LPAC Policy Committee – March 30, 2015

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon everyone, today’s March 30th, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden and I would like to welcome you to our discussion here with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, which occurs every Monday. We’re broadcasting on Google On Air. I’m joined via video by Bill Roberts, from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts. And here in the studio, as you can see, I’m joined by Diane Sare, Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC Basement Team, and, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. So, I give it to you, Lyn.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, we have an interesting little story to begin with, to give the setting of our discussion here, today. Helga Zepp-LaRouche produced what is without doubt, the finest production on record, delivered in Manhattan. And this is remarkable. Unfortunately, what happened is some screwballs, even though the record of everything she said and what was said around her at that time, despite that, they published something in print which was idiocy. So we have now cancelled the idiocy, and everything that is in print or should be in print will go on record.

But the key thing here, we have a gentleman in our vicinity, who’s doing something very important, which is the question of water, the question of the use of water, and how water is used by mankind — from Kepler, particularly. And how this provides a safety for all mankind, which is otherwise not available from any source: That the water needed to maintain the human species on planet Earth, and on the areas adjacent to planet Earth, is now available to us as a matter of knowledge. The question is, will we pick up the bucket and will we have water in the bucket?

And that is where we stand today.

What Helga did, actually, was in terms of public presentations, documentation, was the finest thing she’s ever produced, and probably one of the finest things that anyone has actually produced. Her statement — she let herself go. She no longer compromised herself, by trying to concede to opinions, and trying to satisfy the appetites of mere opinion.

So she did the best job she’s ever done in her life, and including publicly. And what she’d done in the final stages of the thing is the most important part of the whole thing as a whole. And so what she’s done, she’s planted in Manhattan, in the provinces of Manhattan, with a fairly credible attendance there; and this is going to resonate, despite some screwballs in our own organization — despite those screwballs, what she’s doing and what she’s done, is going to resonate for a time to come.

And we have another gentleman here, who’s on the premises watching us, with eagle eyes, I think, perhaps, on the question of what the solution is that’s there, which this young lady [beets] will be an accomplice, in supporting that thing.

And so therefore, we have to say, okay, so a bunch of our hotheads who were not sleeping, but having daydreams at nighttime, despite them and despite their screwball ideas, the fact is, that what she produced and what was produced by her and by the team that was working with her, is one of the finest pieces of work ever done, in terms of politics.

And she has the talent for it. She really does have the talent for it, and knowledge. And if took the latter of her address, in referring to Nicholas of Cusa, that part of the address is something which has never been really generally understood on the planet Earth. And so, it hasn’t been seen for a long time, since the death of Kepler and Nicholas of Cusa. [laughter]

OGDEN: A few centuries.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. So that century is now being represented. And I think we can work from there, today, by looking at what the implications are, of the facts which have been presented as scientific facts, by our associate here today. And I think those matters are the most crucial matters to take into consideration, in terms of our whole Basement team and other work, is all a coherent, single unit, is now unified in conception.

And which brings up in our entire organization, despite the idiots who went wild in lusty dreams last night, despite those lusty dreams and foolishness, that what we have now on the table, is we have the evidence available, to demonstrate that mankind can manage the control of the Solar System for man’s needs, and that Kepler’s principle is now validated in those terms. And therefore, we should proceed, with our proceeding today, on those considerations. Because the link is brought, which shows the proof of the availability of water supplies within the Solar System, which would ensure the possibility of the survival of mankind, that is what we have to focus our attention on.

OGDEN: I’ll just say quickly, what you’re referring to is this new paper by Ben Deniston, called, “New Perspectives on the Western Water Crisis” and it’s going to be available soon. It’s just circulating in pre-draft form now, but that will be published in the coming days, so people will be able to study it.

But, both Diane and Megan, you were at the conference with Helga up in Manhattan, so maybe you can say some things about that?

DIANE SARE: Sure. First of all, what she did, beginning with the kind of remarkable, transformative moment that we’re at, where you have this big revolt in the Democratic Party led by O’Malley, this fight against Wall Street, and then Wall Street threatening extortion, saying we will not fund you, if you’re going to keep talking about Glass-Steagall, if you’re going to talking about Wall Street. So that’s right out in the open.

