Author: adam

It’s our weekly Monday show with Lyndon LaRouche. Join us today at 1pm Eastern.

Lyndon will be speaking LIVE on today’s show. U.S. citizens need to recognize that it is our responsibility to pass the Glass-Stegall Act here in our own country. There are no independent economies anymore… what you see in Greece — No country is immune from. Collapse of world-wide economic systems leads to world-wide war.

Lyndon will be speaking LIVE on today’s show. U.S. citizens need to recognize that it is our responsibility to pass the Glass-Stegall Act here in our own country. There are no independent economies anymore… what you see in Greece — No country is immune from. Collapse of world-wide economic systems leads to world-wide war.

The Greek People show a resistance that, so far, no other nation has been able to muster. As a chorus they sung, “NO!” as an entire nation. Now, what will be the outcome? Will nations return to their own currency and leave Wall Street and the City of London in the dust? Join us for a special show at 1pm Eastern.

Tonight’s webcast was pre-recorded. Thanks for tuning in.
“Our situation is we’re on the edge of war! Much will be determined by what happens in the US…..”
“Greece has options vis-a-vis Russia and China, but if the Obama policy prevails WE WILL GET HELL…….”
“Human beings MAKE history; it’s not a matter of prediction.”
-Lyndon LaRouche

Transcript—JASON ROSS: Good evening. This is Friday, July 3, 2015, and you’re watching the regularly-scheduled Friday-night webcast here at LaRouchePAC.com. I’m Jason Ross, I’ll be hosting this evening, joined in the studio tonight by Jeff Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review and by Benjamin Deniston of the LaRouche PAC science research team, “the Basement.” We’re definitely meeting at a countdown time, with decisions that are by no means certain regarding Greece, as well as the more-general war threat. We had a discussion with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche this morning, to get his guidance on the webcast tonight, and so I’ll start by posing the institutional question that came in this week, and ask Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response.

The question is: Mr. LaRouche, on Sunday, July 5, Greek voters will be voting on a referendum on the latest Troika austerity demand. What, in your view, is the appropriate course of action for Greek voters and the Greek government? Please give us your assessment of the larger context of this historic vote. Jeff?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Jason. I’m going to really start by asking everybody watching this broadcast to put on your thinking caps and be prepared to consider a very complex answer, because nothing short of that would make sense, given the nature of the current strategic showdown moment that we’ve reached. So I’ve made an attempt to put together a summary of Mr. LaRouche’s comments that, as Jason said, took place over the course of about a ninety-minute discussion earlier today involving ourselves, Mr. LaRouche, Mrs. LaRouche, and so by no means am I presenting a verbatim transcript of what Mr. LaRouche had to say. But I think it captures the essence of the point that he wanted to make in response to the institutional question. And after I’ve read through that, I’ll make a few further comments which would be inappropriate until you hear what Mr. LaRouche himself had to say.

He said, there is no way to anticipate the outcome of Sunday’s vote. Greek voters will take advantage of what is available, but there’s a great deal of confusion. For example, we’re seeing different policy voices emerging in Britain. British opinion is not uniform. We know there is growing resentment against the Monarchy. The situation is up for grabs, and a few things can shift everything. Remember: we are on the edge of thermonuclear war. A decision on that showdown has not yet occurred. We can define what the results should be, but we cannot say at this point what the results will be. The British royals have super-Nazi views, while others in Britain have different attitudes, and dislike what the Monarchy is doing. Much of the actual outcome of this fight in Europe, in Greece, will be determined by the United States. It will be a bad decision if Obama prevails. If the key European nations adopt a consolidated view, that can also lead to a different outcome. Greece can take a different turn, based on opportunities presented by Russia and China. But if the British-Obama policy prevails, then you have Hell. Our policy is what should happen. China and other Asia factors will impact the events around Greece, and South America, in the larger BRICS context, is also quite important. One crucial factor is, how the Obama case is dealt with. High-level anti-Obama forces in the United States for the moment appear to be caving in, but this can change. For now, there is no known factional decision yet made. Guts and nerve will be key factors in determining the outcome. As in war, there are no pre-determined results. For now, no courageous decisions have been yet made in the U.S.

And Mr. LaRouche noted, were I in the command position today, I would know how to act decisively, but that is not the case. There is a growing prospect of Merkel being dumped in Germany. She is unpopular, and she could be brought down by an inside coup at any moment. There is serious pressure to dump her. And furthermore, if German institutions don’t move to dump her, there could be no Germany as we know it, very soon. If Merkel is not dumped soon, no part of Europe in fact will survive. We’ve reached one of those critical moments, where you could also expect to see a wave of assassinations of prominent persons, as we did see in 1989, and of course as we’ve seen throughout the history of the U.S. Presidency, virtually every outstanding President of the United States was either assassinated, or there were attempts to assassinate them. Lincoln was assassinated. McKinley was assassinated. There were attempts to assassinate Franklin Roosevelt, there was an attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan, which greatly weakened his Presidency. So of course, this history begins with the case of Alexander Hamilton, who, while he was not President, was the key framer of our Constitutional system, as our first Secretary of the Treasury after being one of the essential people at the Constitutional Convention. He was assassinated by the British, through a British agent named Aaron Burr. And again, in Germany, starting with the assassination of Mr. Herrhausen in 1989, we had a whole series of assassinations that shaped the future of Germany and Europe from that point on.

Mr. LaRouche continued, the current situation, however, despite certain parallels on the assassination pattern in 1989, has no precedent. Merkel is held in contempt, but there is a tendency in Germany, to not act until it becomes an issue of absolute survival. And now we’re at that point. Some people have to sit down with Merkel, and tell her that she must change policy, or she is out. This is no chess game. We are at a breaking point. Anyone decent, with a military experience, can appreciate that the current situation is unacceptable and must change. Schäuble and Merkel do not function. If their policies continue, it means the total disintegration of Germany. For the moment, there is no unanimity in Europe. There is at once, a tendency for submission to the existing structures, and a great restiveness against those structures. There is no stable point of authority in Europe. The crucial point to be drawn from all of this, is that history is always made, is made by the willful actions of key historic figures. It is never pre-determined. Look at the Twentieth Century. Look at what happened to Germany and Japan. And Mr. LaRouche emphasized repeatedly throughout our discussion, you cannot take a deductive approach to history. You can’t take an array of historical and current facts, and assemble them, and in any way come up with a prediction or a determined outcome of events. One single factor can intervene, and twist events in a totally different direction. Yes, always consider the current prevailing trends, but then consider what will overthrow those prevailing trends. So, you cannot make fixed predictions. Only predict what you can willfully cause to happen. You can make decisions based on proximate insight. Remember, history is made, and predictions never work. A few people can shape history, and in the current situation, we may not yet even know who those people are. No master-plan ever worked. Mankind is a unique species. Only mankind can willfully make history, create a future. Our knowledge of that unique quality of mankind is one of our only crucial advantages.

So, we are at a moment that Mr. LaRouche described as a point of crucial indecision. Merkel must be ousted in the coming weeks. Everything she represents is a catastrophic failure for Europe. We do not know whether this will happen or not. We do know that if Merkel is dumped, and reliable German leadership is freed from Merkel and what she represents, this factor alone can change the correlation of forces in Europe and beyond. And remember that we have the BRICS summit meeting coming up in Ufa, Russia, that begins on the 8th of July — in other words next week — and will be immediately followed by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s [sco] summit. So, as these events are unfolding in Europe, you will have a gathering of the leading BRICS nations and all of the SCO nations. Russia and China represent a strategic military factor. India represents a major global factor, whether or not it’s a factor that’s involved in the military correlation.

Mr. LaRouche continued; he said, the British monarchy is going for general thermonuclear war, and that must be stopped. War will happen unless European forces are organized to stop the British. Obama must be dumped in the United States for the same reason. The Greek leaders are intelligent leaders; they’re also desperate. They need a break-out. Europe is self-destroyed, and this now greatly heightens the prospect of thermonuclear war. To conclude, we do not what will happen on Sunday; we know what should happen. The Greek debt cannot and should not be paid; it’s illegitimate debt, every penny of it is illegitimate. The entire trans-Atlantic system is hopelessly bankrupt; and the only proper course of action is Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall in the United States, in Europe, and globally. Remember, the unexpected factor makes history, and there is no such thing as an inevitable future.

Now, to just underscore the points that Mr. LaRouche made in our lengthy discussion, just in the last 72 hours there have been some very dramatic shifts in the situation that add to the unpredictability. The European heads of state have clearly made a determination that they are going for regime change in Greece. In other words, a group of European heads of state, representatives of the Troika institutions — the European Union, the European Central Bank, the IMF — have come to the conclusion that they must go for regime change in Greece. Think about the implications of that: Greece is a European Union country; Greece is a NATO member country. And the mere idea of contemplating regime change using some of the same exact methods that we saw in 2013 and early 2014 in Ukraine, is in itself unprecedented and a sign of absolute desperation. The IMF had a report prepared, which they withheld from Greek negotiators for the last 5 months, but which concluded that Greece could not pay their debt; and that any solution would have to involve a major write-down of the Greek debt — one of the essential points that the Greek government has been making all along. That report was never presented to the Greek government; it was presented to certain members of the German Bundestag, who leaked it to the German media. And as a result of that, the IMF was forced to publicly release the report and post it as of yesterday on their website. In the United States, Associated Press produced a lengthy historical account of the 1953 London Debt Conference, where half of the German debt, the war debt from both World War I and World War II, was written off and the other half of the debt was stretched out over a 30-year period to allow for the German “economic miracle” recovery. Greece, ironically, was one of the participants in that London conference, and approved of the idea of that restructuring and writing off of much of Germany’s debt.

So, all of these factors are at play right now. You have fraudulent polls being issued ’round the clock, aimed at impacting the outcome of the Greek referendum. So, these are just the events of the last 48-72 hours. There are events that are going on continuously that drive the situation towards a strategic thermonuclear confrontation with Russia; which could happen at virtually any moment. And it’s the desperation coming out of London and London’s allies, and Wall Street and some other capitals around Europe, that is the driving factor behind war. So, the essential point, again, to summarize Mr. LaRouche’s evaluation: We don’t know what’s going to happen on Sunday, and history is made by willful decisions and not by some kind of pattern of deductive analysis and predictions. So, the next few days, the 4th of July holiday weekend, is, itself, an historic and also very critical phase-shift moment in the history of the entire planet.

