be developing new Renaissance cities,
organized around a conception of man as a creative process. The
city itself can be an expression of the principle of this new
Renaissance; this New Paradigm that we want to create. The
construction of sane, organized city population areas, centered
around cultural development; educational development. Centered
around universities and cultural systems as the core of the
development of your population, of your society. That organizes
this city. Around it, you have the various agriculture, industry,
etc. that’s an expression of mankind’s creative capabilities. But
actually coherently designing the city in which the population
around this new principle, this new conception of mankind.
So, this is what we can do; this is what we need to fight
for. But I think to attempt to address what Matthew said in terms
of Mr. LaRouche’s remarks in terms of actually creating a new
future; that has to be the number one guiding principle. And Mr.
LaRouche in recent years has again come back to the pedagogy of
the difference between mankind and the animals. And I think
that’s something that most people still don’t understand the way
he understands it. What is it that mankind has that makes our
species separate; that makes us distinct? What is that actual
principle which mankind has the ability to tap into and employ if
he chooses to; if he chooses to organize his society in a truly
human way? And what would that mean for us today? Well, again, it
wouldn’t mean just doing what we’ve done in the past. It would
mean that right now, what we have to do is bring society to a
level that we’ve never had before. And we have to fight to engage
the American population again into recognizing that their meaning
to history, their meaning, period, depends upon that. That the
meaning of their very existence depends upon recognizing that
they have a potential to contribute to the creation of a higher
state of existence for society. And for mankind, if we’re not
doing that, if we’re not organizing society to do that and
exercise that, and implement those creative leaps of mankind,
then you’re not being human; and your population is being denied
an actual efficient access to their true scientific immortality
as a human species.
There’s obviously a lot that could be said, but I think
that’s the principle that we have to focus on; that it’s not just
about creating jobs. It’s not just about employing people who are
various economic statistics; it’s about coming to a new, higher
understanding of economics really as an expression of this unique
spark of human creative potential. And we have to, again, focus
on that as the number one issue; the cause, the substance of what
will allow us to progress and move forward. And that really is
the whole purpose of all of this.
So, we’re going to have more coming out; a lot more can be
said, but I think that’s the challenge that we have right now.
And I think it’s going to be a huge challenge, given what’s
happened to the population; especially in the last two
Presidencies. But the fight is to awaken that in the American
people; they have to realize that this is the only thing that’s
worth fighting for. Fighting for creating the future in a way
that is truly, uniquely human.
OGDEN: Thank you, Ben. And what Ben referred to, is a
forthcoming programmatic feature which is intended to be a
supplement to the EIR Special Report, “The New Silk Road Becomes
the World Land-Bridge”. This is going to be titled, “Why the
United States Must Join the New Silk Road”. I also know this will
be the bulk of the subject of the presentation which Helga
delivered in Tokyo, which Jeff was referring to; and will be
available in transcript form in the next edition of {Executive
Intelligence Review}. So, I’m going to bring a conclusion to our
broadcast here tonight. I would encourage all of you to continue
participating in both the Thursday night Fireside Chats, which
Mr. LaRouche hosts every week, as well as if you are present in
the New York City area, the Manhattan Project meetings, which
occur every Saturday afternoon. Another one will occur tomorrow.
So, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you to both
Jeff and Ben, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com
Lyndon LaRouche har hele vejen utvetydigt sagt, at med mindre, og indtil, Obama smides ud, står verden på en knivsæg til atomkrig. Spøgelset af denne fare sås skarpt i tirsdags med Tyrkiets nedskydning af et russisk fly, der var engageret i bombetogt nær den tyrkisk-syriske grænse. LaRouche kom omgående med en offentlig erklæring, der sagde, »Obama har organiseret en krigshandling, og således sat USA, såvel som resten af menneskeheden, i fare«. Han sagde, at det »var et overlagt forsøg fra Obamas side på at fremtvinge generel krig«. Engelsk udskrift.
MEGAN BEETS: Good evening. It’s November 27, 2015. My name
is Megan Beets, and I’d like to welcome all of you to our regular
Friday evening broadcast here at LaRouche PAC. I’m joined in the
studio tonight by Jason Ross and I’m also joined, via video, by
Jeffrey Steinberg.
Now in discussions earlier this week, Mr. LaRouche made it
very, very clear that the key issue facing all of us, is whether
the people of the United States, in particular, both the people
in positions of leadership, such as the Congress, but also the
population in general, have the guts to stop compromising with
Obama, to tell the truth, and to throw him out. Now, what we’ve
seen shaping up over the past weeks is a very dramatically and a
very rapidly shifting world strategic situation, including
ongoing Russian military intervention into Syria; also including
the recent wave of terrorist attacks, such as the bombing of the
Russian plane over Egypt, and of course, the terrorist attacks
which occurred just two weeks ago in Paris, which was followed by
a shift in dynamic among world leaders, away from the failed
Obama policy, and toward a broader collaboration with the
Russians to defeat ISIS.
However, throughout all of this, Mr. LaRouche has been
unequivocal that unless, and until you get Obama out of the U.S.
presidency, the world stands on a razor’s edge of thermonuclear
war.
Now the spectre of that danger arose sharply this Tuesday,
with the Turkish shooting down of a Russian plane which was
involved in operations near the Turkish-Syria border. And Mr.
LaRouche immediately issued a statement, a public statement,
which said that “Obama has organized an act of war, and thus
endangered the United States, as well as all humanity.” He said
that it “was a deliberate attempt by Obama to force general
warfare.”
Now, this act by Turkey and by Obama, and the aftermath, has
catalyzed a very significant change in the world global dynamic,
which we’re seeing manifest, for example, in Europe, among other
places. This shift is also the subject of tonight’s institutional
question, which makes reference to the ongoing talks in Vienna,
which are aimed at resolving the situation in Syria. The question
reads as follows:
“Mr. LaRouche, please give us your view of how Russia and
Turkey can move once again to collaborate to save Syria under the
Vienna process?” So now I’m going to turn it over to Jeff to give
Mr. LaRouche’s response to that question, as well as an
elaboration of the general strategic picture.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Megan. Can you hear me there?
Well I think that the starting point must be to tell the truth as
we know it about the events of last Tuesday. It was immediately
understood by leading political and military circles in the
United States, in Europe, and most emphatically in Russia, that
the action that was undertaken by the Turkish in shooting down
that Russian SU-24 over a border area on the Turkey-Syria border
right along the Mediterranean coast, that this was something that
1) was order top down in Turkey from President Erdogan, and 2)
Erdogan would never have undertaken such an action if he did not
have advance approval from Obama and the British.
So, for the Russians, this represented a major act of war,
and I can tell you that within the U.S. governing institutions,
there was a deep and profound split that reflected immediately in
actions that were diametrically opposite. Secretary of State John
Kerry, leading circles within the Pentagon all the way up to the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, immediately activated channels with
Russia, knowing full well that there was a very real prospect
that Russia would retaliate immediately after this unwarranted
military provocation. And so, you have one element of the U.S.
command that is not under British control, that moved immediately
to at least temporarily forestall a situation that was
potentially moments away from a general war between NATO and
Russia. And as we’ve been saying, as Mr. LaRouche has been
warning since virtually the beginning of the Obama presidency,
any such war between NATO and Russia would very rapidly devolve
into a thermonuclear war, in which the overwhelming majority of
humankind would likely not survive.
So you had actions. There was red phone line communications
activated immediately, between those elements in the U.S. Command
that were not on the British line, and top Russian officials. And
the first objective was simply to secure a commitment that the
situation would not immediately go to a hot war. In other words,
this was the most dangerous situation since, and probably more
so, than even the Cuban Missile crisis. Because in the Cuban
missile crisis, there was no shoot down of an American or a
Soviet ship or a plane.
On the other hand, President Obama, who was closer to
Erdogan than virtually any foreign leader, perhaps with the sole
exception of David Cameron in Britain, immediately got on the
phone with Erdogan and then issued public statements certifying
that, in his mind, Turkey acted perfectly within their sovereign
rights to shoot down a plane flying over its territory.
Now, never mind the fact that there are serious questions
and disputes of whether that plane, that Russian plane, actually
ever even entered Turkish airspace. The fact is that, if it
passed through Turkish air space at all, number one, there was
never any intent–and nobody in Turkey even claimed there was any
intent on the part of the Russians–to carry out any kind of
military action or provocation against Turkey. And secondly, even
after the first 24 hours following the shoot-down, the Turks were
even acknowledging that that plane, if it ever in fact crossed
into Turkish territory, was there only for a matter of brief
seconds, and no longer.
Now that also tells you that to shoot down that plane, was a
premeditated, pre-determined decision. There was not enough time
for the Turkish air force to consult up the chain of command all
the way to President Erdogan, and to then get response orders
back, and to fire at the Russian plane — all within a matter of
a timeframe that at most has been characterized as 17 seconds.
So, again, it was a premeditated act of war; and Erdogan on his
own never would have undertaken that. It was done in conjunction
with both Obama and the British; and therefore, the
responsibility lies there.