You also have a revolt against Obama internationally, with nation upon nation upon nation, rushing to join China, rushing to join the AIIB, and Obama in a sense, is reminiscent of King Canute standing at the shore trying to stop the waves from coming in, not terribly successfully.

But what Helga then did was raise the question of a new idea, that is, how do you take what people already are thinking about which is a new system, but what is the basis for this new system? What did Nicholas of Cusa do in his time, to throw aside all of the so-called scholastic opinions, or the agreed disputes within the Church, which he discovered were not disputes, by thinking from a higher standpoint.

And it really placed an incredible challenge, before the audience there, which, by the way, I think was one of the most diverse groups of people we’ve had a New York meeting thus far: There were Russian-Americans, Syrian-Americans; a substantial number of younger people — we’ve just begun opening the campuses; and then, of course, some of our longer-term supporters. But people were clearly very hungry for what Helga had to present, and that was seen during — and it created an arc through the entire presentation, from her opening statement through what Megan did at the end, where people were not out in the hall; they were in the presentation. People didn’t want to get out of their seats: They wanted to participate from beginning to end.

So it’s as if you have Alexander Hamilton coming back into New York, to get New York to fulfill its proper role, which is to unify the United States, and have the United States play the role that Nicholas of Cusa would have intended the United States to play, at a moment like this.

MEGAN BEETS: Let me just add on, Helga’s presentation, I think what she made absolutely clear is that everything within the current system of the Obama and trans-Atlantic system is doomed; that we’re doomed if the United States doesn’t throw Obama out, and break from this. But the transition even in her speech, to the principle of Nicholas of Cusa, laid on the table in front of everybody is that the only way out of this, is to do what Cusa did, which is to refound mankind upon a higher principle.

And I thought what she went through with Cusa was absolutely the most clear presentation, — concise and clear presentation of the principle of Cusa, which is the principle of the human mind’s ability to draw a concept of a new principle from the order of the universe, and to bring that down into the reorganization of mankind.

And what that obviously gets to, is what you brought up, Lyn, on the principle of Kepler, and what we’re looking at today with the implications of Ben’s work on the water crisis: That the situation in the Western states that had provided a certain capability of providing water supplies for man, have changed. The Solar System is within the galactic system, which is changing.

But what Ben presents in the article, is that man actually has, right now, the beginnings of the insight into that galactic process, to then be able to bring our control over those processes to Earth. One of the examples he gives is the kind of ionization systems, which bring the principle of the interactions with the galactic cosmic ray systems with our atmosphere, which have an effect on climate, on rain supplies and so forth. So, changing man’s position within the Solar System based on this principle of Cusa of the insight into the higher principle.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. That that’s exactly it, and that’s the way it actually works. And the most important thing about her whole address, Helga’s address, was on that subject, on the Nicholas of Cusa implication. And that is the principle, the moral principle and the scientific principle, on which our efforts must be focused. That is the principle on which everything that’s important and competent, is required.

And I think with our members, here with the team, here, should feel free to take this one on. Because what Helga has done, and most of them are keen enough to know the sense of that matter, of what actually happened in the whole presentation on Saturday.

So I think that this thing is something which leads us into an insight, into the actuality of man’s future. And then, when you talk about O’Malley and what O’Malley’s role is, O’Malley’s role fits into that, as nothing else so far does, in terms of Presidential candidacy. So the two things go together. This policy of water, the policy of Nicholas of Cusa, and the policy of what Obama should not be allowed to do, are all in one package. And I think our whole team should be active on this thing.

[slight pause] I don’t think we’re tongue-tied. [laughter]

KESHA ROGERS: I just thought what Helga presented was the true example of what the mission of mankind must be. And that was exemplified through what the imitation in the life of Christ represented, as well as Joan of Arc understood about that; and how Kepler communicated that as that had to be an embodiment of every single human being, because that really gets at the fundamental difference between man and animal and how governments should run. And the purpose of government is to act for the good of the people. And when you think about this water crisis, it’s no different. You can’t have people dying for lack of water, from starvation, because people don’t see that there is a difference between man and animal, and they sit here and allow for whole states and nations to be destroyed, because they will not embody that higher idea of thinking for the future progress and advancement of mankind.