ROSS: Thanks, Jeff. So, the other topic to take up this evening is the suicide policy being promoted by the British Empire, whose agent, Hans Joachim John Schellnhuber — I guess I left out the British knight commander, etc. part — who played a key role in the Pope’s adoption of the recent encyclical Laudato Si, which demands speedy action to avert a purported disaster of manmade global warming. To address this concept and the broader areas of understanding in science and mankind that allow it to come about, Ben Deniston has some prepared remarks.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Jason. I think just to start, there’s I think two aspects to this issue as it’s been put forward. On the one side, we have — as we’ve documented on the LaRouche PAC website, as Mr. LaRouche has said repeatedly, as we’ve said on these webcasts, as we’ve said in Executive Intelligence Review magazine — we have an active Satanic policy. A stated explicit commitment from the British royal family and their associates, to reduce the world population to one, maybe two, maybe a few billion people. So, on the one side, this is an active factor of evil, of Satanic evil pushing this population reduction policy. And we’ve covered this in depth; we’re going to be covering this in more depth, nailing this for what it is — an oligarchical, Zeussian mentality attempting, going for the biggest genocide mankind has ever seen. And willing to pick any fraud they can, and promote any fraud they can to promote their pre-established policy, their pre-established ideology. Currently, a lot centering around this fraud of some manmade climate change catastrophe. So, that’s on the one side; we have this active factor of evil. But I think there’s another element, which is the stupidity and the immorality of the general population who go along with this fraud. People who really should know better; but are either duped, or capitulate to going along with this evil policy.

And what I want to talk about today, coming off of some of Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis on this in the recent period, is I think the deeper issue in this is the profound lack of understanding of the true nature of mankind. What is the human species that we’re a part of, that we’re fighting for in this process? A lack of the needed positive conception of what mankind is, where mankind needs to go, to inform people as to how to win this fight. A failure to understand this absolute scientific distinction between mankind and the animals, and the world of the beasts. As we’ve been presenting, for example, a failure to recognize the critical importance of embracing this galactic principle which I’m going to talk about; and a failure to accept what this perspective tells us about the true meaning of mankind. So, I think in the context of what’s coming up around this encyclical, around this escalation in depopulation program of the royals, I think the central issue to be put on the table is the real nature of progress; the real nature of progress for mankind. The characteristics of truly human creative progress, and how that defines this distinction of man from beast. And Mr. LaRouche was emphatic earlier today, that mankind creates the future; the future isn’t deduced, it doesn’t unfold from prior events. It’s an actual process of creative action, of creation. It’s the bringing into being of something fundamentally new in the universe; something that did not just unfold from the prior state, something whose existence does not come from the past, but from the actions of the intervention and the actions of human individuals, human beings, the human mind.

For example, we’re now looking to the galaxy; these types of shifts. But specifically what the galaxy means for mankind. We didn’t create the galaxy, but we can create what the galaxy means for mankind; and we can ask what the meaning of the galaxy for mankind means for the universe. These are the important questions; these are the question we have to put on the table and address. Because mankind’s nature, his existence, is this process of the willful creation of these types of new states, new levels; like this galactic perspective provides. And without that, mankind degenerates; without that continual commitment to the creation of these new states, society degenerates, culture degenerates. And if we allow that to be destroyed — that commitment to the future — mankind will go extinct like an animal species. If we behave like an animal species, if we reject this human process; this uniquely human characteristic of the creation of the future, we will go extinct like other animals go extinct.

So now this, I think, gets at the heart of the fraud of this whole Green paradigm. Aside from just the absolute Satanic belief of Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth, these degenerate royals, this broader disease has infected society; it has infected people who should otherwise know better. And for example, take what’s discussed often as the need for sustainability; that we have to go to a sustainable economy, we have to have a sustainable policy. This is tied together with this whole Green ideology. Well, what does this mean? To sustain something means to keep something at a certain level; to take a process and maintain that process as it is at that level. That’s what it means to sustain something. People are saying that’s what we should be doing; we should be finding a fixed level of existence with the environment and sustaining that level of existence. But this is insane; this is unnatural, this goes against the natural order. And not even just for mankind, this goes against the natural order even for the animal world. Even for the animal world itself, outside of the distinction of mankind, this is an unnatural idea. It’s unscientific; just look at the evolution of life on Earth. It’s not sustainable; it’s revolutionary. Look at the extinction rate of animal life on Earth. The estimates are that over 99% of every animal species that’s every lived on this planet has gone extinct. And the people who have done these estimates, put the number at somewhere over 5 billion species extinct; gone, never to be seen again. And these weren’t just like single events; this was a continual process of extinction, this continual background extinction rate. You might have periodic events — comet impacts, large catastrophic events associated with so-called mass extinctions; but those are just a few peaks of this activity. There’s always an extinction rate; there’s always a process of extinction going on. Species are going; new species are coming, other species are going. Why? Because the system is organized around a certain type of progress. What’s the characteristic of that progress? What’s the rule? Increasing energy-flux density, not sustainability. The species that are associated with or express a lower energy-flux density get replaced; they go extinct. They get replaced with the development of new species, expressing a higher energy-flux density. That’s what the entire evolutionary record shows; this directionality.

So, even in the so-called natural world, the animal world, this idea of sustainability doesn’t exist. The only thing that’s sustainable in the natural world, is the creation of new, higher-order states. For the animal world, that process is associated with extinction, and replacement of species with new species. Individual animal species don’t progress. At any one point, some species might express a stage, a certain stage in the evolutionary process; but they didn’t create that stage. They’re subject to it; and they’re replaced when the system moves forward — or maybe cast aside to some lower order role. So, that’s the nature of the animal world. For mankind, it’s profoundly different. Again, animals don’t create the future; they’re subject to the future. Mankind uniquely, something we don’t see anywhere in the animal world, has the ability to create the future. And this means something interesting; this means mankind provides for his own existence. The needs for mankind are not just something given to mankind by the natural world. Again, any animal species, its needs, its resources are provided by the natural world. For mankind, it’s not provided, it’s the product of man’s own action; it’s a creation of mankind.

I think this gets to a useful way to dismiss this insane fraud of this fanaticism with this Gaia cult; this worship of Mother Earth as the all-giving provider of everything. That Mother Earth brings us everything we need; it’s all a product of Mother Earth that allows mankind to exist as mankind is. And this crap even got into the encyclical. To just read a short quote, it says: “Praise to you, my Lord, through our sister Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us; and who provides various fruits with colored flowers and herbs.” So, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who provides for us. This is just wrong. It’s not scientific, it’s not based in reality; it’s ridiculous. It’s a form of pagan worship, but it’s even outdated; it’s a couple of centuries old, I would say. Because as we’ve discussed on these webcasts, on the LaRouche PAC site, if you really want to talk about the supposed bounties of the Earth, what’s provided by the Earth we live on, well, you can’t talk about it. We have to talk about the galaxy; what about the galactic system? The Earth doesn’t provide everything that exists on the Earth. We’re getting more and more indications that the characteristics we experience on Earth are products of these higher-order systems. We’re talking about the natural world, life, the biosphere, evolution. That takes us back to the galaxy. We see indications that the anti-entropic development of life, the process that created the biosphere we have now, shows a direct correspondence to the relationship of our Solar System with the galaxy. We see this kind of harmonic relationship between the periodic increase and decrease in the bio-diversity record, in the number of species living on the planet; which rise and fall in direct correspondence with the motion of our Solar System through the galactic system. Experiencing these different galactic environments. It indicates to us that if we want to understand life, we can’t just look at Earth; we have to look — and not at just the Sun and Solar System — we have to look at the galaxy, the galactic system.

And you see this in climate, as well. The Earth’s climate, the changes in the climate that people are so afraid of right now, are not produced by the Earth. The Earth’s climate is not a product of the Earth system; it’s not even a product of the Solar System. The Sun plays a major role, obviously, but if you want to take, for example, the largest periods of climate change over the past half billion years, the past few hundred million years, we see indications that it is the effect of our galactic system. These major shifts from so-called ice house to so-called hot house modes of the Earth’s climate, correspond to the motion of our Solar System through the spiral arms of our galaxy. We’re talking about huge climactic changes which last for tens of millions of years, if not more. So the largest quantitative change, the largest influence on climate change over the past hundreds of millions of years, is the effect of our galactic system. That determines the climate in which we live in; certain periods where it’s nice and warm and pleasant, other periods where it’s freezing — the ice ages — it makes it very difficult for life. These are not produced by changes on Earth; these are produced by the galactic system. And then subsumed within that, as kind of a lower order effect, you have changes in the Sun and the Solar System. So, you have this kind of nesting of causality, where the galaxy plays the biggest role in determining climate change; according to the records we have. Then you have the effects of the Sun and the Solar System more broadly; changes in the Earth’s orbit and things like that. And then you have, beneath that, changes in certain processes local to the Earth itself; changes in ocean cycles, things like that.

And as we’ve discussed, as we’ve made a feature campaign around this issue, this brings us to the issue of water. How water behaves on our Earth is not determined by Mother Earth; it’s determined by these larger scale processes. One of the most important aspects to the entire water cycle, the process of atmospheric moisture flows which bring water to the land; that’s why we have water on land. Because the Sun’s evaporating it; it’s moving through the atmospheric system, and the factors that govern how it behaves in the atmospheric system are these galactic influences. Galactic cosmic radiation effecting how the water vapor behaves; when it decides to fall as rain, when and where you get cloud formation. These are effects of these larger galactic influences. So, the Earth doesn’t provide all. The Earth is one planet, out of a whole Solar System, which created the Earth. And the Solar System is a tiny part, a hundred billionth of the entire galactic system. And these systems control, influence and control process on Earth, activity on Earth. These processes control Earth systems.

So, to be kind, we could at least say that these current pagan beliefs expressed are at the minimum outdated. If they wanted to worship something, they could at least worship the galaxy. They could at least pay homage to these magical galactical forces that give us clouds and shade, that bring us water, that brought us advanced life. If they wanted to have some type of sacred ritual praising in some pagan fashion, they could at least be up to date. You want to praise Mother Earth? That was a few centuries ago. We could at least get up to the real times.

Even this is addressing this on a lower level. I just want to come back to the main point here, which is that mankind does not depend upon the bounty of the Earth; whether that was created by the Earth itself or the Earth and the Sun or the Earth and the galaxy interacting. Mankind depends upon the bounty of mankind’s creation; that’s what mankind depends upon. You have this reference in this encyclical about the “fruits of the Earth”; that we “live off the fruits of the Earth.” Do we? Do we live off the natural fruits of the Earth? Have you ever seen natural corn, that wasn’t produced by human intervention? Have you ever seen the natural state of wheat, of apples, of fruit? These are tiny things, hardly any nutrition; no way you could sustain society on the natural bounty of the biosphere. What we eat is the product of generations and generations of human cultivation, human intervention, to massively the calories, the quality of the food available in these forms. If you compare modern corn that we eat today to the original corn that it comes from, it’s this tiny little thing that certainly wouldn’t look very tasty. And you’d have to eat a lot of it just to even try and get by. So, we’re not fed by nature; we’re not fed by the natural bounty of Nature. We’re fed by the creative actions of mankind improving Nature, changing Nature. Taking a certain baseline, but making it fundamentally new; fundamentally different, such that what we are sustained by is not that original state. What we’re sustained by the intervention and the process of intervention of mankind of past generations.