Now, let’s again visit what the immediate context was of
this incident. It occurred last Tuesday at a point that French
President Hollande was in Washington to attempt to organize
President Obama to join a trilateral military alliance of France,
Russia, and the United States, to wipe out the threat of ISIS and
Nusra, and all allied organizations inside Syria and inside Iraq
primarily. And so, the events that took place just as Obama and
Hollande were sitting down, hijacked the agenda of that
discussion. All you have to do is read the transcript, or even
better, watch the video of the press conference that took place
later that same day between Obama and Hollande; and you’ll see
towards the end, Obama launching into a typical Obama tirade
against Putin and against Russia. Obama was lying pathologically
in saying that the United States is leading a coalition of over
60 countries, and that Russia, when it comes to fighting against
the Islamic State is “the outlier”; and it went on from there.
So, statements soon after that, again from the White House, fully
endorsed and adopted the Turkish line on what happened.
So, here you’ve got a situation where an act of war, an act
of military aggression took place, carried out by Turkey — a
NATO member — and was done with the full at least tacit backing
of the President of the United States, with the full support of
the British. How close do you have to get to provoking
thermonuclear war before enough people in Congress and in the
American population wake up and recognize that Lyndon LaRouche
has been right for years in warning about the menace that
President Obama represents if he’s allowed to continue to remain
in office? We’re down to the final 14 or so months of his
Presidency, but you can see the kind of developments that can
occur on literally a moment’s notice. And so, there is no option
any longer other than removing the President from office by
Constitutional means immediately. That means that the leading
members of Congress and at least leading elements within the
American population have got to finally wake up to strategic
reality.
Now, to put an added punctuation mark on the situation,
let’s not forget that there was another major series of
provocations directed against Russia over the same recent
timeframe of the last week. You had the Right Sector, the
neo-Nazi apparatus in Ukraine, that is openly backed and promoted
by the Obama administration principally through Victoria Nuland,
the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs, who carried out a bombing campaign against the power
grid of Crimea; and has effectively shut off almost all power to
the entire Crimean peninsula. When Russian repair units attempted
to get to the sites to re-establish the power links, they were
fired on by Right Sector militias; and to make matters even
worse, at the end of last week, it was announced by Nuland’s pet
prime minister, Yatsenyuk, that henceforth all Russian flights
over Ukrainian airspace were cancelled. Now, that’s tantamount to
a threat of yet a second country, a major ally of the US and the
British, threatening to carry out unprovoked strikes against
Russian aircraft flying over Ukrainian airspace.
So, you’ve got a clear pattern here. You have — as Megan
indicated — a phase shift with the series of ISIS terrorist
attacks over the last several weeks, that began with the bombing
of the Russian Metro Jet over the Sinai; followed with a series
of suicide bombings on the southern portions of Beirut in
Lebanon, targetting the Shi’ite area of that city. And then the
Paris attacks. The world was energized to finally launch an
all-out serious campaign against the Islamic State. Russia
escalated the bombing campaign against the Islamic State and
knocked out an estimated 1000 of the tanker trucks that have been
smuggling oil from the ISIS-controlled areas of northern Syria
into Turkey, where they’ve been sold on the black market; and
these funds have been fueling the operations of the Islamic
State.
At the G-20 summit meeting that ironically took place in
Turkey just days before the Turkish air force shot down the
Russian SU-24, President Putin made very clear that Russia has
aerial photographs showing lengthy caravans of these oil tanker
trucks crossing the border into Turkey from northern Syria; and
furthermore, he said he has the names of financial agents in 40
countries, including a number of the G-20 member countries, that
are involved in financing the Islamic State through black market
cooperation. So, the case is unambiguous. If you wanted to
attribute narrow motives, you could say that Erdogan was furious
at the Russians for bombing these Turkish smuggling trucks, since
we know that the funds generated on the Turkish side from this
black market activity largely go into the coffers of the ruling
AKP Party. We know that the son of President Erdogan is himself
one of the major people involved in this black market operation.
But in a very real sense, that’s a much too narrow
understanding of what happened here. It eliminates the crucial
question, which is that Obama and the British were behind this,
and it was an attempt on a much grander scale to not just simply
sabotage the Vienna initiatives; but it was an attempt to trigger
a potential world war. And for that crime alone, despite the fact
that there is a long list of Constitutional violations and other
crimes committed by this President, for that reason alone he must
be immediately removed from office. And therefore, every person
listening to this broadcast, all of your friends, all of your
neighbors, all of your political associates, your co-workers, are
going to have to do some serious soul searching; because we came
inches away from world war last Tuesday morning, with the Turkish
actions. And it was only a matter of intervention, but
particularly restraint on the part of Russian President Putin and
the Russian military that averted that. There is still clearly an
option, and lessons to be learned from this provocation, that
could and must lead to reaching an agreement in Vienna to end the
five-year war and tragedy in Syria. But that must start with the
kind of blunt truth which we have been discussing here over the
last few minutes; and it cannot go forward so long as President
Obama remains in office. So, there are urgent issues that must be
taken up by the Congress and by the American people, if we are
going to avert a war; because I can assure you, if those critical
actions are not taken in the immediate days ahead, then the
chances that there will be {another} incident; {another}
provocation, whether by Ukraine, whether by Erdogan and the
Turks, whether by ISIS, and if actions aren’t taken to solve the
problem at its roots, we will be staring at the prospect of world
war in the immediate days, perhaps hours ahead.
BEETS: Okay, thank you very much, Jeff. Now, upcoming this
Monday, November 30th, we have the beginning of a two-week long
genocidal COP21 depopulation climate conference, which is
occurring in Paris, and despite the actual danger to humanity
which Jeff just outlined in detail, and especially in the wake of
the terrorist attacks in Paris just two weeks ago, this
absolutely insane conference is going ahead as scheduled, to be
attended by approximately 140 heads of state, along with
thousands of other government, NGO, and other officials, notably
Britain’s Prince Charles, the dysfunctional and inbred son of
Queen Elizabeth and her walking-dead husband, Prince Philip, will
be one of the keynote speakers.
Now, as we addressed in this webcast last week, if anyone
involved had any morality, we would completely change the nature
of the conference, to address the actual dangers and threats to
humanity, such as the refugee crisis, the conditions of poverty
around the world, and the lack of development that are actually
threatening billions of people. So what I’d like to do now, is
ask Jason to come to the podium to address this upcoming
conference in the context of what Jeff just presented.
JASON ROSS: This is almost like the worst joke you could
imagine, holding this conference in Paris. This conference which,
starting in a few days — we’ve been opposing this, and we’ve got
a leaflet, a resolution that we’ve been getting out on this,
called, “We Say No to the Paris COP21 CO2 Reduction Scheme.” I
want to read the bookmarks of this, the bookends. It opens, “The
conditions for life of billions of people depend upon rejecting
the agenda being presented at the 2015 climate change conference
to be held in Paris this December. The COP21 Paris initiative to
adopt a legally-binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions must be
rejected on two grounds: the scientific reality, that mankind’s
activity, is {not} going to cause catastrophic climate change,
and the very real lethal consequences of the CO2 reduction
programs being demanded.” It ends, that “Energy-intensive
scientific, technological, and economic growth is essential to
human existence. This can be measured by transitions to higher
levels of energy-flux density per-capita and per-area. Such
progress, growth, and development, is the universal right of man,
and CO2 emissions are presently a vital part of that process for
the overwhelming majority of the world’s population. The adoption
of a legally-binding CO2 reduction scheme at the COP21 conference
in Paris will condemn billions of people to a lower quality of
life, with higher death-rates, greater poverty, and no ability to
exercise their inherent human right to participate in the
creation of a better condition for society as a whole. This is
deeply immoral. For these reasons, the CO2 reduction scheme of
the COP21 conference in Paris must be rejected.”
So on the grounds of the fakery of the science, and the
very, very real human costs of trying to meet the CO2 reduction
goals, this can’t go forward. However, obviously the push is
there, the conference is going ahead despite the state of
emergency currently in France, the terrorized population of
Paris, changes in some of the agenda, but it’s going ahead, and
as a matter of fact, this conference is getting a kick-start over
the weekend — today and the rest of the weekend — the
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is taking place in
Malta. So this is where all the members of the former British
Empire, now called the British Commonwealth, get together to —
as in this case — hear speeches from the Queen and others about
why they need to reduce CO2.
Prince Charles — who has been basically waiting for his
mother to die for a half century to get a job — he said that the
terrorism that we’re seeing, the conflicts that we’re seeing, are
not because of conflict, not because of ISIS, not because of the
Brits and Saudi Arabia helping ISIS, instead, Prince Charles
said, “In fact, there is very good evidence indeed that one of
the major reasons for this horror in Syria was a drought that
lasted for about 5 or 6 years, which meant that huge numbers of
people in the end had to leave the land.” This is the guy that
they’re asking to give the keynote address at the COP21
conference — a man whose understanding of Syria seems to be that
all of the conflict is because of a drought which was caused by
climate change. It’s insane, and it’s knowingly evil on his part.