But I just want to say, just as a personal experience, that I was totally struck Saturday by Helga’s presentation. And after the presentation, yesterday, we went to a performance of the Bach St. Matthew’s Passion, and it was powerful — I mean, this is the first time that I’ve seen the performance of the Passion done in such a way, and reflecting on what Helga had just gone in her presentation on Cusa; and what she really challenged the audience with was really demonstrated and reflected on, as I watched this performance in a way that it was never done before.

Because I went back last night, after seeing the performance, and listened to the conducting of the 1954 Furtwängler presentation and conducting of the Bach St. Matthew’s Passion, and then looked at that from the standpoint of what I had seen last night. And this conductor, you know, he’s new guy with the Bach Society in Texas: He really took on what was the intention of Bach to communicate which was the Passion of Christ, which was the passion of Joan of Arc, and the mission to this idea, where, it wasn’t a performance per se; it was really trying to communicate an idea.

And I think that that was what was exemplified through Helga, what she was doing. It wasn’t just a speech, it wasn’t just a performance, it was really trying to get into the hearts and minds of the population, as to how we can free ourselves, what we can really become as a human species. I wanted to share that, because we’re coming on the period where you have, every year, Easter performances of Passion of Christ, St. Matthew’s Passion, but I don’t think people take it really seriously, as to what that means in terms of what is communicated, and the tension that is left in that piece from the understanding of a decision is being given to you at the end of it: Are you actually going to take up this mission? So, I just wanted to share that.

LAROUCHE: Thank you!

DAVE CHRISTIE: Well, I think just one aspect also, that what Helga did which was very important in her speech, and then she referenced this yesterday in discussions, following, which was the parallels of what Cusa presented with Confucius. And I think what Cusa had done to bring the East and the West Church together, the schism that had the Greek Orthodox and the Orthodox Churches, and was trying bring them together under one common theme, under the concept of the Filioque, which really was a representation of what he discussed in terms of human creativity.

And I think that is reflected in the later works of Leibniz, and I think what Leibniz had done was, in addition to saying, what is the dialogue of civilizations; what should it actually be based upon? And Leibniz was working with networks of Christian missionaries and so forth, who had spent time in China. And I think what Leibniz was saying on the question of Confucius, back then, is extremely important, is that, there was a lot of parallels to this, in terms of a quality of thinking. And I think what Helga had gone through on this, the question of the coincidence of opposites, the concept of metaphor, really, this lies within the Confucian mode of thinking as well.

And I think that’s very important, because what Helga said yesterday, was the idea that we’re not just talking about bringing people together around some big economic projects, right? We’re actually talking about bringing people together around the highest conceptions of what is it — what is the universal conceptions, to be human? What is it that is universal about the human condition, and therefore have that be the foundation of a dialogue between these different civilizations, or different nations and so forth.

That I think has to be stressed, and I don’t that we are seeing that with some of the world leaders. If you look at the speech by Xi Jinping, where he almost sounds like John Quincy Adams, the idea of — I believe it’s called, he says, a community of common destiny, a community of principle among sovereign nations, as John Quincy Adams laid it out. But it’s going to be this foundation.

And I think, Lyn, what you’ve done, is, actually brought that into a scientific conception around economics. In other words, it’s not just simply the poetry, the music — it’s all that, but that’s applied to what human economics actually is, as the expression of human creativity. And what we’re now beginning to see, with all these — the Silk Road, the AIIB, all this is coming together around a real potential, to actually uplift the condition of mankind to achieve that dialogue of civilizations.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. The idea which I emphasize, on the principles of economy, is the same thing. The principles of economy, the effect of the principles of economy as applied, and what they do for mankind. And that’s the way to look at it. And I’m sure that most of our people in the organization share that view, in one way or the other, in one form or the other, or one characterization or another.

OGDEN: It’s something that Ben elaborates very clearly in this new paper, because you’re not measuring economic progress according to money. What he does is he compares China and the United States: He says, China progresses, while United States stagnates from a standpoint of water availability, and he shows that over an 80-year period, the United States got off on a very good start with that Franklin Roosevelt did with the TVA, and otherwise in terms of water diversion projects, but since that time we have leveled out, we have hardly grown in terms of cubic kilometers of water that’s been moved.

But since 2005, in other words in an eighth of that time, we had 80 years, China’s had 10, they’ve done double of what the United States has done over that entire period of time, in a comparable amount of territory: 40 cubic km of water moved versus 20 in the United States. That’s a very real, tangible measure of economic progress, versus just meaningless money, monetary terms.