Or take another important example, in terms of what we utilize in terms of resources to sustain modern society. Take energy supplies; take power. Take different forms of fire. The energy sources which sustain practically all modern aspects of society, and just look at the process of the increase of the quality of these energy supplies. The increasing energy-flux density; and where these resources really come from. Now, we started with wood; you could certainly say that wood is a certain bounty of the Earth, it’s produced by the biosphere. Again, what mankind has done has been to cultivate forests, plant trees, increase the production of this resource so it’s not just the natural state. It’s again the product of man’s intervention. You could say it’s a bounty of the Earth, so to speak. But then we move beyond that; we went to things like coal, things like petroleum. And this I think is kind of interesting, because this is not just a real-time production by the Earth, by the biosphere in any one given state. This is the product of geological time scales; this is the product of evolutionary time scales of activity by the biosphere to produce these concentrations of energy sources. So in a sense, I think it’s kind of an interesting question, because in a way it’s mankind moving from acting with the biosphere in real generational time, to kind of interacting with the system over evolutionary time; with characteristics of the system defined by geological time periods. Kind of elevating mankind’s quality, the principle of mankind’s quality of interaction beyond just a real-time interaction into a higher state; into kind of a geological time scale, geological force.

It’s interesting, but there is a much bigger shift; something much more interesting, which is, you go to nuclear reactions. What about the vast energy stores provided by fissionable heavy elements? Uranium; thorium. Did Mother Earth produce uranium? Is that a product of the Earth? Did the Earth produce thorium? No; these are not products — they might be on Earth, you might find them on Earth, but these are products of much larger processes. These are products of stellar processes, of the activities of entire stars, of entire stellar systems, acting in kind of a quasi-metabolic process to produce the entire periodic table; to produce these heavy elements, which may have ended up on Earth, but they’re not a product of Mother Earth. But mankind has developed to the point where we can relate to these — which has nothing to do with Mother Earth — and they can provide orders of magnitude more energy, and higher qualities of energy than anything produced by the Earth processes themselves. Or toward the frontier where we really have to go right now, go to fusion. Combining lighter elements together to release energy. These lighter elements were not a product of the Earth.

So, when we just step back and look at this process, mankind moving to a fission/fusion economy; a kind of fission/fusion mode of existence in the universe, sustaining mankind — sustaining his growth and development by interacting with processes on this scale — is moving to the principles to interacting with the principles that subsume the Earth, that subsume and created the Earth system. That mankind, operating on these nuclear processes, can in effect redefine his relationship to the universe based on this new quality of interaction, is a fundamental leap; beyond just interacting with the Earth process per se. And interacting in principle, with the principles from which the Earth was created, and by which the Earth is controlled. Even though we might be doing it on Earth, it is the principle of mankind operating on a stellar and potentially galactic scale of activity. Those are the domains of activity; those are the processes which we are understanding, acting upon, and utilizing to change the way we can sustain ourselves.

So, these shifts in man’s relation to the universe, they’re the product of the actions of mankind. The substance of these actions are the creations of man, which generate entire new qualitative levels of existence for the human species. These are actual physical creations of man, for man, which man then depends upon; which man then exists upon. So we’re not dependent upon Mother Earth; we depend upon the creative actions of our own species. And I think when we adopt this proper scientific framework, understanding that this is the unique quality of intervention that mankind can make — that animals cannot make — then we get the proper framework where we can point in the direction of a kind of scientific conception of the immortality of mankind. Not the immortality of any individual, but a certain quality of action which we can associate with the potential immortality of our species; of the human species. Because it is only by this action of continually generating newer, higher-order states of existence that we can actually insure the continuation of mankind. And again, sustainability does not exist; the only real sustainability, the only real continuation is in creation; continual creation. And not just unfolding of present events, but the generation of qualitatively new states which are the product of the human mind.

And so, when you take this away, you’re dooming the human species. You’re denying people access to the quality of action that truly makes them human, and societies degenerate. Any healthy society has to be fundamentally premised on this as the highest expression of natural law. That every human individual, by his existence as a human being, has the right to participate in this process of creating a new future. Because if people don’t have a chance, don’t have an opportunity to participate in the process of creating a new future, you’re denying them their real humanity.

And just to conclude, I think really what we want to start looking toward is this galactic level; because this is the new, higher-order domain, which we don’t yet fully understand. We see this case of the water supplies; we see how mankind acting on the level of understanding the higher-order galactic system governing these climate processes, these water processes on Earth can enable mankind to act in a completely new way. But that, I think, is just scratching the surface; there is an immense amount we don’t yet understand about this principle of galactic systems. And the potential for mankind discovering these new levels; the new physics, the new science associated with these galactic processes will enable this next qualitative step. This next leap in mankind moving beyond just relating to the principle of the Earth; moving beyond just relating with the principle of the Solar System, so to speak, and defining what we could call a galactic mankind. Mankind who mediates his action with the universe by his ability to understand and control certain aspects of this galactic principle; and we have to commit to allowing people to create that and participate in the process of creating that. And anything less than that, is denying mankind his true right, his true dignity as a creative force. And I think this is the proper framework to see the true evil and the Satanic nature of this Green ideology, this Green policy; whether it’s expressed by Prince Philip in an outright conscious Satanic view, or just stupid people in our population who go along with this and accept this, and who will end up contributing to the same effect.

ROSS: Great; thanks very much, Ben. Well, that will bring our discussion today to a close. As an announcement, I do want to remind people that tomorrow if you’re in the New York area, you can come in person; otherwise, at 1pm on our website, Lyndon LaRouche will be engaged in a video connection discussion with Manhattan. So, look forward to seeing you again later on.

Join us every Friday, live, at 8PM Eastern.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s June 12, 2015.  My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly broadcast here on Friday evening of the LaRouche PAC webcast. We’re coming obviously on the heels of the fourth in a series of very successful Fireside Chats that Mr. LaRouche has been engaged in; which many of you viewing this webcast tonight probably were participants in last night.  This recording is available on the LaRouche PAC website, as well as the audio recording which has been circulated by email.  And we encourage you to continue to spread and circulate this recording as widely as you can.  This was a very significant dialogue which Mr. LaRouche had — unmediated — with the American people from East/West to everything in between; and these dialogues are scheduled to continue.

We’re also on the eve of a major conference that the Schiller Institute is hosting in Paris, France; coming up tomorrow and the following day, Saturday and Sunday.  This is an international conference which will have very high level participation from around Europe, from other areas — from Asia — as well as participation from here in the United States; namely Benjamin Deniston, who you’ve seen on these broadcasts previously.  And Mr. LaRouche recorded a video recording which will be a direct address to this conference; which we will make available to you after it’s played during the conference proceedings tomorrow.  So stay tuned to this website for further updates on that historic event.

And, we’re meeting here tonight in the wake of a dramatic event which just occurred in the House of Representatives, which is a resounding defeat for Barack Obama.  And this defeat came at the hands of the so-called Republican opposition, but it came at the hands of his own Democratic Party.  Whereas John Boehner and his Republican Party were lining up behind Barack Obama’s so-called trade bill — the TPA — and Boehner was making speeches on the floor of Congress saying, “We’ve got to back up the President.  We’ve got to support the President all the way.” The Democratic Party, led by a last-minute announcement by Nancy Pelosi herself, waged an all-out rebellion against this trade bill, and resounding defeated it by an overwhelming vote against the TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance), as a means of defeating the so-called TPA, or the fast-track Trade Promotion Authority. So, Mr. LaRouche had some comments on this, and the broader implications of what is obviously a very important defeat of Obama.  Obama, who went to the Congress himself personally this morning, and caucused with the entire Democratic Party, and tried to whip them into line; saying “This is not a vote against trade; this would be a vote against me,” which I think makes very clear exactly what did happen on the floor of the Congress today.

Now, what I’m going to do here this evening is, we’re going to hear from Jeff Steinberg, who is here representing Executive Intelligence Review, who will cover some of the discussion we had with Mr. LaRouche earlier today on the broader strategic implications of this and what we must do to follow through on what Mr. LaRouche’s leadership has been up to this point and must continue to be.  And after Jeff Steinberg, I will come back to the podium to introduce Jason Ross, who is also joining us in the studio tonight from the LaRouche PAC Basement Science Team, who will continue to elaborate what we began here last week with the discussion of the so-called Four Principles of Alexander Hamilton, as the basis for which we have to construct a constructive agenda in order to save the United States.

So, what I’m going to do to introduce Jeff Steinberg, is to present our institutional question, which came in this week; which is very simple, very direct, very to the point.  And I think Mr. LaRouche had a very succinct answer.  The question reads as follows:  “Mr. LaRouche, how do you see the United States economy under the Obama administration?”  So, Jeff, why don’t you come to the podium?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt.  I also want to thank you for having taken extremely copious notes on the discussion with Mr. LaRouche this afternoon.  I was in transit back from New York, so I was not in a position to take notes, but we have what’s not a precise, verbatim answer from Mr. LaRouche; but what we do have is a very clear and precise reflection of what he had to say.  It’s a quasi-transcript, and I’ll get to that in just a moment.

Some things happened today that were quite extraordinary. This really is a moment in which the entire Obama Presidency is now really standing out there, fully exposed.  And I’ll get to some of Mr. LaRouche’s direct comments on the implications of that in just a moment.  What we do know — and this is just by way of late-breaking news and also by way of some things that you should be on the lookout for over the weekend.  President Obama did come this morning to Capitol Hill.  Last night, he basically came to the annual Congressional baseball game — Democrats vs. Republicans — clearly he was sitting in the Republican bleachers, and he showed up last night basically to harangue Nancy Pelosi to make sure that she was on board for the historic vote today.  Obviously, that didn’t succeed; and a number of leading Democrats — some of them publicly, and some of them without name attribution — came out of that meeting, about a 40-minute meeting with President Obama, and they were furious. They said that towards the end of his presentation, he launched into an ad hominem diatribe; and basically threatened the Democrats that this was really not any longer about the trade issue, but was about him.  And that this was considered in his mind to be a mandate on his Presidency.  So, the implications of the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting thumbs-down, of Nancy Pelosi standing up on the floor of the House of Representatives and announcing that she was publicly going to be voting against the President; this has very profound implications.