So, what should be done instead, is re-purposing the
conference would be a good thing, you know, recycling what’s
going to be done there. As Megan said, of course, addressing the
refugee crisis, which is all over Europe at present, and beyond
— that’s worth discussing. Really, what’s worth discussing is a
solution to this whole problem, which would be excellent if the
Congress were to release the 28 pages, put them in the record, as
Senator Gravel did with the Pentagon Papers, to be able to attack
the cause of this conflict at its source, which as Jeff went
through, as LaRouche has been stressing, is Obama, who by his
nature as a killer personality, has qualified himself to be
inserted into his role as President. That that is the cause of
the conflicts. Releasing the 28 pages, discussing how to actually
shut down terrorism in the region, working {with} Russia on this
— you know, Russia is serious about this — you know, that would
be worth discussing.
And really, what would it mean to develop the world into the
Silk Road? You know, EIR released, about a year ago now, “The New
Silk Road Becomes the World Landbridge.” It’s a 300 and — almost
400 page report. It goes through in incredible detail, with maps
and everything, what it would mean for China’s One Belt One Road
project, its New Silk Road project, to continue its extension
into a worldwide paradigm of development. What would those
projects look like? And this is a policy that the LaRouches have
been promoting for decades, and Helga LaRouche in her visits to
China is acknowledged as “the Silk Road Lady,” for her role in
bringing this outlook into the current fruition that it’s
finding. So what would it mean for the U.S. to join the Silk
Road? What would it mean for us to get our act together?
Well, we’ve been working on a report on this, in terms of
what a U.S. recovery would look like, and there’s a lot of
aspects to this. I mean, if you think about the kinds of projects
that have, many, been on the books, and the kinds of projects
that will drive us into the future, you recognize that it would
not be very difficult to create millions of jobs in a very short
period of time — meaningful, productive jobs — that lay the
groundwork for a durable new, more productive economy for the
future. Doing that will require eliminating Wall Street, getting
Glass-Steagall re-implemented, having those provisions back in
place, shutting down Wall Street which we do not need. Gambling
is not an essential part of economy. The productive process,
science, creativity, the development of human beings and
infrastructure — that is essential. Gambling is not.
So with Wall Street out of the way, with federal financing,
with federal credit made available, some of the projects are
things that we’ve discussed quite a bit. Take, for example, the
Bering Strait. Crossing the Bering Strait with a tunnel or a
bridge, as engineers decide, would be a very key role, a very key
project, to put the U.S. on the Silk Road, literally, making it
possible to get from the West Coast of the U.S., into Eurasia,
much more quickly than by sending a ship across the ocean, with
the added benefit that rail, or transportation corridors on land
overall, allow for the ability to develop regions along the
way. Something that a ship crossing the ocean doesn’t do. Ships
don’t create wealth, or the potential to create it, as they cross
the waters. Land connections do.
So the Bering Strait tunnel — that would be a key project.
Overall, transportation has a tremendous way to go in the U.S.
You know, China, which is a nation very similar in size to the
United States, currently has 11,000 miles of high-speed rail,
with plans to have 30,000 by 2020, and they’ll do it — they do
what they say. In contrast, we have under 500 miles of high-speed
rail, and that’s being very generous in counting the Acela
service as high-speed. What we should have is 42,000 miles of
electrified, decent rail in the United States, bringing down the
costs of transportation, and of production throughout the nation,
making it more possible to move intermediate goods from place to
place, to move people, to move products in a way that will have a
tremendous savings in time, and in energy costs.
Currently over half of rail-freight in the U.S. is coal. You
know, in a nuclear economy we obviously wouldn’t need so much
coal, but it also goes to show how little else is being done with
the system as it is, and maybe some idea of what it could be like
in the future.
Along with the development of the basics which we naturally
think of — things like transportation, rail, repairing roadways,
power plants, water systems, which I’ll get into in a moment —
the other aspect is cities. Now, India has committed itself to
building scores of new cities across the country. Russia has
created science cities. The United States — imagine the
potential, not to keep adding more and more sprawl to the
outsides of our current cities, but developing legitimately new
cities, actual cities, planned in a sensible way, with part of a
transportation backbone underlying it, with infrastructure that’s
needed, canals and aqueducts as necessary, water, power, that
sort of thing. But then also where the cities and where life is
oriented around the most key of economic processes — the
creation of wealth by improving the productive powers of labor,
by the cultural role that can be played by a city.
So in addition to the ability to move goods and people
easily, the density you find in a real city, where different
members of the household can do their various things that anyone
having an hour and a half commute can’t, you also have the other
role of the city itself as a social institution.
So, in a very interesting article that LaRouche wrote some
decades ago, in a program for the development of Africa, he
discusses the central role of the city, and the presence of a
research and educational complex, a pedagogical museum where
people, kids, their parents, etc. would be able to step
themselves through how discoveries had been made in the past in a
hands-on way, doing experiments, themselves witnessing and
understanding very directly how humanity has gotten where it is,
making it possible to have workers able to master new
technologies, and scientists able to reflect on what science has
done in the past, to create the new discoveries needed in the
future.
This sort of educational center of the city will be more
than a museum retailing the past; it will be more than looking
backwards. LaRouche wrote that to give vitality and direction to
the process, the educational zone of a new city must be engaged
in some aspect of scientific research which is itself of world
importance. He says that “a modern nation has achieved true
sovereignty in spirit, only if it achieves excellence in some
important aspect of advancement of human knowledge generally. A
people which can point to several institutions of its own nation,
and can identify several important contributions to human
knowledge associated with such institutions, is a people which
knows that its children are capable of equalling in importance to
humanity, the children of any other nation. To teach science is
to teach the principles of discovery.”
So, with cities, with this as an included basis, cities of
finite size ( no more than one or two million people), with the
development made potential by rail, by water, by developing
fusion power on a crash basis, and implementing the
already-discovered abilities which have been improved on building
nuclear fission plants, we’ll be able to dramatically increase
the power, electrical power, available in the nation; to power
transportation; to power manufacturing. And to do all of this,
we’re also going to need revival of machine tools themselves.
Now, machine tools — now not everyone’s actually seen one
of these in person. These are things like lathes, like mills,
shapers — these are the devices that make everything that’s
required, that create metal, that shape metal to do machining. To
the extent that you are able to innovate in this area, as has
been done with new technologies over the decades — like electric
discharge machining around the time of the Apollo program, or
electron-beam welding; or the more recent developments of laser
and plasma cutting, and the ability for these computer-controlled
machine tools to create things that would have taken ten times
longer in earlier eras: to the extent that this technology
improves, and to the extent that purchases are made, and as part
of an industrialization, the capital stock is increasingly of
newer, and more productive machine tools, the entire economy sees
the benefits from them, by making easier, reducing the cost, of
all other production.
So, this machine tool principle is, in the small, an image
of what it means to take discoveries and then implement them into
an economy, for new thought, new engineering, or scientific idea,
to become manifest in the economy. And this is a field that needs
motion on. As I said earlier, power; fusion research, which has
been starved of funding deliberately for decades, preventing the
kind of breakthroughs that would make power, as has been said,
too cheap to meter — or even if not that cheap, remarkably
abundant power able to bring the next generation of production
technologies into play. To transform our relationship with raw
materials, and with reshaping those materials. Things like the
plasma torch.
So, in this kind of economy, we can then re-approach such
subjects as water. California is in what’s called a water crisis,
despite being right next to the Pacific Ocean. Why do we not have
the power and the plants in place to be able to desalinate? To at
least provide for much of the needs in California? Why have we
not done more research on how weather actually functions?
You know, one of the ironies of the global warming
alarmists, hysterics, whatever you want to call them, is that
this supposedly scientific outlook is actually stifling science.
Hypotheses about what’s causing climate change over time,
hypotheses about how cosmic radiation coming from our Galaxy, or
even beyond, plays a role in creating the cloud condensation
nuclei to form clouds, to effect precipitation, to change the
albedo, the reflectants of the Earth, and therefore its
temperature — that’s real science that’s being held back by the
global warming mafia, who reject this kind of approach because it
doesn’t come to the conclusion that they want: namely, that
human-made CO2 is {the} determining factor in global climate.
It’s just not true.
So, as was said in that resolution I read at the beginning,
and as is covered in this other EIR special report, “Global
Warming Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science,” the science
is clear. We are not causing catastrophic warming of the planet.
Mankind is not a virus destroying the Earth. What is destroying
the planet is oligarchism; the outlook that human beings are a
disease, the anti-growth and enforced poverty promoted by the
City of London, by Wall Street, by that system which has to be
removed. In its place, as far as an actual concept of humanity,
let me read another quote from LaRouche here. He says, “Every
infant born in any part of the world has the potential for
development of his or her mental powers to the level sufficient
for adult competence in use of modern technology.” And this also
means real technology, not iPhones. “That child can achieve at
least an approximation for practice of the highest levels of
productive powers of labor in the world generally today. It is
that potential development which is the only source of wealth.”
Let’s remember that; the source of wealth, the increasing of the
productive powers of labor, as Hamilton put it, lies in that
ability for human beings creatively to develop new understandings
about nature, and thereby reform the economy in an entire way.
That’s real economic science, and with that approach, the
programs that are needed, the development projects which we can
implement, the jobs that will create; this can all follow from an
outlook of what economics truly is, and breaking free from the
false ideas about it which have been promoted by Wall Street and
which have affected, unfortunately, a very great number of our
fellow citizens.