LAROUCHE: Well, the key thing you have to look at is the principle of evil, in practice. It’s not a question of categorical evil, it’s the evil in practice, of mankind’s behavior and change in behavior, over the course of the 20th century. So that, what has happened in the course of the 20th century since Franklin Roosevelt, there have been ups and downs, and with the Bushes coming into business, since the Bush family appeared, nothing good has happened in the United States, in terms of net effect. Nothing! Nothing worthwhile! Everything under the Bush family, which has been the dominant family, controlling the United States since the beginning of the 1980s, has been the destruction of the United States, and the destruction of the morality, and outlook of the people of the United States. And our job is to get rid of the Bush family. Or, we should say, as Moses might have said, “Burn the Bushes!” [laughter]

SARE: And we should burn all of its parts. Because a lot of people want to — many people think they don’t like Bush, but there are other people like Chris Christie or Ted Cruz who are direct products of the Bush family legacy — Christie’s career started campaigning for, I think, H.W. Bush, when he was young.

He was made a U.S. Attorney by John Ashcroft, and he came in in January 2002 as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, exactly during the time of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry. So how is it that we don’t know anything about where these hijackers were? The fact that 11 of them went through Paterson, New Jersey, and this is never discussed, and no one’s gotten to the bottom of it? I mean, Christie is exactly a part of this Bush cover-up rot.

And it’s like a game where they’re giving us these “seven dwarves” as they’ve been called, to knock out the remotely removed Bush babies to leave us with Jeb Bush as a completely unacceptable Presidential candidate.

And I know we’re going to be doing something on this, which is going to be excellent.

OGDEN: Under the title, “Bush Family Treason.”

LAROUCHE: Oh, that’s very good! Very good! Delicious! You’d never think that a Bush matter would be delicious. In this case, it’s an exception.

RACHEL BRINKLEY: We also had the fight over the exposure of the 28 pages, and the Republicans trying to keep that suppressed, to defend the Bush family. So yeah, it’s there.

Also the fact that O’Malley brought up that we don’t want two families governing the country is useful, as well. But, yes, this would be a disease that we have to eliminate now.

Just one other point on this question of Helga’s address: People now talk about that it would be difficult to implement the BRICS, that they’re approaching the BRICS from a rational concept of building up from nation to nation, and GDP to GDP, international relations amongst the nations, and they say “this would be so difficult.” But the point is, as Helga talked about, there’s a unity which is above the diversity, that this an evolution into a higher system with a common principle. That’s the point.

You bring this up to people, and they say, this would be difficult to implement. But you know, the response is, no, this is the question of harmony, as President Xi is bringing up, every nation playing a role in a greater harmony. And that really supersedes all of these lower-level attacks on the system, and this is really what Cusa was aware of in discussing his concepts of the unity above the diversity.

LAROUCHE: Well, the problem here is the fact that, we don’t recognize the nature of mankind. That may seem, coming from me now, to be a rather ridiculous argument. But! It happens to be the truth, is that mankind is not an animal. Unfortunately, Republicans are generally, with few exceptions, animals. That’s what they are. They are not human in their self-conception of their role in life. But rather, they have animal values, which are called money values, or things like that; or sex values, whatever those are. They’re not really defined well, so far. But that’s what the problem is.

Now, so therefore, as long as people believe that mankind is defined in these terms of so-called human terms, as practiced, mankind becomes depraved. And this has been the history of the 20th Century and beyond. The evolution of mankind, from the 19th Century into the 20th Century, has been one of moral degeneration. Fitness-to-existence degeneration.

These are things — our problem is to find the way, in which to employ our people, employ in the broad sense, the sense of what they devote their lives to, what they consider important for them to do; the importance of raising children, and developing children, educating children, this kind of thing. So those values are gone, as of now. And from the Republicans in particular. There are a few Republicans who are actually Christian and sane, and otherwise sane. But most of them are not. If they’re rich — they’re evil! And that has been lesson that we’ve been receiving, all along, from Wall Street in particular.

Wall Street has to be wiped out. It’s bankrupt. It’s inherently bankrupt. It cannot possibly meet anything. It is now actually careening in the direction of the extermination of the human species; that’s where it’s going.