So, what Mr. LaRouche had to say about this, and the strategic implications, and what this says for the period that we’re entering into over the immediate days and weeks ahead, is extremely important.  And I want to be as precise as possible in terms of what Mr. LaRouche had to say.  So, I’m going to read from — as I say, this is not a verbatim transcript — but it is a very good approximation of Mr. LaRouche’s words in our discussion this afternoon.  He said the outright rebellion by members of the Democratic Party in Congress against Obama’s trade bill today, was not something cobbled together at the last minute, as is being claimed, but in fact is a crystallization of a much broader movement of resistance within the institutions against the Obama regime both inside the United States as well as in Europe.  What is happening is a series of events which militates the opposition to Obama’s attempts to pull off a thermonuclear war.  With the oncoming collapse of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system, Obama, together with his British masters, would be inclined to provoke the occurrence of a thermonuclear war even within the coming three or four weeks. And the stinging defeat he suffered today will tend to increase his inclination in that direction even more.  However, in Germany, and now within the United States, Obama is being resisted; and being resisted with great force.  And that resistance is growing.  But what is causing this growing resistance?  It’s that Wall Street is on the chopping block; this bankrupt system cannot continue.  The entire trans-Atlantic system is hopelessly bankrupt, and large parts of the world are ready to go in an entirely different direction.  The sheer overwhelming numerical strength of their populations makes them quite strong in their power to oppose the will of this dying system.

However, the danger is that this could lead to chaos. Therefore, we need a program which can handle this collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system.  A showdown in this regard is now underway in the case of Greece; much of Europe is facing imminent crisis, including Spain, Italy, Portugal, and so on. This system cannot be held together for long.  Germany is in a relatively stronger position, but what we’re seeing right now is a great general breakdown crisis of the entire trans-Atlantic system.  We must take all of these things into consideration simultaneously; and then indicate the nature of what must be done to avoid both of these consequences — the economic breakdown and thermonuclear war.  What is needed are policies which will alleviate the factor of panic.  We must provide an FDR-style approach, resembling how he defeated the forces of Wall Street in 1932-33.  We must have a program which addresses all of the various hardships being experienced by our people.  A plan to ameliorate the immediate effects of the crisis as well as addressing the need for a more general solution to the crisis. What is our problem?  The problem is money — worthless money. If we are prepared to cancel these worthless debts, then we can produce a constructive program to allow the people in general to rise in their opportunities of life.  To Hell with the filthy rich, the speculators!  We must increase the productivity of the greatest number of people, upgrade their productivity; and we must extend this across the Atlantic as well.  Each nation has their own particular problems which need to be solved, but by increasing the general level of productivity overall, we can help each of these countries come together in common interest and for common benefit.  The best term to use in this regard is “win-win” as has been specified by the  Chinese.

Now, I should add that last night in the course of the discussion with the LaRouche PAC activists — which you can listen to as Matt indicated on this website — Mr. LaRouche called for an American win-win strategy.

So, I think that that’s the idea that should be in people’s minds as we consider the immediate answer to the question that was asked from our institutional friends, [to] which LaRouche said the following.  He said the answer to the question, “How do I see the United States economy under the Obama administration?” Simple.  It’s doomed.  What has now become clear is that our President has turned out to be a Republican.  No wonder his administration has been such a disaster.  But we can solve this crisis; we just need the constructive policy with which to do it. All this so-called “money” which the banks claim to own is all worthless.  It’s all gambling money; it doesn’t do anything, it’s not legitimate.  And that takes us back to Glass-Steagall.  What is real productivity, and how can we create real productivity? Just look at  Franklin Roosevelt.  He didn’t believe in the money system; in fact, he talked about the moneychangers in the temple. And he was proud of the fact that they hated him and he hated them right back.  He believed in productivity, just as Alexander Hamilton did.  What we have now is negative productivity, quite literally.  Wall Street not only has no value, but it has negative value in fact; and Glass-Steagall demonstrates that. Money is only worthwhile if it’s used as a weapon to increase productivity — as a means to that end.  How do we replace purely speculative monetary values with real credit which is being put to work for the creation of increases of productivity?  Simple. It is all contained within Alexander Hamilton’s Four Reports to the Congress; and Jason gave us a kind of preliminary map of those four reports during last week’s broadcast.  And I hope at least some of you out there have taken the time to actually read through them — extraordinarily important — they’re founding documents of the American Republic.  And when you read them, you will be stunned at how relevant they are today to addressing this question of speculative, worthless money — gambling debt — vs. credit that goes to real productivity.

So, what LaRouche said is, if we look back at what FDR did to overcome the process of accelerating economic depression with the process of increasing economic productivity, we can understand what must be done to reverse the crisis which we face today.  What Roosevelt did to increase the productive powers of the labor force, not only halted the crisis and provided relief to the suffering that was being felt immensely by our people at that time, but succeeded in turning the United States into an economic powerhouse such that the world had never seen before. This is what came to be the arsenal of democracy.  Yes, in the war period, it was turned toward military production, but prior to that, Roosevelt had created such an increase in the productive powers of labor of the overwhelming majority of Americans, and had created the basis for the kind of increase of productivity that is so vitally needed today.  All we need to do is really look at those principles as they’ve been further advanced and elaborated by Mr. LaRouche; the concept of energy-flux density, for example, is one much more scientifically precise measure of how you define boosts in productivity.  So, what LaRouche concluded is, the question which we must address, is how do we do that same thing today?  How do we launch a program to restructure our economy at the same time that Obama is going down in defeat? We must set ourselves the task of creating the future; and the key term is “win-win”.

The point is, there is a much more profound principle to be addressed, which is not always easy to get across, but is crucial; the idea of what is mankind.  What is the purpose of mankind?  How can we fulfill our mission of achieving increasing rates of progress within this galactic system, which we are only now beginning to get a window into; only now beginning to get a glimpse of?  Mankind is absolutely distinct from the animal; something which the great Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky understood.  Animal species may be able to innovate; but they can’t create.  And this is what we must understand as our primary consideration when it comes to the task that we now have before us; to face these two simultaneous threats to mankind’s existence — economic breakdown and thermonuclear war.  And carry out the type of sweeping changes needed in the face of both of these threats in order to insure the continued existence of mankind.

Now, I just want to add — those were Mr. LaRouche’s comments.  I just want to add that the situation that we’re facing, what he referred to earlier in this discussion as a crisis that could play out as early as the next three to four weeks, is that you’ve got simultaneously, a showdown  deadline of June 30 for the Greek debt crisis; which is really the crisis of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system.  And in that same timeframe, President Obama — on behalf of London — is moving to escalate the confrontation against both Russia and China.  Russia is the most immediate and obvious target, but China represents the real anchor and the depth of the new win-win paradigm.  So, you can’t separate the threat to Russia from the intent of Obama and the British to also carry out a major threat to China at the same time.

So, right now, what do we have?  We have NATO maneuvers going on in the Baltic Sea right off the Russian coast, which are going to be going on throughout the month of June.  You have ground maneuvers in Poland; you have the construction of an Aegis ground-based missile defense system right on the Black Sea in Romania.  And you’ve had incursions into the Black Sea by USS Aegis destroyers, coming into the very edge of Russian coastal waters.  All of these things are going on at the same time that just these past few days, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yatsenyuk — whom Victoria Nuland fondly refers to as her “Yats” — was in Washington at the same time that Samantha Power was sent to Kiev to really  deliver a blood-curdling attack against President Putin of Russia, and to blame the entirety of the Ukraine-Russian crisis on Putin, personally, and on Russia, fully ignoring the fact that Victoria Nuland, Samantha Power—this apparatus—installed a neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, on the basis of an illegal military coup, carried out by these neo-Nazi paramilitaries.

Now, this week, the House of Representatives passed an Amendment [to the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 2015, H.R.2685], that passed by a unanimous voice-vote, indicating that the U.S. should provide no military assistance to the Azov Brigade, which is explicitly identified in this Congressional resolution as a neo-Nazi organization. And, the Russian media today took note of this and said, “better late than never. This is exactly what we’ve been saying since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis.” Now, the Ukrainian government, clearly under instructions from Obama and Nuland and now Power, has cut off all military cooperation with Russia, which means that the overflight permission that Russia had had for years, to provide supplies and personnel rotation to Russian peacekeepers in the Transdniestria region—a breakaway region next to Moldova, on the Ukrainian border—has now been cut off.

So, this incident, alone, represents the potential for a new “Sarajevo moment,” except the difference between then and now, is that we’re facing potential thermonuclear war. The United States, this week, formally accused Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty, which was signed in 1987, and yet the United States refused to provide any details, whatsoever, of what the so-called violations are. But the U.S. administration announced that they’re considering withdrawing from the INF Treaty and resuming the deployment of intermediate-range missiles to Europe, carrying nuclear warheads. The British government, not surprisingly, has welcomed this offer with open arms, and is considering basing these new intermediate-range advanced, much more modern weapons, on British soil. There is an increasing deployment of tactical nuclear weapons into parts of Western Europe, stretching into Eastern Europe.

So, in other words, the idea of a danger of a hair-trigger for thermonuclear war, is very real. Fortunately, there are people in Europe, in the United States, who see this madness and want nothing of it.

But the question that Mr. LaRouche posed throughout this past week, is, will these forces have the courage to take the necessary measures? [Chancellor Angela] Merkel, in Germany, should be removed from office. The issues are there, with the NSA scandal, and other things. The SPD portion of the coalition government broke with her decisively. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, current Foreign Minister [frank-walter] Steinmeier—have all come out and said that Merkel made a horrible and dangerous mistake, in not inviting Putin to attend the G7 meeting that she hosted several days ago. So, there are splits there.

The events today demonstrate that the Democratic Party is in a state of revolt against Obama. Given the war danger, given the danger of chaos, the real question is: Will  you make sure, that those people who understand, at least in a limited way, that Obama is an enemy to the future of this country, that they take the proper steps?

He’s committed impeachable crimes. The idea of playing around with nuclear war, is a form of insanity. That, alone, could be a trigger for invoking the 25th Amendment. But that means that you‘ve got to be on the case. Members of Congress are moving in a certain direction, but left to their own devices, they won’t go far enough.  So, the burden is on our shoulders.

OGDEN:  Great. Yeah. Thank you very much, Jeff. As you just made the point, and let me reiterate: In this context, Mr. LaRouche’s specification, was that our responsibility is to create the kind of “constructive agenda” that will overwhelm the danger that we face, in this double danger of thermonuclear war, as you just elaborated; and this imminent disintegration of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system.

The reference point that Mr. LaRouche was referring to earlier this afternoon, was the case of Franklin Roosevelt—Franklin Roosevelt’s courage to send these Wall Street criminals to jail. His sorting out of the truly legitimate value of productivity, vs. the completely worthless money that was accumulated in the Wall Street banks, through the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall; and the application of what really should be identified as the “Hamilton Principle,” or, in a certain way, you can identify the four principles which were elaborated by Hamilton in these four different reports that he drafted for Congress. They were the Report on Manufactures, the Report on Public Credit, the Report on National Banking, and then his argument on the “Constitutionality of the National Bank.”