BEETS: Thanks, Jason. Two days ago, on Wednesday of this
week, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s
publication of his paper on general relativity. Now, LaRouche has
reiterated many times in the recent period that Einstein was the
only true scientist in the 20th Century; someone who held out
against the corruption in thinking that was ushered in 1900 by
Bertrand Russell. And someone who was attacked and isolated for
his commitment to the paradigm of thinking which represents the
actual human mind; the paradigm which was responsible for all of
human progress up to this point. So, what I’d like to do is ask
Jason to come back to the podium and ask him this question: Given
the task ahead of us today to rebuild society, rebuild
civilization, and to create a new paradigm for mankind, I’d like
to ask Jason to give us a sense of the importance of Einstein’s
work and his commitment.
ROSS: Sure. I think what Einstein accomplished represents a
key concept under which science can be understood; that of
metaphor. LaRouche has repeatedly stressed the importance of
metaphor as the key to science; meaning the development of
language in such a way that you express a new scientific truth in
a way that could not even have been stated in the preceding
language. It’s not something mathematical; it’s not a formula or
an expression. Discoveries in their true form can’t be. After the
fact, you might be able to write them down; but what makes them a
discovery is an overthrowing of the past, the development of a
new basis for thinking incompatible with what came before. That’s
the kernel of what a discovery is. None of these thoughts are
really eternal; what is, is that process of developing new ones.
Which is the incredible error in science education today, based
upon understanding how to apply the fruits of discovery to
specific problems; but not going through how they were developed.
So, 100 years ago, 1915, Einstein successfully expanded his
special theory of relativity, which he had developed in 1905,
into a more general form; making it the general theory of
relativity. So, I do want to say a bit about what Einstein did; I
think it would be wrong not to; and then get into what it would
mean for us today, what’s the relevance. Einstein’s not just
someone to idolize, or say, “Wow, he was a real genius.” Figure
out what he did.
So, going back ten years earlier to 1905 — 110 years ago —
Einstein, in his what’s now called special theory of relativity,
changed the basis on which scientific thought was based. At that
time, the prevailing view was of a Newtonian outlook to space and
time. Isaac Newton had said that space and time were independent
of things within them; space is space, within it, things exist
and take place, or occur in different relations to each other.
According to Newton, time flows on its own, without reference to
the things in it; they take place over time, but time is an
independent existence.
Well, Einstein tore that apart in 1905; in some ways with
rather simple thoughts. For example, he demonstrated that the
concept of simultaneity does not exist; that depending on who it
is that you ask, and their motion with respect to two events that
are occurring, that observer might say yes they occurred at the
same time. Meaning the light from those two events reaching them,
to make a determination which one occurred first, or second, or
whether they occurred simultaneously, depending on the motion of
an observer, they might appear to occur at the same time or not.
He gave the example of someone on a train witnessing two
lightning bolts, versus someone on the ground witnessing two
lightning bolts. To someone on the ground, two lightning bolts
occurring at equal distances in either direction, the light will
come and reach the person at the same time. To someone on a
train, who is at the middle of that platform right when the bolts
occur, at the same time according to the person on the platform,
because of the train’s motion, they’re going to see this bolt
before the other one. Who’s right? What does it really mean to
say “at the same time”? Because all the laws of nature work the
same, whether you’re standing still supposedly, or you’re in
constant motion, there’s no way to say who’s right; what the
right time should be. And the idea of having a universality of
simultaneity, to say “at this moment in the universe” disappears,
and it becomes relative to the observer.
What does that mean? It means that time itself no longer
exists as a basis for thought in the way that it had before.
There’s still time, but it’s no longer an untouchable permanence;
the same thing is the case for space. Where space and time are
skewed, and distances have to take place or be considered in
space-time, rather than in only one or the other. So, by then, by
1905 in his special theory of relativity, Einstein had replaced
the concepts of space and time as a basis for physics with
something physical; light’s motion. In this way, he was
implementing the revolutions in physics that Riemann said would
take place; that our understanding of geometry would take place
not by looking at geometry, but by an understanding of those
binding forces of nature which give rise to what is then
observed. A bent space; a curved space; a skewed space.
With his general theory of relativity in 1915, Einstein went
beyond frames of reference which are either at rest with respect
to each other or in uniform motion; and he considered
acceleration. He considered the fact that there is a relativistic
equivalence between somebody in a room where they feel the floor
pushing up against their feet, or their feet pushing down against
the floor, that without reference to what’s outside that room,
they might be sitting on the Earth, or they might be out in
space, where the top of the building is attached to a rope which
is being pulled at an accelerating rate, constantly pulling the
building up against their feet. No experiment, nothing you could
do inside the room, would be able to distinguish the one from the
other. From this equivalence then, Einstein derived his general
theory of relativity, by which not only motion, but gravitation
changes the shape of space and time.
This was a very, and still is, a very wild shocking idea.
Space and time were considered to be such fundamental things that
the possibility of them even being curved was rejected out of
hand by people like Immanuel Kant, Isaac Newton, Bertrand
Russell.
So, what Einstein was able to do, though, is demonstrate
that he was right. Two quick examples. One was the orbit of
Mercury. Every orbit, every planet, has a place that’s farthest
from the Sun, and one where it’s closest to the Sun. You draw the
line through them. That line for the orbit doesn’t stay
stationary. It actually moves over time. For Mercury that line
moves a degree and a half every century. And based on
calculations and gravity, as it was understood, people were able
to explain almost all of that change. There remained a very, very
small — about .01 degree per century — change in Mercury’s
orbit that no one had explained, but which Einstein was able to
explain with his theory.
Also his prediction about how light would bend going around
large objects, was borne out in the experiments around the
eclipse of 1919, in which photographs taken of stars near the
eclipsed Sun — since the Sun was covered, you could actually see
stars near the Sun, which you can’t ordinarily do in the daytime,
because you can’t see anything — and comparing those same stars
when the Sun was not in the sky near them, showed again that
Einstein was right; that the path of light coming from the stars
towards us was deformed, was shaped, by the presence of the Sun
in the way.
So, these are the things that people are most familiar with
about Einstein, things that are indisputably advances that he
made. But there’s more to him than that. I think that the great
importance that LaRouche attributes to him in what Megan was
bringing up about calling him the only scientist we had here in
the Twentieth Century, the only one who stuck to science, lies
elsewhere as well.
The other great work that Einstein had done was on the
quantum. So in 1905, in addition to Special Relativity, he also
wrote a paper to explain the photo-electric effect, and it was
actually this that got him his Nobel Prize later. This expanded
the theories of Planck in showing how light itself must come in
pieces: that it’s not purely a wave phenomenon; that there’s
something particle-like about it. Experiments, however, required
light to also have wave-like properties, making it impossible to
in a simple way decide on this question. Is light a particle, or
is light a wave? This is one of the difficulties of quantum
physics.
What Einstein held out against was the interpretation by
scientists in his day, led by Bohr, mainly, Neils Bohr the Dane,
to say that science had reached a limit; that to ask why was
really no longer admissible, and that in the quantum world,
physics, instead of saying what nature is, is limited to
describing how nature appears. Against that Einstein — Einstein
would not accept that. Einstein never accepted the idea that we
had reached an end to the ability to know things, and that
quantum theory as it was known at that time, was final, complete.
Something that’s never been true of, really, any theory in
history.
This is seen now with the ongoing difficulties around
completing quantum theory, and also the anomalies in the fields
of life and the potential for a higher understanding of these
quantum processes in the fields of cognition. It’s also seen in
his own work, with the theory of gravitation; with the
difficulties — I hope you’ve been watching the series of
presentations our colleague Ben Deniston has been doing on the
Galaxy on this website every other Wednesday — it’s also seen in
the difficulty in understanding the speed of rotation of
galaxies. The basis for hypotheses that people make about dark
matter now. A lot of what this can indicate is that we have
simply reached the limits to the applicability of our physical
theories, and need to go beyond them.
That’s not done mathematically by positing ways to keep our
old laws, to explain the new phenomena, but it can require going
beyond it.
So, we don’t have answers to these questions. We shouldn’t
fool ourselves into thinking that we do already have the answers
to these questions. And the importance of Einstein for us today,
is that of a successful discoverer who overthrew what had been
thought, developed a higher theory to explain things, and was
guided by an understanding of the role of the human mind in
developing new, successful concepts about nature. With that as a
basis for how we relate to other human beings, with that as a
basis for social relations, we can forge a much higher level of
cooperation on this planet, and develop a culture that’s really
suitable for human beings that participate in it.
MEGAN BEETS: Thank you very much, Jason. With that, I’m
going to bring our broadcast to a close. I would like to thank
Jason for joining me, and Jeff for joining us via video, and I’d
like to thank all of you for watching tonight. Please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com. Good night.
Som hr. LaRouche eftertrykkeligt erklærede under vores diskussion med ham, så er den amerikanske præsident Obamas politik den førende årsag til det kaos, som verden nu befinder sig i, og har ikke alene bevirket skabelsen af en frugtbar yngleplads for vækst og deployering af terrororganisationer som ISIS i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, men har også bragt os helt ud på randen af krig med Rusland og Kina – en krig, som ville blive en verdenskrig med anvendelse af atomvåben, som ville betyde udslettelsen af det store flertal af denne planets befolkning. Med Jeff Steinberg m. fl.