That’s what Obama represents. Obama’s military policy, his economic policy in general, the Bush family policies in general, as well, are all matters of pure evil. Which means that the United States has become a captive of pure evil, in the model of the British Empire, which is what the Bushes represented. Prescott Bush was the embodiment of pure evil, and his children were taught the principles of pure evil in their practice. They’ve insisted on that in their practice.

Now, what’s the answer? Well, mankind is not an animal, that is, mankind is not based on the biological secretions of animal qualities. But rather, that mankind is able to create, possibilities for mankind’s behavior, which is not known in ordinary ways. In other words, mankind is able to create, in space, just like what’s happening with Ben’s work. We’re trying to create a water system, to define a water that’s already existing, knowing that we can use that system, if we do it effectively, we can solve the problem of mankind’s existence, in terms of water! And the dependency of mankind on water.

What Ben has done, himself, is to prove that that is the case: There is no inherent limit to mankind’s use for mankind. And those who think so, are actually evil. Not evil because they intend to be evil, but evil simply because they’re terribly stupid, about the facts of the matter to be considered.

So the point is, mankind is the only voluntary creation process, the only true creational principle, in principle, is mankind. Our job, which is typified by the scientific development, the use of scientific progress as a matter of principle, this is what defines the difference between man and beast, man and degenerate, combined.

And therefore, it’s only when we educate our children, our population, into those qualities of increase of the power of the individual, within the Solar System, as Ben has demonstrated this, in what he’s shown today, in his report. Therefore, mankind is a uniquely creative being, whose voluntary abilities as a creative being, create the possibilities for mankind, something which no animal could ever begin to do.

And therefore, the question is, if you want to be a politician of that kind, the Republican type in general, you’re going to be an animal! And you’re going to die of rot, because you’re just an animal, because there won’t be enough water for you! No animal can find enough water for human beings to survive. No animal can do what mankind can do, in order to save mankind from the threats inherent inside the Solar System itself! Only mankind can do that.

And therefore, the standard of morality, what is presented as morality, in terms of school systems for children, for young infants, for adolescents — [laughs] for senior citizens — the standard of morality is bunk. And that’s why the demoralization of people occurs, because they believe in an agony, a haunting agony, that there’s nothing in the future for them! They’re just going to die and rot! That’s what is believed! That’s what is taught! That is the principle of education under the present terms of the United States right now.

So the idea of understanding, as Ben has demonstrated now, in his treatment of the water subject, of the global water system, mankind has the knowledgeable ability to create the conditions, on which the continued existence of mankind, within the Solar System, can be not only continued but enhanced, and then enhanced again! And then, enhanced again! And what Ben Deniston has done, is simply presented, the evidence which supports that conclusion.

And therefore, what we must do, is we must get rid, of stupidity, which is the kind of stupidity which is degeneration. People who consider themselves practical, are degenerates, inherently, because they are blocked against doing what every generation is compelled to do as a moral principle, to do something greater than your forebears had ever been able to accomplish. And your purpose is to have forebears who are qualified to be recruited to be the people, who produce the higher level of human existence.

SARE: Along those lines, one thing that was very striking to me, is the response of members of this New York audience, to the chorus this time as opposed to any previous time, because, we’ve had a big fight with all them to sing in the chorus. And there were several people there, who have come to one or another rehearsals, and sort of dropped away. But now, their hearing of this, not-exactly-polished performance of something, nonetheless, had a really huge effect on their thinking, because they have an idea of what it means to participate in a chorus, so that they hear the thing completely differently. And people have said things like, “I can see that if I work on this, I’ll become a different person. I’ll become a better person if I work on this.” Or they say, “I think I can learn how to do this,” and you see them thinking about a shift in identity, which is really what’s required of the population, now, as a whole.