So, last week, we had a sort of preliminary exploration of this subject by Jason Ross, who is joining us here, again, this evening. Jason had the occasion to participate in the conference up in New York last weekend, as part of our ongoing “Manhattan Project,” the seat of Alexander Hamilton. In light of what Mr. LaRouche specified earlier today, about what our responsibility is, now, to create this “constructive agenda” for the country, and our role in shaping the incoming institution of the Presidency, which will supplant what Obama’s failed Presidency has represented, I’d like to introduce Jason Ross, and ask him to come to the podium.

JASON ROSS:  All right. Thanks Matt. So, to discuss what an “American win-win” situation, an “American win-win” outlook would mean, I want to first take an historical glance back, at more on Hamilton, Lincoln, some other examples from the past, and pull out some generalizing, or unifying, or subsuming concepts that Mr. LaRouche has used, to develop a more comprehensive and universal notion of economic value, and then discuss what that would mean for applications today, to create a global “win-win” situation.

As we discussed last week, the policies of Hamilton included techniques, and they included intentions. By funding the public debt, he was able to raise the value of debt certificates, to allow them to perform almost all the functions of money. He created a national bank. He created the possibility, by these techniques—by these financial, monetary, his fiscal policies—to have a supply of money, and the ability for loans, and things like this, in the new country.

But, that wasn’t really his intent, and it wasn’t his goal, and it wasn’t the full scope of what he intended. His Report on Manufactures, which, unlike his other reports on the public debt and on the national bank—which were voted on by the Congress and implemented—his Report on Manufactures didn’t get that same treatment. It didn’t have that same “success,” full success, in his time.

What was Hamilton doing? He wanted a manufacturing nation. He recognized that the United States had been put in a position of being, especially in the South, very agriculturally based. And, there was even an ideology going around, that agriculture was the only real source of economic value, and he knew that wasn’t true. He knew that by increasing what he called the “productive powers of labor”—making each hour of work more productive, instead of doing only more work—that in this way, the economy could actually develop, over time; wealth could be increased. He saw that in manufacturing, the potential for increasing these productive powers of labor, was far beyond what it was in agriculture itself. He said, with all of the different possibilities, the different opportunities people have, to apply their different gifts and talents and insights, there could be a great blossoming through the promotion of manufacturers.

So, he had mechanisms to make these things happen. But he had an intention. He had a view of where he wanted the nation to go, and what kind of direction, that was outside the specific policies themselves, would be the path forward for the nation.

Jump ahead, to briefly consider Abraham Lincoln, who Jeff had discussed a few weeks ago, about the trans-continental railroad, where, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln is moving ahead with the financing, with the building of the trans-continental railroad, as a massive project, to unify the nation, with what was then the highest level of technology:  The steam engine’s being used for transportation.  He did this with a different funding mechanism than Alexander Hamilton.  He did it with the greenback policy.  Although the techniques were different, the intent of bringing the higher technologies, the higher productivity to the nation — and a higher view of mankind — was analogous.

Look at Franklin Roosevelt:  Matt just mentioned the taking down Wall Street.  Yeah, Roosevelt had Glass-Steagall.  Roosevelt went through a bankruptcy reorganization of the nation’s banks, right went he came in, as most of the banks in the country were under water.  He used the Reconstruction Finance Corp., that Hoover had created to bail-out, to act for banks; Roosevelt used the Reconstruction Finance Corp. like a National Bank, like Lincoln’s greenback policy in some way, but he didn’t just throw around money idly.  He chose projects that were designed from a top-down perspective to have the greatest possible impact on the nation, projects that couldn’t be built without the Federal government, the Four Corners projects, for example.  Among which the Tennessee Valley Authority, as an integrated, regional development system drew visitors, politicians, economists, from all over the world, to the Tennessee Valley, to see the incredible economic development that that region saw under Roosevelt’s guidance.

Consider John F. Kennedy:  He didn’t have Hamilton’s National Bank.  He didn’t have greenbacks.  He didn’t use the Reconstruction Finance Corp.  He made use of other techniques: Government spending, investment tax credits, and he invested in a direct way, in science and technology, with the Apollo program, which, while it didn’t develop fusion power or anything like this, going to the Moon, the technologies required to successfully go to the Moon with people, and back, this had the effect of upgrading the industrial potential of the nation as a whole.

So, these great leaders, under whom we saw tremendous, or at least, marked economic advancement, didn’t have a financial policy per se.  They didn’t have a monetary scheme, or a monetary economic outlook.  They had intentions about where to take the country, and that’s essential:  You have to actually have a plan, at least in the broad sense.

So, how do you measure growth that you’re creating?  What should the metric be?  So let’s take a look at how Lyndon LaRouche approaches this question:  Today, some people say, “How many jobs does it make?”  They say, “Hey! One of the benefits of green energy, is that people have jobs.”  Well, yes, it’s true people may get jobs dusting off solar panels or that kind of thing, and you might pay them to clear out all the dead birds that are underneath the windmills, but being paid to do something — I mean, people should be paid — but being paid to do something that isn’t actually useful, is that really the right measure?  How about, being useful?  How about taking part in progress, making the economy more productive, raising living standards.  The fact that you’re being paid to “do something,” doesn’t necessarily mean you’re being useful — as I think many Americans are very familiar with in the kinds of occupations available today.

So, two metrics from Lyndon LaRouche:  One,  potential relative population-density.  What’s the potential population-density?  How many people could we support in a certain area? That’s something that’s changed, by us, uniquely as a species.  Other animals don’t change their carrying capacity. Cows don’t build canals to water grass so they’ve got more room to eat and have more cows.  Only human beings do this.

And to measure the kinds of scientific developments and the technologies that make this possible, LaRouche uses the concept of energy-flux density.  So if we look over, say, the history of our nation, the amount of energy used per capita has increased dramatically, from the level it was at the time of the American Revolution and our founding.  Through the 1800s introduction of coal as a new fuel source, and importantly a more dense fuel source that made it possible to have steam engines, that made it possible to save the forests from destruction, because you could use coal instead; to the later use of oil, more dense than coal, allowing for internal combustion engines; natural gas, nuclear.

Really at about the time of Kennedy, the time of Kennedy’s assassination, U.S. energy use  per capita plateaued.  It didn’t plateau because we realized that we should be using fluorescent light bulbs.  It plateaued because the next level, the next levels of technology, of higher energy-flux density, of nuclear, of the research that most likely, it’s hard to say exactly, could have produced fusion commercially today, those technologies would have transformed what we would do as a species, on a level akin to what the steam engine make it possible for society to do.

So, this is something, again, that only the human mind can create.  As an example of the difference between something that increases the potential population-density, something that exists at a higher energy-flux density, compared to monetary value, consider for a moment fracking.  Let’s even leave aside all of the considerations — I’m not saying they’re legitimate, I’m just saying let’s leave aside for a moment, any of the human health and cherry orchard health considerations around fracking, if none of that occurred even.  What it is, is the use of more and more and more technology, energy, more and more inputs, to receive the same kinds of fuel.  And granted, monetarily, it can be cheaper than what could otherwise be gathered from conventional wells?

But what’s the opportunity cost, you might say?  What has been the cost to us as a nation, to have not fully embraced nuclear power, to not have achieved fusion power today?  You have to look at anything we’re doing today from the standpoint of what could we be doing, and that requires a universal outlook on this.

So, let’s discuss “win-win”:  This is a phrase, this is a Chinese concept about how nations can relate with each other, let’s have “win-win” cooperation.  There isn’t a fixed pie that we’re fighting for slices of, we can bake more pies; we can collaborate with other nations in a way that increases the wealth, the economy for all.

Contrast that to geopolitics, where the attempt is to control what currently exists. Instead, looking towards the future, towards a viable partnership on the basis of shared future prosperity, a creative outlook.  You could compare these two outlooks to those of Prometheus and Zeus.  Prometheus who brought fire and creativity to mankind, offered us our humanity, our ability to transform what we do, develop new principle, develop new technologies, and grow.

In contrast, Zeus, like a modern-day climate-anthropogenic global warming alarmist, says, “sorry, carbon dioxide, we can’t allow that to the developing countries of the world — or, the more developed ones, either.”  It’s like Zeus saying that fire is for him, but not for the others. The modern Zeus, as seen in the Green movement, in which the WWF, founded by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a member of the Nazi Party, this movement is a real embodiment, along with Wall Street and the City of London British financial empire, is an embodiment today of Zeus.  It says, human beings aren’t creative.  There won’t be new technologies in the future.  We’re not going to discover anything new.  We’ve got limited resources, we’re going to share them in an equitable way, and have less people so that they last longer — that’s an outlook of suicide.

And it’s not one that the BRICS nations can accept or are embracing.

So instead, think today, what do we do?  What’s the Promethean outlook for today?  What’s the “win-win” cooperation potential now? There’s some things, like implementing existing technologies that are long overdue.  Should we have maglev rail? Absolutely!  Should we have high-speed rail lines in the nation? Yes.

But that’s not enough.  What about developing our abilities as a species of galactic proportions to use our insights into how the Earth responds to the Solar System as a whole, how it plays a role in our Solar System’s motion through the Galaxy; to use some of those same discoveries that we learn from studying these fields, in their impact on our climate, on our environment, to use those insights to control the weather ourselves.  To solve the California, and other areas in the world, drought crisis, not by taking a shorter shower and hoping that will somehow cause water to fall in the peach orchards — it won’t;  if you go to the bathroom and you don’t flush it, that will not save cherry trees, it won’t do anything to create rain.  What we have to do, is act on that much higher level:  desalination, water control, water transfer, you know, really take on that identity as the creative species.

In that respect, we have a basis for cooperation with other nations:  how can we work together, to develop and discover new principles about how the universe works, about how to work together, to implement those breakthroughs, and how are we going to use that to eliminate poverty worldwide, eliminate through reinstating Glass-Steagall, asap, eliminating the power of the oligarchy to hold back human civilization.  And obviously, as we’ve discussed, that won’t occur without a fight, as we’re seeing with the response to the BRICS orientation, with the threat of wars we’ve been discussing.

So that’s what I’d like to say.

OGDEN:  Now, I do want to mention, as Jason has here, a copy of the report that has been put together by Executive Intelligence Review, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.”  This is an EIR Special Report; this was released last year, but I know it’s continuing to grow in circulation, and we encourage you to get a copy of this, and also to encourage others:  It’s a comprehensive, very, very thorough picture of exactly the kind of global outlook, the kind of intent that the United States could become a part of, especially with this defeat of the anti-China, Obama Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bill.  A real engagement for the United States in the world and in economic progress, would be for the United States to join the BRICS, as we’ve been encouraging, as has been the subject of these ongoing conferences, sponsored by the Schiller Institute, Including the conference which will occur this weekend in Paris, and you know, to take up the invitation by President Xi Jinping of China, to join the AIIB.  We know it was Obama who tried to intimidate European countries into not joining the AIIB.  They decided to ignore his advice and they joined anyhow.  And the United States should ignore Obama’s advice, and we should join anyhow.