Engelsk udskrift.
International LaRouche PAC Webcast for Friday November 20 2015
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s November 20, 2015. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly broadcast
here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by
both Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and
Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and we have
a very timely and important presentation prepared for you
tonight, which was informed by a meeting that the three of us had
earlier today with both Lyndon LaRouche, as well as Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, who joined us via video-call from Europe.
Obviously we’re meeting here tonight exactly one week
following the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday. As
Helga LaRouche emphasized during our discussion with her earlier,
the sheer horror of these attacks, striking as they did at the
heart of one of the leading cities of Europe, claiming the lives
of 130 innocent people, who were slaughtered in cold blood as
they went around their usual business on a Friday night — this
has absolutely changed everything, and has served to force people
across Europe, and in the United States, to recognize that a
sudden and dramatic change in policy must be adopted, or else the
entirety of Western Civilization is on the verge of descending
into a total hell on earth, from which it would be virtually
impossible to return.
As Mr. LaRouche emphatically stated in our discussion with
him, the policies of US President Barack Obama are the leading
cause of the chaos which the world now finds itself in, and have
served not only to create a fertile breeding ground for the
growth and deployment of terrorist organizations like ISIS in the
Middle East and North Africa, but have brought us right to the
edge of a war with Russia, and with China — a war that would be
world war, which would involve the use of thermonuclear weapons,
which would mean the extermination of a vast majority of the
population on this planet.
Now in a very significant development, which I know Jeff
will go a little bit more into, and will elaborate on in his
remarks, this fact has been explicitly stated by a Congresswoman,
whom we’ve spoken about previously on these broadcasts, Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, in a press release which
she issued earlier today, announcing the filing of a bill in the
House of Representatives that, in her words, would bring an
immediate end to the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow
the Syrian government of Assad, Barack Obama’s war. Congresswoman
Gabbard explains:
“The war to overthrow Assad is illegal and
counterproductive, because it actually helps ISIS and other
Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian
government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria.” Then she
lists 10 reasons, which include the fact that if we are to
succeed in overthrowing Assad, as Barack Obama wishes, it would
open the door for ISIS to take over all of Syria, including
Damascus, in which case, she says, “there will be genocide and
suffering on a scale beyond our imagination.”
She also states that the overthrowing of the government of
Assad is the goal of ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups,
and “we should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic
extremists by helping them achieve their goal, because it is
against the security interests of the United States and all of
civilization.” And she also says that we should learn from the
past mistakes in both the regime changes in Iraq and in Libya,
which is saying something from a combat veteran, Congresswoman
Gabbard, who was herself deployed in the war in Iraq.
Now, she also makes the point that Obama’s war has been the
direct exacerbation of the chaos and the carnage in Syria
inflicted by ISIS on the innocent people of that country, which
has caused the number of refugees being forced to flee Syria and
elsewhere, to continue to increase at a rapid rate. And later in
the broadcast that is something that I know Ben Deniston will
also be addressing.
But most significantly, she lists as reason number 10:
“Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in
direct conflict with Russia, and increases the likelihood of war
between the United States and Russia, and the possibility of
another world war.” So, as far as I know, that makes Tulsi
Gabbard the only sitting member of Congress to have had the guts
to state that fact as explicitly and clearly.
I just want to read one more short excerpt from her press
release before introducing our institutional question for this
evening. Congresswoman Gabbard concludes her press release by
stating: “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances. If
we are serious about defeating ISIS, and solving the refugee
problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, with France, and
anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated
Islamic extremist organizations worldwide. The problem is because
the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad,
and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is
impossible for us to have an effective cooperative relationship
with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS. Our focus on
overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy
ISIS. We must immediately end the illegal, counterproductive war
to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, and ally ourselves
with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic
extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization.”
So this brings us directly to our institutional question for
this evening, to which I’m going to ask Jeff to deliver Mr.
LaRouche’s response. The question reads as follows: “Mr.
LaRouche, the Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev has said
that the best way to combat the so-called Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria, or ISIS, is for Russia to unite with the West in a
grand alliance to defeat this common threat of terrorism. In this
regard, Russia is already coordinating airstrikes against ISIS
with France. How do you envision a closer collaboration between
the United States and Russia in this fight to defeat ISIS, and
all of its affiliated terrorist organizations?”
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Mr. LaRouche was very
blunt, as you’ll hear in a just a moment, and in fact, he took
the question one step beyond the otherwise very important and
admirable comments made by Congresswoman Gabbard today. And by
the way, that press release was announcing the introduction of a
bill into the U.S. House of Representatives that would formally
ban the Obama administration from any further actions to
overthrow the Assad government.
Now, during our discussion with Mr. LaRouche, I took rather
detailed notes so what I’m about to read to you are not verbatim
transcripts of what Mr. LaRouche had to say, but they will give
you a very clear flavor, and represent I think a pretty accurate
accounting from Mr. LaRouche’s comments. And the very first thing
that he said is, to defeat ISIS in partnership with the Russians,
you have to get rid of Obama. Putin surprised everyone with his
military move into Syria in September; and it was the only way to
do it. Obama is sunk in, and there is no alternative until he is
removed; and this cannot be postponed. We’re running out of time,
and we are on the verge of the total collapse of the US system;
he must be thrown out immediately. And LaRouche went on to add,
we must totally dump Wall Street and adopt the approach of FDR at
the start of his New Deal. Roosevelt solved the problem within
weeks of taking office, by changing the entire direction of the
nation after the disaster of President Herbert Hoover. Everything
changed within a few years. The idea of totally shutting down
Wall Street is not difficult for intelligent people to
understand; nothing else works. Congress is pussyfooting around.
Wall Street must be shut, and a new Federal operation must be
launched to rebuild the nation. Do not try to salvage any part of
the old system. The problem is that most people in Congress are
idiots; and the President of the United States is a criminal.
When you have a criminal leading idiots, you have a system that
will not work. So, Obama must be thrown out, and there is no
alternative to that. All of the evidence is there. Shut down Wall
Street! It’s not needed.
Furthermore, Obama has committed so many crimes in fact,
that he can be removed from office at any moment. Start with his
Tuesday kill sessions; these are crimes that not only demand his
removal from office, but should land him in prison for mass
murder. Obama has presided over the destruction of the US
economy, to the point that a majority of our citizens are facing
the disaster of impoverishment. He has followed the George
Bush/Dick Cheney cover-up of 9/11; this is typical for Obama, who
is nothing but a British agent protecting the brutish.
And so, the problem is not with the evidence; the problem is
that most members of Congress lack guts. The Tuesday kill
meetings tell it all. The vast majority of people killed on
Obama’s personal orders, were innocent bystanders; not even the
so-called “legitimate targets”. And Obama personally signed off
on every one of those killings.
Now, I want you to take a look at one of the documents that
was released as part of the “Drone Papers”. We’ve talked about
this repeatedly for the last four or five weeks. The “Drone
Papers” that were published by {The Intercept}, a web-based news
organization founded by Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, are
hundreds of pages of documents from the Pentagon and from the
House Select Committee on Intelligence. Now the specific document
that you’re looking at, is a flowchart that goes through
step-by-step the procedures that are used to establish who will
be killed. This is the process that ultimately leads up to those
Tuesday kill meetings, where President Obama personally presides.
If you follow the chain of command — and this is dealing with
two specific operations within the overall drone kill program —
one operation in Somalia called Operation Jupiter Garrett; and
another operation in Yemen called Copper Dune. In every instance,
the process for deciding on the kill order goes up from the local
military intelligence units on the ground, up through the
military command all the way through the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
up to the Secretary of Defense, and up to the Principals
Committee and the Deputy Principals Committee; these are the
Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet officials of the government. But
ultimately, everything leads back to the President of the United
States. And it’s only with President Obama’s personal signature
that the kill orders go out; the clock starts, and there is a
60-day deadline to track down and kill the designated target.
Now, even by the criteria that are contained in this
document, we know from the House Intelligence review and from
other exposés that none of the guidelines have been followed; and
that all of procedures that were supposedly built in to make sure
that innocent civilian casualties were avoided, that there was
direct confirmation of the whereabouts of the target — none of
those things were adhered to. At the very bottom, it says that
“At every level, the targetting window suitability is determined
by rules of engagement.” The rules of engagement are that there
must be low collateral damage estimates; meaning “collateral
damage” is a polite word for innocent civilians being killed in
the course of the attacks. There must be “near certainty” of the
high-value individual’s presence, based on two forms of
intelligence and no contradictory intelligence; and then, all the
way up the chain of command — including the host government —
must all concur, or otherwise no strike is allowed to take place.
Now, I can tell you that having reviewed the totality of the
“Drone Papers”, that these procedures — as minimal and as
limited as they are — were never adhered to. None of these
conditions were met in the overwhelming majority of these kill
incidents. And to give you an idea of the callousness of this
structure under President Obama, the formal name given to the
summary documents; the photographs and documentary evidence that
was used to determine whether or not the President will sign off
on a kill order, is referred to in these meetings as the
“baseball card”. So, in other words, the lack of any sense of
what this program is all about, is absolutely stunning.