LAROUCHE: As opposed to a hole. [laughter]

BEETS: Just quickly, on what you brought up here, on this human principle and the succession of generations as never being a repeat of the past, always going to a higher level, and then a higher level: That is the principle of Kepler in practice. And now Kepler made his discoveries almost 400 years ago, and you start to just kind of think over what mankind has suffered since that time, where Kepler, about a hundred or so years after Cusa, uses this principle of Cusa, puts it into practice for the first time, harnesses the power of the Solar System, at least in potential for mankind, and now, it’s taken us 400 years of struggle, to manifest that principle in the way that you’ve described, not just as something, which is done through the actions of individuals who might recognize that principle, but now, making this the self-conscious practice of society as a whole. And I think that the potential represented by that, starting with what Ben has put forward, for the mission for the new Presidency with this water question as the first action to be taken in that direction, really is the fight we have to have with people.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. We have to bring that together. We have to bring that concept, with what he’s doing, together with that.

CHRISTIE: Just on that note, I think — just to reflect on the fact that John F. Kennedy, had we built NAWAPA, we probably wouldn’t be dealing with this drought in the same way; on two fronts, number one, I think we would have brought some of the water down that existed there, which we’re not so sure will exist in the future, in terms of the water patterns and weather patterns, we don’t quite know. But NAWAPA would have existed as a water management system. Now, in addition to that, though, if you look at what Kennedy was doing with the space program, and the ability to wed Arctic development with the space program, because you’re dealing with those kind of conditions up there, I have a feeling that, under the Kennedy Presidency, were he allowed to have lived, that you would have had the kind of full capability of space exploration brought together with water management, brought together with Arctic development, and we could have had the foundation for dealing with this. And this water crisis would not be the situation it is.

But, of course, who was Kennedy killed by? Well, effectively, the Bushes. Maybe not George W. or H.W. or anything like that, but what Prescott Bush represented, which was the Allen Dulles, the J. Edgar Hoover, this secret “shadow government” that existed in opposition to the institution of the Presidency, which effectively recruited you, Lyn, into the mission to carry on that torch; and, of course, your having multiple run-ins with this Bush crowd has been the source of all of the your — all the attacks on you has come from this!

So it’s — you know, the question of the U.S. Presidency is, I think that Kennedy is an important reflection point of what the Presidency could be.

LAROUCHE: What the Presidency has become, under the Bush influence, is evil! If you trace the thing out, from the Bush’s first — Vice President Bush, it’s his role, you know, behind the scenes of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. And that crowd was the crowd that actually tried to kill President Ronald Reagan. And by weakening Ronald Reagan as a result of the effect of his attempted assassination, George Bush began to take over: And that’s how I got sent to prison. Because I was an opponent of the Bush family. That’s the only reason it ever happened.

And if you look at the history, with the exception of Bill Clinton, you find the history of the U.S. Presidency, with the exception of Bill Clinton, has been essentially, corruption! Worse and worse corruption! Worse and worse conditions of life, of our citizens, our young people.

And what we have to do, is fight that fight, and to inspire people, to recognize, which is what I think Helga has done, or planted the seed of, in what she did this past weekend. Because she presented the case, particularly with the reference to things she did refer to, in her concluding remarks, that this something which should set fire to the inspiration of the citizens of the United States. And what Ben has done, in terms of going to a conclusion on the water question, on the proof of the water question, is also part of the same picture.

BILL ROBERTS: I know that Ben’s work in the past — I haven’t seen his current work on this — but I know one of the things that he showed very well, was how maximizing the water usage, that what you want to be doing with water, is you want to be looking at the productivity of the water. That this idea that there’s any sort of finiteness of resources, or as Xi Jinping put it, a “zero-sum game,” that this is just exactly the opposite of how you actually want to think about water, because, with water, the more you use the water, the more it’s available. So, that as you’re going to higher principles of usage, higher discovered principles that mankind can use to make water available for mankind’s use, you get this multiplier effect.

So I would just consider that, and was thinking about that in the context of this conference. Because one of the very predominant ideas, what Helga raised and was also raised by this Professor [James Chieh Hsiung] discussing this question of the “harmonization” regarding relations between states, is that it’s the necessary basis for securing the peace, but also the economic prosperity of mankind depends upon this question of reorganizing mankind around a higher identity of man.

So I was just — this water question, I think is where you directly get this issue of rejection of the zero-sum game as a conception for immediate survival.

LAROUCHE: Well, the water thing is a shadow of reality. Because the point is, what does water do? Does water do water? No, water does not do water. Hmm? What happens is that the principle of the use of water, is a power which is unique to mankind, it’s unique to the human mind, the human mind that develops.