So, contained in this report is a very comprehensive article, by Jason Ross, whom you just heard from, on the principles behind energy-flux density and the development of this as a true metric of economic progress and a measurement of productivity.  So I wanted to mention that.

And what I wanted to invite everybody to do here, is to really think through, how are we going to continue to engage an ever-broader portion of the American population, in this kind of discussion?  We’ve been responsible for setting up the opportunity that’s now arisen, through the defeat of Obama that occurred today, in Washington, and the continued shaping of the institution of the Presidency and the ongoing discussion in the Presidential campaigns:  Martin O’Malley’s adoption of the Glass-Steagall policy, for example.

But we need to expand this effort in a very broad, very dramatic, very rapid way.  And one very great opportunity, in order to do that, are these Thursday night discussions that Mr. LaRouche has been leading, the so-called “Fireside Chats.”  This is open to your friend, to your family, to all of your political networks. We have the capacity for hundreds and thousands of more people to be engaged in this, and this is urgently necessary. We’ve been broadcasting these discussions for the last two weeks, like on YouTube, on the LaRouche PAC website.  [url:”https://www.youtube.com/ playlist?list=PLM6byG9IYiESW_eVUR6Lc8b0Bu0nJ44xW”]The archive of this discussion is available

Join us every Friday, live, at 8PM Eastern.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s June 12, 2015.  My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly broadcast here on Friday evening of the LaRouche PAC webcast. We’re coming obviously on the heels of the fourth in a series of very successful Fireside Chats that Mr. LaRouche has been engaged in; which many of you viewing this webcast tonight probably were participants in last night.  This recording is available on the LaRouche PAC website, as well as the audio recording which has been circulated by email.  And we encourage you to continue to spread and circulate this recording as widely as you can.  This was a very significant dialogue which Mr. LaRouche had — unmediated — with the American people from East/West to everything in between; and these dialogues are scheduled to continue.

We’re also on the eve of a major conference that the Schiller Institute is hosting in Paris, France; coming up tomorrow and the following day, Saturday and Sunday.  This is an international conference which will have very high level participation from around Europe, from other areas — from Asia — as well as participation from here in the United States; namely Benjamin Deniston, who you’ve seen on these broadcasts previously.  And Mr. LaRouche recorded a video recording which will be a direct address to this conference; which we will make available to you after it’s played during the conference proceedings tomorrow.  So stay tuned to this website for further updates on that historic event.

And, we’re meeting here tonight in the wake of a dramatic event which just occurred in the House of Representatives, which is a resounding defeat for Barack Obama.  And this defeat came at the hands of the so-called Republican opposition, but it came at the hands of his own Democratic Party.  Whereas John Boehner and his Republican Party were lining up behind Barack Obama’s so-called trade bill — the TPA — and Boehner was making speeches on the floor of Congress saying, “We’ve got to back up the President.  We’ve got to support the President all the way.” The Democratic Party, led by a last-minute announcement by Nancy Pelosi herself, waged an all-out rebellion against this trade bill, and resounding defeated it by an overwhelming vote against the TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance), as a means of defeating the so-called TPA, or the fast-track Trade Promotion Authority. So, Mr. LaRouche had some comments on this, and the broader implications of what is obviously a very important defeat of Obama.  Obama, who went to the Congress himself personally this morning, and caucused with the entire Democratic Party, and tried to whip them into line; saying “This is not a vote against trade; this would be a vote against me,” which I think makes very clear exactly what did happen on the floor of the Congress today.

Now, what I’m going to do here this evening is, we’re going to hear from Jeff Steinberg, who is here representing Executive Intelligence Review, who will cover some of the discussion we had with Mr. LaRouche earlier today on the broader strategic implications of this and what we must do to follow through on what Mr. LaRouche’s leadership has been up to this point and must continue to be.  And after Jeff Steinberg, I will come back to the podium to introduce Jason Ross, who is also joining us in the studio tonight from the LaRouche PAC Basement Science Team, who will continue to elaborate what we began here last week with the discussion of the so-called Four Principles of Alexander Hamilton, as the basis for which we have to construct a constructive agenda in order to save the United States.

So, what I’m going to do to introduce Jeff Steinberg, is to present our institutional question, which came in this week; which is very simple, very direct, very to the point.  And I think Mr. LaRouche had a very succinct answer.  The question reads as follows:  “Mr. LaRouche, how do you see the United States economy under the Obama administration?”  So, Jeff, why don’t you come to the podium?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt.  I also want to thank you for having taken extremely copious notes on the discussion with Mr. LaRouche this afternoon.  I was in transit back from New York, so I was not in a position to take notes, but we have what’s not a precise, verbatim answer from Mr. LaRouche; but what we do have is a very clear and precise reflection of what he had to say.  It’s a quasi-transcript, and I’ll get to that in just a moment.

Some things happened today that were quite extraordinary. This really is a moment in which the entire Obama Presidency is now really standing out there, fully exposed.  And I’ll get to some of Mr. LaRouche’s direct comments on the implications of that in just a moment.  What we do know — and this is just by way of late-breaking news and also by way of some things that you should be on the lookout for over the weekend.  President Obama did come this morning to Capitol Hill.  Last night, he basically came to the annual Congressional baseball game — Democrats vs. Republicans — clearly he was sitting in the Republican bleachers, and he showed up last night basically to harangue Nancy Pelosi to make sure that she was on board for the historic vote today.  Obviously, that didn’t succeed; and a number of leading Democrats — some of them publicly, and some of them without name attribution — came out of that meeting, about a 40-minute meeting with President Obama, and they were furious. They said that towards the end of his presentation, he launched into an ad hominem diatribe; and basically threatened the Democrats that this was really not any longer about the trade issue, but was about him.  And that this was considered in his mind to be a mandate on his Presidency.  So, the implications of the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting thumbs-down, of Nancy Pelosi standing up on the floor of the House of Representatives and announcing that she was publicly going to be voting against the President; this has very profound implications.

So, what Mr. LaRouche had to say about this, and the strategic implications, and what this says for the period that we’re entering into over the immediate days and weeks ahead, is extremely important.  And I want to be as precise as possible in terms of what Mr. LaRouche had to say.  So, I’m going to read from — as I say, this is not a verbatim transcript — but it is a very good approximation of Mr. LaRouche’s words in our discussion this afternoon.  He said the outright rebellion by members of the Democratic Party in Congress against Obama’s trade bill today, was not something cobbled together at the last minute, as is being claimed, but in fact is a crystallization of a much broader movement of resistance within the institutions against the Obama regime both inside the United States as well as in Europe.  What is happening is a series of events which militates the opposition to Obama’s attempts to pull off a thermonuclear war.  With the oncoming collapse of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system, Obama, together with his British masters, would be inclined to provoke the occurrence of a thermonuclear war even within the coming three or four weeks. And the stinging defeat he suffered today will tend to increase his inclination in that direction even more.  However, in Germany, and now within the United States, Obama is being resisted; and being resisted with great force.  And that resistance is growing.  But what is causing this growing resistance?  It’s that Wall Street is on the chopping block; this bankrupt system cannot continue.  The entire trans-Atlantic system is hopelessly bankrupt, and large parts of the world are ready to go in an entirely different direction.  The sheer overwhelming numerical strength of their populations makes them quite strong in their power to oppose the will of this dying system.

However, the danger is that this could lead to chaos. Therefore, we need a program which can handle this collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system.  A showdown in this regard is now underway in the case of Greece; much of Europe is facing imminent crisis, including Spain, Italy, Portugal, and so on. This system cannot be held together for long.  Germany is in a relatively stronger position, but what we’re seeing right now is a great general breakdown crisis of the entire trans-Atlantic system.  We must take all of these things into consideration simultaneously; and then indicate the nature of what must be done to avoid both of these consequences — the economic breakdown and thermonuclear war.  What is needed are policies which will alleviate the factor of panic.  We must provide an FDR-style approach, resembling how he defeated the forces of Wall Street in 1932-33.  We must have a program which addresses all of the various hardships being experienced by our people.  A plan to ameliorate the immediate effects of the crisis as well as addressing the need for a more general solution to the crisis. What is our problem?  The problem is money — worthless money. If we are prepared to cancel these worthless debts, then we can produce a constructive program to allow the people in general to rise in their opportunities of life.  To Hell with the filthy rich, the speculators!  We must increase the productivity of the greatest number of people, upgrade their productivity; and we must extend this across the Atlantic as well.  Each nation has their own particular problems which need to be solved, but by increasing the general level of productivity overall, we can help each of these countries come together in common interest and for common benefit.  The best term to use in this regard is “win-win” as has been specified by the  Chinese.

Now, I should add that last night in the course of the discussion with the LaRouche PAC activists — which you can listen to as Matt indicated on this website — Mr. LaRouche called for an American win-win strategy.

So, I think that that’s the idea that should be in people’s minds as we consider the immediate answer to the question that was asked from our institutional friends, [to] which LaRouche said the following.  He said the answer to the question, “How do I see the United States economy under the Obama administration?” Simple.  It’s doomed.  What has now become clear is that our President has turned out to be a Republican.  No wonder his administration has been such a disaster.  But we can solve this crisis; we just need the constructive policy with which to do it. All this so-called “money” which the banks claim to own is all worthless.  It’s all gambling money; it doesn’t do anything, it’s not legitimate.  And that takes us back to Glass-Steagall.  What is real productivity, and how can we create real productivity? Just look at  Franklin Roosevelt.  He didn’t believe in the money system; in fact, he talked about the moneychangers in the temple. And he was proud of the fact that they hated him and he hated them right back.  He believed in productivity, just as Alexander Hamilton did.  What we have now is negative productivity, quite literally.  Wall Street not only has no value, but it has negative value in fact; and Glass-Steagall demonstrates that. Money is only worthwhile if it’s used as a weapon to increase productivity — as a means to that end.  How do we replace purely speculative monetary values with real credit which is being put to work for the creation of increases of productivity?  Simple. It is all contained within Alexander Hamilton’s Four Reports to the Congress; and Jason gave us a kind of preliminary map of those four reports during last week’s broadcast.  And I hope at least some of you out there have taken the time to actually read through them — extraordinarily important — they’re founding documents of the American Republic.  And when you read them, you will be stunned at how relevant they are today to addressing this question of speculative, worthless money — gambling debt — vs. credit that goes to real productivity.