Now, let me just add that, earlier today, President Obama,
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and CIA Director John Brennan
received a letter that was written by four former US Air Force
Drone Team members. They are: Brandon Bryant, Sion Westmoreland,
Stephen Lewis, and Michael Haas; all four of them operated for
years as members of the drone crew. And they wrote this letter,
urging the President to end the program right now; and I want to
read you what they had to say, because I think it’s one of the
most powerful testaments to the murderous criminality of our
President. And it should make very clear that anything short of
immediate removal from office, by impeachment, or invoking of the
25th Amendment, or forcing his immediate resignation is
unacceptable and doesn’t rise to the magnitude of the crisis that
we’re in, or the crimes that he’s committed. Here’s the letter:
“We are former Air Force service members. We joined the Air
Force to protect American lives and to protect our Constitution.
We came to the realization that the innocent civilians we were
killing, only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited
terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a
fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay. This
administration and its predecessors have built a drone program
that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism
and destabilization around the world. When the guilt of our roles
in facilitating this systematic loss of innocent life became too
much, all of us succumbed to PTSD — post-traumatic stress
disorder. We were cut loose by the same government we gave so
much to, sent out in the world without adequate medical care,
reliable public health services, or necessary benefits. Some of
us are now homeless. Others of us barely make it. We witnessed
gross waste, mismanagement, abuse of power, and our country’s
leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone
program. We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the
attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone
program has, overseas and at home. Such silence would violate the
very oaths we took to support and defend the Constitution. We
request that you consider our perspective, though perhaps that
request is in vain, given the unprecedented prosecutions of
truth-tellers who came before us, like Chelsea Manning, Julian
Assange, and Edward Snowden. For the sake of this country, we
hope it is otherwise.”
Now, again, Mr. LaRouche has put the right punctuation mark
on the situation, and has made clear that nothing can be
accomplished, nothing can be effectively achieved in partnership
with the Russians, unless Obama is removed. I want to continue
briefly reading the remainder of Mr. LaRouche’s comments to us
this afternoon, and then we’ll move on. ` He said, the
gutlessness of the Congress really started in the current context
with the attacks of 9/11, with Cheney and company. He said, I
still have vivid recollection of the planes crashing into the
twin towers. This is a Manhattan issue. It goes to the heart of
the Bush family, and the heart of the Obama legacy. Obama’s
personality was shaped by his step-father, who was a cold
murderer. Obama has blood on his hands; he’s too dangerous for
mankind. Since the Russians launched their Syria operations in
September, and especially since the Paris attacks of one week
ago, there is an implicit taming of Obama, but he is still too
dangerous to be allowed to remain in office. Imagine where we
would be today without Putin’s actions and the actions of China.
The Victory Day parade in Beijing attended by Xi Jinping and
Putin established the Asian factor as a supreme factor in world
affairs. Compare that to the mess we see in France, the mess we
see in Germany, and elsewhere. So you must remove Obama from
office, or we can’t make it.
Now, he then returned to the question of Wall Street, which
Obama’s Presidency has protected up and down the line. Wall
Street is about to implode, and we must shut it down now. Treat
Wall Street as something that no longer exists. Use FDR’s methods
with even more emphasis. Write off all of Wall Street’s assets
out of existence, and develop a program, an FDR program, to
change the direction of the economy. Create a credit system, and
make it known that nothing will be paid on the useless assets of
Wall Street. And Mr. LaRouche ended by simply noting, Clinton was
blackmailed into going along with the end of Glass-Steagall, and
Hillary was unfortunately used as a tool in that process.
So, again, there is no question that a coordinated alliance
between the United States and Russia to defeat ISIS, using the
same approach that was used to defeat Hitler in World War II, is
feasible. Some leading retired American military officials have
openly called for a formal military alliance between the United
States and Russia. Let Russia, which has been formally invited
into Syria, handle the assault on the ISIS forces from the Syrian
side, and let the United States, which has been invited-in by the
Iraqi government, handle the assault against the Islamic State
from the Iraqi side. Run that as a pincer operation. Hit them
from both flanks, and crush them under the weight of the
capability that could be brought to bear by the United States and
Russia in combination. But again, while that is absolutely
feasible, there is no reason to assume that the British will let
that happen, so long as Obama remains in office. And therefore,
it is essential, if we are going to have this alliance, if we are
going to avoid many more Paris-es — perhaps the next one on the
streets of New York City, or Washington DC, or Chicago, or Los
Angeles — then Obama must be removed now, and Congress
collectively must find the guts to take the necessary action.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, as we mentioned last week on
our broadcast here, which we recorded just hours after the
initial attacks occurred in Paris, before there was last Friday’s
attacks in Paris, which killed 130 people, there were also the
fore-going attacks in January of this year, against the editorial
offices of the satirical magazine {Charlie Hebdo}.
As a matter of very eerie coincidence, just hours after
those attacks occurred, on January 7th of this year, several
members of Congress, including Walter Jones, and Stephen Lynch,
as well as former Senator Bob Graham, of the State of Florida,
and additionally, family members of the victims of 9/11, convened
a press conference on Capitol Hill, on the morning of January
7th, which had been previously scheduled, on the subject of a
bill to release the redacted 28 pages of the Congressional Joint
Inquiry Report into the attacks on 9/11, an inquiry of which
former Senator Bob Graham had been co-chair at the time. We are
going to replay a very short excerpt of Senator Graham’s remarks
at that press conference then, January 7th of this year, but
while we play this for you, I want you to reflect on how even
more relevant and urgent his statements are, now, in the wake, in
the aftermath of last Friday’s attacks in Paris, not to mention
the attacks in Beirut, the attacks in Mali earlier today, and
elsewhere, and the fact that the failure to release these pages
{then}, on January 7th, or January 8th, in the immediate wake of
that press conference, the failure to release the 28 pages
{then}, puts the blood of the innocent victims of these
subsequent attacks on the hands of those who insist on
perpetuating this cover-up to this day. So watch this brief
excerpt from the press conference on January 7th.
[RECORDING] CONG. WALTER JONES: I introduce the esteemed
Senator from Florida, Bob Graham. Thank you.
SENATOR BOB GRAHAM: Walter, thank you very much. And I, too,
want to thank Walter and Steve — Congressmen Jones and Lynch —
for their leadership in bringing this matter to the attention of
the Congress. I want to thank the family members, who have been
without question the most influential force in all of the changes
that have occurred as a result of 9/11, and will be the most
significant force in terms of convincing the President that it is
time to give the American people the truth. Needless to say, my
remarks that I will espouse this morning, are considerably
different than they would have been, but for events in Paris this
morning, which in my judgment, bring this matter into its proper
focus.
What have been the consequences of this refusal to release
the pages? The consequences, in my judgment are three:
One, is a denial of the truth. A core question in 9/11 is,
did these 19 people act alone, or did they have a network of
support which facilitated their ability to carry out a very
complex plot? No one who has looked closely at the facts,
including the individuals that I just named, has come to a
conclusion other than that it is highly improbable that the 19
people could have acted alone. Yet, the official position of the
United States government has been that they did act alone, and
that there is no necessity for further inquiry into the question
of whether there was a support network.
The second issue, is the issue of justice. Some 3,000
members of the families who were lost on 9/11 have been trying
for years to get justice through our system for the losses that
they have suffered. The position of the United States government
has been to protect Saudi Arabia, at virtually every step of the
judicial process. When the United States government was called
upon to take a position, it has been a position adverse to the
interests of the United States citizens seeking justice, and
protective of the government which, in my judgment, was the most
responsible for that network of support.
The third consequence is the issue of national security, and
frequently those who have defended nondisclosure, have said, this
cannot be made available to the American people, because it would
be adverse to our national security. It will affect methods and
sources of information, or other information that is
inappropriate to be made publicly known. As the two Congressmen
have just said, they both read the reportnot 12 years ago, when I
participated in writing the reportbut they have read it recently,
and have both come to the same conclusion that we did a dozen
years ago: that there is no threat to national security in
disclosure.
I’m going to make the case today, that there is a threat to
national security by non-disclosure, and we saw another chapter
of that today in Paris.
Here are some facts:
The Saudis know what they did. They are not persons who are
unaware of the consequences of their government’s actions.
Second, the Saudis know that we know what they did! Somebody in
the Federal government has read these 28 pages, someone in the
Federal government has read all the other documents that have
been covered up so far. And the Saudis know that.
What would you think the Saudis’ position would be, if they
knew what they had done, they knew that the United States knew
what they had done, and they also observed that the United States
had taken a position of either passivity, or actual hostility to
letting those facts be known? What would the Saudi government do
in that circumstance, which is precisely where they have been,
for more than a decade?
Well, one, they have continued, maybe accelerated, their
support for one of the most extreme forms of Islam, Wahhabism,
throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. And
second, they have supported the religious fervor, with financial
and other forms of support, of the institutions which were going
to carry out those extreme forms of Islam. Those institutions
have included mosques, madrassas, and military. Al-Qaeda was a
creature of Saudi Arabia; the regional groups such as al-Shabaab
have been largely creatures of Saudi Arabia; and now, ISIS is the
latest creature!