Everything that happens, which the China case helps to prove, because of what the Moon program is and what the extension of the Moon program is with China right now, is the same thing. It is not a process, per se, that is the crucial thing. It is what underlies, or subsumes, the cause. In other words, the cause is not something that is tangible, it is not a substance, it is an effect. And the universe, as Kepler himself led people to understand that principle, it’s the effect: “Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt”, [laughter] which is the famous statement. “Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt, tschike tschike tschike tschik'”. [laughter]

And that’s the way you have to look at it, that mankind itself — mankind himself, or herself — mankind is sui generis. And once you understand that, then you understand the meaning of the education of our children, particularly when the education of the children involves a new physical principles.

So there are not fixed physical principles in the universe. Rather, there’s a process which we experience, as ostensibly, fixed principles. But the fact that those principles are never fixed, actually, is what’s crucial. And that’s the principle of education which must be introduced to the practice of mankind, if mankind is going to be successful, in dealing with the challenges which are now known to us — the limits of raw materials, the limits of this and that. We have to find out, what is the principle which is changeless, the principle that develops itself, and becomes a new name for things, which were never known before? And it’s that kind of education, that kind of orientation, that kind of importance of the individual as such: The individual as such is important for what the individual creates, that mankind had never known before.

MICHAEL STEGER: Lyn, this is Cusa, this is Cusa’s mission: This is what Cusa had intended for this country, and you see the remarkable profundity of Helga’s presentation on Saturday. Because here’s a political leader, coming from Europe, from Germany, and challenging the United States, in Manhattan, on its real mission that it’s lost. It’s lost it over these 50 years, it’s compromised it, and it has to return, but in the context of now, an increasing number of nations, moving towards this BRICS orientation, the AIIB — you’ve now got, six, seven, eight European countries, NATO nations, Brazil — you see the world moving in this direction.

And the point you’re making, you look at, what were the sacrifices people like Kepler, or Beethoven, and yourself, have had to make to fight this imperial system? That the ability of mankind to advance has been in opposition by the system itself. And what you’ve worked to bring to bear, and what’s now coming to fruition with these BRICS nations, is a system which actually endorses, as a system, the advancement of mankind, the tackling of these fundamental questions. And if that’s actually where we’re act as a human species, that unless we take that step and enter into that system, which is the mission of the United States, but it’s the mission of mankind. And if we don’t take that now, we suffer extinction — as we see with the water question in the West, where the whole West will be wiped out.

But we actually have the opportunity, because of your work, because of Kepler, because of Cusa, because of Helga’s interventions, this is now what we have as an opportunity, and I think that speech made it remarkable clear, and the water question is probably the most exemplary because of what it represents.

LAROUCHE: The danger of thermonuclear war, is the greater danger, the complementary danger. That’s what the problem is. If we don’t have that policy, then by what means will we prevent ourselves from killing ourselves and wiping ourselves out? What prevents us from doing that? There has to be something active in society, which means that Obama should be thrown out of office right now. Why? Because he exists. That’s why he should be thrown out of office. Because what he is, is something that should be thrown out of office. We have most of the Republicans, should be thrown out of the Presidency, and the system of the Presidency, for the same reason: Because they insist on sticking to certain, what they call “principles,” and those “principles” would determine, pre-determine, the destruction of mankind itself!

And that’s the way we have to look at these things. Don’t apologize to a diplomat, don’t apologize to a member of the financial community — they’re all pigs! But pigs would complain about your saying that, — and justly!

OGDEN: Yeah, I think O’Malley made that point in this interview yesterday, that you can’t have a situation in which Wall Street completely owns one party, and is completely intimidating the other party, which is exactly the situation the Democratic Party finds itself in.

But I think, as we’ve discussed here today, it’s very clear the significance of what Helga did up in New York, and it’s on the record, as you said: It was videotaped, it was livestreamed on larouchepac.com. And I know there was a lot of live viewership at the time, there was a big audience there, but we have to spread this, very, very widely. And I think that’s something we can undertake over the coming days.

And as I said, the article by Ben is going to be available for everybody to study very soon, once some minor edits have been done.

So, is there anything else to add? Is there anything that people think needs to be said? If not, then I think we can bring a conclusion to our show here. I’d like to thank everybody for joining us; and thank you, Lyn, for being here in the studio with us. And please stay tuned to larouchepac. com.