So, what LaRouche said is, if we look back at what FDR did to overcome the process of accelerating economic depression with the process of increasing economic productivity, we can understand what must be done to reverse the crisis which we face today.  What Roosevelt did to increase the productive powers of the labor force, not only halted the crisis and provided relief to the suffering that was being felt immensely by our people at that time, but succeeded in turning the United States into an economic powerhouse such that the world had never seen before. This is what came to be the arsenal of democracy.  Yes, in the war period, it was turned toward military production, but prior to that, Roosevelt had created such an increase in the productive powers of labor of the overwhelming majority of Americans, and had created the basis for the kind of increase of productivity that is so vitally needed today.  All we need to do is really look at those principles as they’ve been further advanced and elaborated by Mr. LaRouche; the concept of energy-flux density, for example, is one much more scientifically precise measure of how you define boosts in productivity.  So, what LaRouche concluded is, the question which we must address, is how do we do that same thing today?  How do we launch a program to restructure our economy at the same time that Obama is going down in defeat? We must set ourselves the task of creating the future; and the key term is “win-win”.

The point is, there is a much more profound principle to be addressed, which is not always easy to get across, but is crucial; the idea of what is mankind.  What is the purpose of mankind?  How can we fulfill our mission of achieving increasing rates of progress within this galactic system, which we are only now beginning to get a window into; only now beginning to get a glimpse of?  Mankind is absolutely distinct from the animal; something which the great Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky understood.  Animal species may be able to innovate; but they can’t create.  And this is what we must understand as our primary consideration when it comes to the task that we now have before us; to face these two simultaneous threats to mankind’s existence — economic breakdown and thermonuclear war.  And carry out the type of sweeping changes needed in the face of both of these threats in order to insure the continued existence of mankind.

Now, I just want to add — those were Mr. LaRouche’s comments.  I just want to add that the situation that we’re facing, what he referred to earlier in this discussion as a crisis that could play out as early as the next three to four weeks, is that you’ve got simultaneously, a showdown  deadline of June 30 for the Greek debt crisis; which is really the crisis of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system.  And in that same timeframe, President Obama — on behalf of London — is moving to escalate the confrontation against both Russia and China.  Russia is the most immediate and obvious target, but China represents the real anchor and the depth of the new win-win paradigm.  So, you can’t separate the threat to Russia from the intent of Obama and the British to also carry out a major threat to China at the same time.

So, right now, what do we have?  We have NATO maneuvers going on in the Baltic Sea right off the Russian coast, which are going to be going on throughout the month of June.  You have ground maneuvers in Poland; you have the construction of an Aegis ground-based missile defense system right on the Black Sea in Romania.  And you’ve had incursions into the Black Sea by USS Aegis destroyers, coming into the very edge of Russian coastal waters.  All of these things are going on at the same time that just these past few days, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yatsenyuk — whom Victoria Nuland fondly refers to as her “Yats” — was in Washington at the same time that Samantha Power was sent to Kiev to really  deliver a blood-curdling attack against President Putin of Russia, and to blame the entirety of the Ukraine-Russian crisis on Putin, personally, and on Russia, fully ignoring the fact that Victoria Nuland, Samantha Power—this apparatus—installed a neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, on the basis of an illegal military coup, carried out by these neo-Nazi paramilitaries.

Now, this week, the House of Representatives passed an Amendment [to the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 2015, H.R.2685], that passed by a unanimous voice-vote, indicating that the U.S. should provide no military assistance to the Azov Brigade, which is explicitly identified in this Congressional resolution as a neo-Nazi organization. And, the Russian media today took note of this and said, “better late than never. This is exactly what we’ve been saying since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis.” Now, the Ukrainian government, clearly under instructions from Obama and Nuland and now Power, has cut off all military cooperation with Russia, which means that the overflight permission that Russia had had for years, to provide supplies and personnel rotation to Russian peacekeepers in the Transdniestria region—a breakaway region next to Moldova, on the Ukrainian border—has now been cut off.

So, this incident, alone, represents the potential for a new “Sarajevo moment,” except the difference between then and now, is that we’re facing potential thermonuclear war. The United States, this week, formally accused Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty, which was signed in 1987, and yet the United States refused to provide any details, whatsoever, of what the so-called violations are. But the U.S. administration announced that they’re considering withdrawing from the INF Treaty and resuming the deployment of intermediate-range missiles to Europe, carrying nuclear warheads. The British government, not surprisingly, has welcomed this offer with open arms, and is considering basing these new intermediate-range advanced, much more modern weapons, on British soil. There is an increasing deployment of tactical nuclear weapons into parts of Western Europe, stretching into Eastern Europe.

So, in other words, the idea of a danger of a hair-trigger for thermonuclear war, is very real. Fortunately, there are people in Europe, in the United States, who see this madness and want nothing of it.

But the question that Mr. LaRouche posed throughout this past week, is, will these forces have the courage to take the necessary measures? [Chancellor Angela] Merkel, in Germany, should be removed from office. The issues are there, with the NSA scandal, and other things. The SPD portion of the coalition government broke with her decisively. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, current Foreign Minister [frank-walter] Steinmeier—have all come out and said that Merkel made a horrible and dangerous mistake, in not inviting Putin to attend the G7 meeting that she hosted several days ago. So, there are splits there.

The events today demonstrate that the Democratic Party is in a state of revolt against Obama. Given the war danger, given the danger of chaos, the real question is: Will  you make sure, that those people who understand, at least in a limited way, that Obama is an enemy to the future of this country, that they take the proper steps?

He’s committed impeachable crimes. The idea of playing around with nuclear war, is a form of insanity. That, alone, could be a trigger for invoking the 25th Amendment. But that means that you‘ve got to be on the case. Members of Congress are moving in a certain direction, but left to their own devices, they won’t go far enough.  So, the burden is on our shoulders.

OGDEN:  Great. Yeah. Thank you very much, Jeff. As you just made the point, and let me reiterate: In this context, Mr. LaRouche’s specification, was that our responsibility is to create the kind of “constructive agenda” that will overwhelm the danger that we face, in this double danger of thermonuclear war, as you just elaborated; and this imminent disintegration of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system.

The reference point that Mr. LaRouche was referring to earlier this afternoon, was the case of Franklin Roosevelt—Franklin Roosevelt’s courage to send these Wall Street criminals to jail. His sorting out of the truly legitimate value of productivity, vs. the completely worthless money that was accumulated in the Wall Street banks, through the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall; and the application of what really should be identified as the “Hamilton Principle,” or, in a certain way, you can identify the four principles which were elaborated by Hamilton in these four different reports that he drafted for Congress. They were the Report on Manufactures, the Report on Public Credit, the Report on National Banking, and then his argument on the “Constitutionality of the National Bank.”

So, last week, we had a sort of preliminary exploration of this subject by Jason Ross, who is joining us here, again, this evening. Jason had the occasion to participate in the conference up in New York last weekend, as part of our ongoing “Manhattan Project,” the seat of Alexander Hamilton. In light of what Mr. LaRouche specified earlier today, about what our responsibility is, now, to create this “constructive agenda” for the country, and our role in shaping the incoming institution of the Presidency, which will supplant what Obama’s failed Presidency has represented, I’d like to introduce Jason Ross, and ask him to come to the podium.

JASON ROSS:  All right. Thanks Matt. So, to discuss what an “American win-win” situation, an “American win-win” outlook would mean, I want to first take an historical glance back, at more on Hamilton, Lincoln, some other examples from the past, and pull out some generalizing, or unifying, or subsuming concepts that Mr. LaRouche has used, to develop a more comprehensive and universal notion of economic value, and then discuss what that would mean for applications today, to create a global “win-win” situation.

As we discussed last week, the policies of Hamilton included techniques, and they included intentions. By funding the public debt, he was able to raise the value of debt certificates, to allow them to perform almost all the functions of money. He created a national bank. He created the possibility, by these techniques—by these financial, monetary, his fiscal policies—to have a supply of money, and the ability for loans, and things like this, in the new country.

But, that wasn’t really his intent, and it wasn’t his goal, and it wasn’t the full scope of what he intended. His Report on Manufactures, which, unlike his other reports on the public debt and on the national bank—which were voted on by the Congress and implemented—his Report on Manufactures didn’t get that same treatment. It didn’t have that same “success,” full success, in his time.

What was Hamilton doing? He wanted a manufacturing nation. He recognized that the United States had been put in a position of being, especially in the South, very agriculturally based. And, there was even an ideology going around, that agriculture was the only real source of economic value, and he knew that wasn’t true. He knew that by increasing what he called the “productive powers of labor”—making each hour of work more productive, instead of doing only more work—that in this way, the economy could actually develop, over time; wealth could be increased. He saw that in manufacturing, the potential for increasing these productive powers of labor, was far beyond what it was in agriculture itself. He said, with all of the different possibilities, the different opportunities people have, to apply their different gifts and talents and insights, there could be a great blossoming through the promotion of manufacturers.

So, he had mechanisms to make these things happen. But he had an intention. He had a view of where he wanted the nation to go, and what kind of direction, that was outside the specific policies themselves, would be the path forward for the nation.

Jump ahead, to briefly consider Abraham Lincoln, who Jeff had discussed a few weeks ago, about the trans-continental railroad, where, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln is moving ahead with the financing, with the building of the trans-continental railroad, as a massive project, to unify the nation, with what was then the highest level of technology:  The steam engine’s being used for transportation.  He did this with a different funding mechanism than Alexander Hamilton.  He did it with the greenback policy.  Although the techniques were different, the intent of bringing the higher technologies, the higher productivity to the nation — and a higher view of mankind — was analogous.

Look at Franklin Roosevelt:  Matt just mentioned the taking down Wall Street.  Yeah, Roosevelt had Glass-Steagall.  Roosevelt went through a bankruptcy reorganization of the nation’s banks, right went he came in, as most of the banks in the country were under water.  He used the Reconstruction Finance Corp., that Hoover had created to bail-out, to act for banks; Roosevelt used the Reconstruction Finance Corp. like a National Bank, like Lincoln’s greenback policy in some way, but he didn’t just throw around money idly.  He chose projects that were designed from a top-down perspective to have the greatest possible impact on the nation, projects that couldn’t be built without the Federal government, the Four Corners projects, for example.  Among which the Tennessee Valley Authority, as an integrated, regional development system drew visitors, politicians, economists, from all over the world, to the Tennessee Valley, to see the incredible economic development that that region saw under Roosevelt’s guidance.

Consider John F. Kennedy:  He didn’t have Hamilton’s National Bank.  He didn’t have greenbacks.  He didn’t use the Reconstruction Finance Corp.  He made use of other techniques: Government spending, investment tax credits, and he invested in a direct way, in science and technology, with the Apollo program, which, while it didn’t develop fusion power or anything like this, going to the Moon, the technologies required to successfully go to the Moon with people, and back, this had the effect of upgrading the industrial potential of the nation as a whole.