Yes, I hope and I trust that the United States will crush
ISIS, but if we think that is the definition of victory, we are
being very naive! ISIS is a consequence, not a causeit is a
consequence of the spread of extremism, largely by Saudi Arabia,
and if it is crushed, there will be another institution
established, financed, supported, to carry on the cause.
So the consequences of our passivity to Saudi Arabia, have
been that we have tolerated this succession of
institutionsviolent, extreme, extremely hurtful to the region of
the Middle East, and a threat to the world, as we saw this
morning in Paris.
So I conclude by saying, this is a very important issue. It
may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the headlines
that we will read today. It is an issue that goes to the core of
the United States’ contract with its people, that the people
would give the government the credibility and support to govern;
the government would give the people the information upon which
they can make good judgments, as to the appropriateness of
governmental action. It’s as fundamental as justice to our
people, who have suffered so, by this evil union of extremism and
a very powerful nation-state. And it is the security of the
people of the United States of America.
So, I again thank the Congressmen for their leadership. I
hope that they will soon be joined by a rising tide of other
members of Congress who recognize the importance of this issue.
And then, finally, that the President of the United States will
declare that he is going to adopt the Lincolnesque standard of
full disclosure, and rely on the intelligence and judgment and
patriotism of the American people to decide what the appropriate
course of action should be.
Thank you.
OGDEN: Now both Jeff Steinberg and myself had the
opportunity to be in that room on that day, January 7, present at
that press conference, and I know Senator Graham’s presentation
sent chills through the audience, especially because it came in
such proximity to these terrible attacks on that day, on the
headquarters of {Charlie Hebdo}; but especially when he said —
and I think this stood out for you, probably, when you were just
listening to this again — when he said, this is a very important
issue. It may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the
headlines we will read today.
And tragically, that applies just as much this week, in the
aftermath of the horrific attacks in Paris of last Friday, as it
did then, in the aftermath of the attacks at {Charlie Hebdo}. And
as long as this cover-up continues, innocent people continue to
die. Paris, Beirut, Mali, the Russian airliner — what’s next?
What must be done to ensure there {is} no next time?
So I know that Jeff has been deeply involved in this issue
for several years, over a decade, and I’d like him to come to the
podium to briefly comment on the significance of what you just
heard Senator Bob Graham say.
STEINBERG: The statement I read a few moments ago from the
four former drone pilots reminded me that among the documents
that were released in 2010 by WikiLeaks, which of course began
the process of revealing some of the murderous behavior of the
Obama administration, included a document which was a cable from
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Richard Holbrooke, who
was the Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who was
preparing to make a visit to Saudi Arabia soon after that memo
was written, towards the end of 2009. And what that memo said was
well, we’re in possession of massive evidence that the number one
source of financing for all of the various Sunni jihadist terror
groups is Saudi Arabia. And we’ve got to begin to develop a
policy for putting some kind of pressure on Saudi Arabia so
they’ll cut it out.
So, in other words, there was full knowledge in 2009 at the
very beginning of the Obama administration throughout the
administration that Saudi Arabia was still continuing to be a
major source of support for the al-Qaeda networks that carried
out the 9/11 atrocities. Remember also that General Michael
Flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was
unceremoniously fired last year by President Obama for daring to
continue to supply intelligence on the fact that Obama’s own
policies were fueling the growth of al-Qaeda and eventually
fueling the growth of the Islamic State — ISIS. So, this should
be a further reminder of the points that were made by Senator
Graham and the others that this administration, from day one, has
been fully on notice about the continuing role of Saudi Arabia as
the principal source of financing and logistical support for the
activities of these hideous jihadist terrorists.
Now just in the past week, really in the past several weeks,
we can account for hundreds of people who’ve been killed by the
very apparatus that this President has refused to take any action
against. You had the bombing of the Metro Jet airliner — 224
people killed when the plane blew up by a terrorist bomb over the
Sinai Desert. Secondly, you had two suicide bombings in the
southern portions of Beirut, targetting a largely Shi’ite
neighborhood. We don’t have the precise number of people killed,
but it was a large number of people killed and wounded. And of
course, we now have a death toll of 130 in Paris. And even
earlier today, you had a jihadist assault on the Radisson Blue
Hotel in Mali, where again we’re still awaiting the body count;
but 180 or so people were taken hostage by a group of armed
gunmen, and ultimately Malian, French and American commandoes
raided the hotel. And again, we witnessed a significant fire
fight; people were killed — innocent civilians arbitrarily
targetted simply because they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time.
Now, let’s face the reality. If those 28 pages had been
published back in 2002, and had revealed the indications of the
role of the Saudi monarchy and Saudi intelligence and Saudi
defense industrial company in providing the key support for the
9/11 hijackers, there would have been a public outcry. There
would have been a serious investigation into Saudi Arabia. There
would have been a fundamental change in the US relationship to
Saudi Arabia. And by the way, the investigation into the specific
funds provided by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to
the Saudi intelligence agents who were managing and supporting
two of the hijackers in San Diego, would have directly led to the
doorsteps of the British; because some of the money that went
from Bandar’s personal account into the hands of those
terrorists, came from the al Yamamah agreement — the
British/Saudi barter agreement, which {EIR} documented created an
offshore slush fund of tens of billions of dollars, perhaps
hundreds of billions of dollars over the scope and sweep of that
agreement — that was used to finance terrorism. Prince Bandar
openly boasted that funds from the al Yamamah project went to
financing what were then called the Afghan mujahideen; the
so-called freedom fighters who soon were known as al-Qaeda and
Taliban.
So, the track record is enormous; it’s unambiguous. There
has been a top-down Presidential cover-up of the Saudis and
British and their role in this terrorism under the Bush/Cheney
administration, and continuing under Obama. And in spite of all
of that evidence, the Obama administration continued to smuggle
weapons out of Benghazi into the hands of Syrian rebels;
including those who became part of ISIS and the Nusra Front. And
that’s not idle speculation; that’s from documents from the
Defense Intelligence Agency that were presented to the President
by no later than the Fall of 2012. One of those documents
specifically said, why are we still smuggling weapons into the
Syrian rebels out of Benghazi, when those networks just
assassinated a US ambassador and three other American officials?
So again, let’s go back to the original comments in response
to tonight’s institutional question by Mr. LaRouche. Obama’s got
to be removed from office because he’s got blood on his hands.
And the United States will never ever be able to actually
re-establish its role as a leading force for good in the world,
so long as we tolerate a President in office who’s got that much
blood on his hands and continues to carry forward the same
policies despite all of the evidence and all of the warnings.
OGDEN: Now, a direct correlative of this entire situation in
Syria, Libya, Iraq, and elsewhere is the unprecedented refugee
crisis now being experienced by the people of this region; who
are flooding across the Mediterranean and into Europe. And I know
this is one of the items that was directly cited by Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard in her list of ten reasons why the illegal war
against Bashar al-Assad must be ended. And it’s impossible to
underestimate the urgency and the significance of the currently
ongoing refugee crisis. This is a massive displacement of human
beings on the scale of millions, flooding into Europe from the
Middle East and North Africa; fleeing from the carnage and the
chaos which have taken over that region, which is a direct result
of the regime-change wars of first the George W Bush
administration, and now the Barack Obama administration. Again,
the culpability lies on the doorstep of Obama. And in Europe,
even before the terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, we saw a
frightening rise of a right-wing, proto-fascist, xenophobic
backlash within the European population against these refugees;
driven by the effects of the policies of such persons as Schäuble
and his so-called “Black Zero” policy. And the danger is that
this could drastically worsen and spin out of control as the
economic breakdown in the trans-Atlantic region continually gets
worse; and it will get worse rapidly, as long as the necessary
policies of a top-down complete bankruptcy re-organization of
this Wall Street system are not taken, which must begin with
Glass-Steagall, and the correlated policies that Franklin
Roosevelt enacted at the beginning of his New Deal.
Now this is the real civilizational crisis, threatening
Europe, the United States and the entire world, and {not}, as
Obama and his fellow travelers in the British Royal Family would
have you believe, the so-called crisis of anthropogenic global
warming. This is the real crisis: this refugee crisis, the crisis
of the destabilization of the entire region of the Middle East
and North Africa, and the threat of a total blow-out of the
trans-Atlantic bankrupt financial system. This is the real
crisis, which responsible leaders of the world’s leading powers
should be discussing as they gather in Paris next week for the
so-called COP21 Summit in Paris.
So before I say more about that, I would like to ask Ben
Deniston to come to the podium to make some very relevant
comments in that regard.
BEN DENISTON: Thanks, Matthew. From our discussion with
Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier today, we were discussing
a certain article that had just been released in the last couple
days, and Helga and all of us thought it would be an important
thing to highlight, given the relevance of this article to what
Matt just referenced. You should have graphic on your screen,
just a screen-shot of one publication, one blog, which is hosting
this article. The title is, as you can read, “Terrorism and a
Cold Winter Refugee Crisis,” with a subline reading “A Brutal
Cold Spell Could Kill Refugees.” Paris COP21 delegates need to
discuss this climate issue.
Now this article was authored by two leading so-called
climate skeptics, two individuals who have been out front
fighting against this fraudulent claim of a man-made climate
change crisis. One individual, just to give you a sense of who
they are, Joseph D’Aleo, is a certified consulting meteorologist;
he’s a fellow of the American Meteorology Society; and he’s one
of the original co-founders of the Weather Channel. So, he’s
somebody familiar with climate and weather. The other author is
Paul Driessen, who is a self-proclaimed former environmentalist,
until the environmentalist movement went against human beings,
and he decided it wasn’t a good thing to stick with. But he’s the
author of such books as the 2003 book “Eco-Imperialism: Green
Power, Black Death.” And he’s also done a number of interviews
with {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine, one of which is
part of the 2015 report put out by {Executive Intelligence
Review}, which, if you don’t have a copy of, we encourage you to
get a copy of immediately. Our recent report “Global Warming
Scare is Population Reduction, not Science”
So, they came out with a rather interesting piece which we
want to just put on the table and then comment upon. But just to
quote the beginning of their article. They open by saying “Even
after these latest Paris massacres, and previous radical Islamist
atrocities in the USA, in France, in Britain, in Canada, in
Spain, India, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and elsewhere, politicians
still absurdly say that hypothetical man-made global warming is
the greatest threat facing humanity. In reality, fossil fuel
contributions to the climate change pose few dangers to people or
planet, and winters actually kill 20 times more people than hot
weather.”
So after that lunge, they go on to highlight some very
relevant facts. They go into focus on the millions of refugees
that Matthew just referenced, who are desperately now trying to
escape the horrors of what frankly Obama has unleashed with the
Islamic State. As we discussed, many of them fleeing into Europe.
Well, the authors of this article make the relevant point that
these people are coming from a climate that is on average
generally 20 to 30 degrees warmer in the winter time than their
current destinations they’re heading into in Eastern and Northern
Europe. That this people who are fleeing desperately to get out
with their lives intact, are simply not prepared to just plunge
into this much colder climate of Europe, and especially if
they’re just simply left to try and survive in makeshift shelters
or tents, we could be seeing the beginnings of a very horrific
mass death scene, as these people suffer the horrors of a cold
European winter.
And these authors give a warning, that this could actually
be worse, this particular winter, if we see the return of some of
these periodic blasts or movements of frigid, extremely cold
Siberian air transfer over Europe, which is a not-uncommon
phenomenon, and could give rise to, again, a very cold, deadly
cold in this case, winter over Europe.
Now, they make the point: this prospect of a potentially
harsh cold is obviously in stark contrast to just the insane
propaganda lies about global warming, including, for example — a
couple of their highlights are rather useful, if anything, for
comic relief. But they cite a headline article from the German
publication {Der Spiegel} from 15 years [ago], from the year
2000. And the title of this article was: ” Goodbye, Winter. In
Germany cold winters are now a thing of the past.” This was
declared in 2000 to be the reality. Or a scientist with a British
Climate research unit, who was quoted saying, again about 15
years ago, around the year 2000: “Children are not going to know
what snow is.”
So, despite these crazy lies that have been spouted for
decades, and are being spouted again now, they make the relevant
point that for five years, between 2008 and 2013, you had a whole
series of extremely cold winters throughout Europe, in some cases
setting many records. England, for example, having one of the
coldest winters they had in centuries. Mind you, 8 to 12 years
after it was proclaimed that children in England would no longer
know what snow is, they had the coldest winter they’ve had since
sometime in the 1600s, in the Little Ice Age.
So anyway, they go on to point out that with most recent
scientific knowledge, these particular climate conditions, these
blasts, this movement of very frigid, cold air from the Siberian
region into Europe, tends to be associated with certain
fluctuation in the Atlantic ocean, certain multi-decadal cycles
in the Atlantic, in correspondence with certain changes in solar
activity. There’s a very close correlation and indications
between these solar phenomena and this particular process leading
to extremely cold winters in Europe. And they — obviously none
of this having anything to do with human CO2 emissions.
But Driessen and D’Aleo do make the point that the fact of
the matter is that the current phase of what the ocean is doing
in the Atlantic, the current phase of solar activity, generally
points to the possibility that we could be seeing another very
harsh, very cold winter in Europe. Now, it’s not to say for
certain that’s going to happen, but that is the type of reality,
the type of threat to these people, that we should be thinking of
— that the people in Paris should actually be addressing.
So, with literally millions of lives on the line, we thought
today in our discussion that these authors’ call could not be
more correct, could not be more relevant: their call on the
delegates to this upcoming UN conference on climate change —
which, as Matt said, is going to start in just a little over a
week and run for two weeks in December — that at this event,
this is the climate issue that should be being discussed. And
they present this refugee crisis against evidence for a broader
reality, that quite frankly — and as has been shown even in more
detail on some recent studies — cold weather generally kills
something on the order of 20 times more people than hot weather.
Periods of extreme cold, winter is on average, averaged over many
locations, far more deadly than warming. And on top of that, this
entire Green energy program makes it even worse; it’s making it
more expensive if not impossible for many people — especially in
cold regions — to be able to afford basic heating for their home
to keep themselves alive during the winters.
So with this framework, this particular article concludes
rather sharply that it would be an “unconscionable crime against
humanity if the nations gathering in Paris implement policies to
protect our planet’s energy-depraved masses from hypothetical
manmade climate change occurring decades from now by perpetuating
poverty and disease that will kill millions of people tomorrow.
These are the reasons that climate change is a critical, moral
issue. We need to recognize that and stop playing games with
people’s lives.”
So again, in the discussion earlier today, we thought that
this recent article, Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in particular that
this should serve as a real challenge to people. This should be a
challenge to many of the so-called “climate skeptics” out there;
it should be a challenge to really all individuals who, for one
reason or another might be claiming they’re opposing this
upcoming UN climate conference. And it should really be a
challenge obviously, to anybody participating directly in this
process. This is not an academic debate; this is not a debate
about one scientific theory against another in academia. This is
a life or death issue for millions upon millions of people. This
has real world consequences; it has had them, it’s having them
now, it’s going to have them in the future. If this type of thing
is going to go through, you’re literally condemning millions of
people — potentially billions — to unnecessary poverty, to
suffering, and to early death. Those are the facts of the matter.
So the question on the table right now is, will you let this
happen? Will you go down in history as having let this happen?
And as we’ve documented, especially in this report and in other
locations, we know what this is all about. This is intentional;
this is the 21st Century version of Thomas Malthus’ policy. This
is the modern Zeus policy.
Who did we just hear is going to be one of the leading
prominent speakers at this Paris COP 21 conference? Prince
Charles, the British Empire; the next in the series of
degenerations of the British Royal Family, following Prince
Phillip and Queen Elizabeth. And it’s no secret these people are
promoting a policy of outright genocide; they’re advocating and
promoting a policy saying the world can only support 1-2 billion
people. And we need to push to reduce the world’s population to a
few billion people. So if you let this type of program to go
through, this will go down in history as the greatest mass
killing on record; save perhaps Obama’s thermonuclear war if we
let him launch that. But if that’s not launched by Obama, this
would go down in history as the greatest mass death; and you will
be the people who let that happen.
So the crisis conditions facing these refugees are a leading
expression of this more general threat. And this is occurring at
the same time as we’re seeing this gathering for this fake global
warming scare conference in Paris, which is just about to occur.
If you reflect on this process, it really almost sounds like
you’re describing the opening scenario of a rather famous short
story by Edgar Allan Poe; it’s almost reminiscent of something
like {The Mask of the Red Death}. We have some major gathering of
representatives of upper class layers of society, gathering in
some isolated, climate-controlled conference halls — very
comfortable; hoping they can celebrate their own delusional
picture of the world. Hoping they can celebrate their
determination of the fate of the masses of people, under the
fantasy that they themselves are going to free from the effects
of their actions. Well at the same time that this absurd scene is
going on, you have millions of desperate people gathering around
them throughout Europe; fleeing into Europe. Running from the
policies which most of the people at this conference refuse to
address; Obama’s policies. Masses of people suffering from the
reality that those people at this conference refuse to accept;
which is the fact that global warming is nothing but a Malthusian
hoax. So, it’s got an eerie similarity to some stories of the
past, but unlike Poe’s dramatic account, what we have now is that
you still have the time to act.
OGDEN: Thank you very much Ben. And let me just say in
conclusion, there is a petition which is circulating; it was
authored by the Schiller Institute, and it is now posted on the
LaRouche PAC website titled, “A Resolution To Defend Billions of
Lives; We Say ‘No’ to Paris COP 21”. So, we invite you to sign
that and to circulate that as widely as you can in the coming
days. Also, as Ben mentioned, that {EIR} Special Report is
available from {Executive Intelligence Review}. So, that’s
available for you to obtain as well. So, I’m going to bring a
conclusion to our broadcast here tonight. I want to thank very
much both Ben and Jeff for joining me here; I want to thank you
for tuning in, and please, stay tuned to larouchepac.com.