So, these great leaders, under whom we saw tremendous, or at least, marked economic advancement, didn’t have a financial policy per se.  They didn’t have a monetary scheme, or a monetary economic outlook.  They had intentions about where to take the country, and that’s essential:  You have to actually have a plan, at least in the broad sense.

So, how do you measure growth that you’re creating?  What should the metric be?  So let’s take a look at how Lyndon LaRouche approaches this question:  Today, some people say, “How many jobs does it make?”  They say, “Hey! One of the benefits of green energy, is that people have jobs.”  Well, yes, it’s true people may get jobs dusting off solar panels or that kind of thing, and you might pay them to clear out all the dead birds that are underneath the windmills, but being paid to do something — I mean, people should be paid — but being paid to do something that isn’t actually useful, is that really the right measure?  How about, being useful?  How about taking part in progress, making the economy more productive, raising living standards.  The fact that you’re being paid to “do something,” doesn’t necessarily mean you’re being useful — as I think many Americans are very familiar with in the kinds of occupations available today.

So, two metrics from Lyndon LaRouche:  One,  potential relative population-density.  What’s the potential population-density?  How many people could we support in a certain area? That’s something that’s changed, by us, uniquely as a species.  Other animals don’t change their carrying capacity. Cows don’t build canals to water grass so they’ve got more room to eat and have more cows.  Only human beings do this.

And to measure the kinds of scientific developments and the technologies that make this possible, LaRouche uses the concept of energy-flux density.  So if we look over, say, the history of our nation, the amount of energy used per capita has increased dramatically, from the level it was at the time of the American Revolution and our founding.  Through the 1800s introduction of coal as a new fuel source, and importantly a more dense fuel source that made it possible to have steam engines, that made it possible to save the forests from destruction, because you could use coal instead; to the later use of oil, more dense than coal, allowing for internal combustion engines; natural gas, nuclear.

Really at about the time of Kennedy, the time of Kennedy’s assassination, U.S. energy use  per capita plateaued.  It didn’t plateau because we realized that we should be using fluorescent light bulbs.  It plateaued because the next level, the next levels of technology, of higher energy-flux density, of nuclear, of the research that most likely, it’s hard to say exactly, could have produced fusion commercially today, those technologies would have transformed what we would do as a species, on a level akin to what the steam engine make it possible for society to do.

So, this is something, again, that only the human mind can create.  As an example of the difference between something that increases the potential population-density, something that exists at a higher energy-flux density, compared to monetary value, consider for a moment fracking.  Let’s even leave aside all of the considerations — I’m not saying they’re legitimate, I’m just saying let’s leave aside for a moment, any of the human health and cherry orchard health considerations around fracking, if none of that occurred even.  What it is, is the use of more and more and more technology, energy, more and more inputs, to receive the same kinds of fuel.  And granted, monetarily, it can be cheaper than what could otherwise be gathered from conventional wells?

But what’s the opportunity cost, you might say?  What has been the cost to us as a nation, to have not fully embraced nuclear power, to not have achieved fusion power today?  You have to look at anything we’re doing today from the standpoint of what could we be doing, and that requires a universal outlook on this.

So, let’s discuss “win-win”:  This is a phrase, this is a Chinese concept about how nations can relate with each other, let’s have “win-win” cooperation.  There isn’t a fixed pie that we’re fighting for slices of, we can bake more pies; we can collaborate with other nations in a way that increases the wealth, the economy for all.

Contrast that to geopolitics, where the attempt is to control what currently exists. Instead, looking towards the future, towards a viable partnership on the basis of shared future prosperity, a creative outlook.  You could compare these two outlooks to those of Prometheus and Zeus.  Prometheus who brought fire and creativity to mankind, offered us our humanity, our ability to transform what we do, develop new principle, develop new technologies, and grow.

In contrast, Zeus, like a modern-day climate-anthropogenic global warming alarmist, says, “sorry, carbon dioxide, we can’t allow that to the developing countries of the world — or, the more developed ones, either.”  It’s like Zeus saying that fire is for him, but not for the others. The modern Zeus, as seen in the Green movement, in which the WWF, founded by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a member of the Nazi Party, this movement is a real embodiment, along with Wall Street and the City of London British financial empire, is an embodiment today of Zeus.  It says, human beings aren’t creative.  There won’t be new technologies in the future.  We’re not going to discover anything new.  We’ve got limited resources, we’re going to share them in an equitable way, and have less people so that they last longer — that’s an outlook of suicide.

And it’s not one that the BRICS nations can accept or are embracing.

So instead, think today, what do we do?  What’s the Promethean outlook for today?  What’s the “win-win” cooperation potential now? There’s some things, like implementing existing technologies that are long overdue.  Should we have maglev rail? Absolutely!  Should we have high-speed rail lines in the nation? Yes.

But that’s not enough.  What about developing our abilities as a species of galactic proportions to use our insights into how the Earth responds to the Solar System as a whole, how it plays a role in our Solar System’s motion through the Galaxy; to use some of those same discoveries that we learn from studying these fields, in their impact on our climate, on our environment, to use those insights to control the weather ourselves.  To solve the California, and other areas in the world, drought crisis, not by taking a shorter shower and hoping that will somehow cause water to fall in the peach orchards — it won’t;  if you go to the bathroom and you don’t flush it, that will not save cherry trees, it won’t do anything to create rain.  What we have to do, is act on that much higher level:  desalination, water control, water transfer, you know, really take on that identity as the creative species.

In that respect, we have a basis for cooperation with other nations:  how can we work together, to develop and discover new principles about how the universe works, about how to work together, to implement those breakthroughs, and how are we going to use that to eliminate poverty worldwide, eliminate through reinstating Glass-Steagall, asap, eliminating the power of the oligarchy to hold back human civilization.  And obviously, as we’ve discussed, that won’t occur without a fight, as we’re seeing with the response to the BRICS orientation, with the threat of wars we’ve been discussing.

So that’s what I’d like to say.

OGDEN:  Now, I do want to mention, as Jason has here, a copy of the report that has been put together by Executive Intelligence Review, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.”  This is an EIR Special Report; this was released last year, but I know it’s continuing to grow in circulation, and we encourage you to get a copy of this, and also to encourage others:  It’s a comprehensive, very, very thorough picture of exactly the kind of global outlook, the kind of intent that the United States could become a part of, especially with this defeat of the anti-China, Obama Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bill.  A real engagement for the United States in the world and in economic progress, would be for the United States to join the BRICS, as we’ve been encouraging, as has been the subject of these ongoing conferences, sponsored by the Schiller Institute, Including the conference which will occur this weekend in Paris, and you know, to take up the invitation by President Xi Jinping of China, to join the AIIB.  We know it was Obama who tried to intimidate European countries into not joining the AIIB.  They decided to ignore his advice and they joined anyhow.  And the United States should ignore Obama’s advice, and we should join anyhow.

So, contained in this report is a very comprehensive article, by Jason Ross, whom you just heard from, on the principles behind energy-flux density and the development of this as a true metric of economic progress and a measurement of productivity.  So I wanted to mention that.

And what I wanted to invite everybody to do here, is to really think through, how are we going to continue to engage an ever-broader portion of the American population, in this kind of discussion?  We’ve been responsible for setting up the opportunity that’s now arisen, through the defeat of Obama that occurred today, in Washington, and the continued shaping of the institution of the Presidency and the ongoing discussion in the Presidential campaigns:  Martin O’Malley’s adoption of the Glass-Steagall policy, for example.

But we need to expand this effort in a very broad, very dramatic, very rapid way.  And one very great opportunity, in order to do that, are these Thursday night discussions that Mr. LaRouche has been leading, the so-called “Fireside Chats.”  This is open to your friend, to your family, to all of your political networks. We have the capacity for hundreds and thousands of more people to be engaged in this, and this is urgently necessary. We’ve been broadcasting these discussions for the last two weeks, like on YouTube, on the LaRouche PAC website.  [url:”https://www.youtube.com/ playlist?list=PLM6byG9IYiESW_eVUR6Lc8b0Bu0nJ44xW”]The archive of this discussion is available

Join us every Friday, live, at 8PM Eastern.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s June 12, 2015.  My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly broadcast here on Friday evening of the LaRouche PAC webcast. We’re coming obviously on the heels of the fourth in a series of very successful Fireside Chats that Mr. LaRouche has been engaged in; which many of you viewing this webcast tonight probably were participants in last night.  This recording is available on the LaRouche PAC website, as well as the audio recording which has been circulated by email.  And we encourage you to continue to spread and circulate this recording as widely as you can.  This was a very significant dialogue which Mr. LaRouche had — unmediated — with the American people from East/West to everything in between; and these dialogues are scheduled to continue.

We’re also on the eve of a major conference that the Schiller Institute is hosting in Paris, France; coming up tomorrow and the following day, Saturday and Sunday.  This is an international conference which will have very high level participation from around Europe, from other areas — from Asia — as well as participation from here in the United States; namely Benjamin Deniston, who you’ve seen on these broadcasts previously.  And Mr. LaRouche recorded a video recording which will be a direct address to this conference; which we will make available to you after it’s played during the conference proceedings tomorrow.  So stay tuned to this website for further updates on that historic event.

And, we’re meeting here tonight in the wake of a dramatic event which just occurred in the House of Representatives, which is a resounding defeat for Barack Obama.  And this defeat came at the hands of the so-called Republican opposition, but it came at the hands of his own Democratic Party.  Whereas John Boehner and his Republican Party were lining up behind Barack Obama’s so-called trade bill — the TPA — and Boehner was making speeches on the floor of Congress saying, “We’ve got to back up the President.  We’ve got to support the President all the way.” The Democratic Party, led by a last-minute announcement by Nancy Pelosi herself, waged an all-out rebellion against this trade bill, and resounding defeated it by an overwhelming vote against the TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance), as a means of defeating the so-called TPA, or the fast-track Trade Promotion Authority. So, Mr. LaRouche had some comments on this, and the broader implications of what is obviously a very important defeat of Obama.  Obama, who went to the Congress himself personally this morning, and caucused with the entire Democratic Party, and tried to whip them into line; saying “This is not a vote against trade; this would be a vote against me,” which I think makes very clear exactly what did happen on the floor of the Congress today.

Now, what I’m going to do here this evening is, we’re going to hear from Jeff Steinberg, who is here representing Executive Intelligence Review, who will cover some of the discussion we had with Mr. LaRouche earlier today on the broader strategic implications of this and what we must do to follow through on what Mr. LaRouche’s leadership has been up to this point and must continue to be.  And after Jeff Steinberg, I will come back to the podium to introduce Jason Ross, who is also joining us in the studio tonight from the LaRouche PAC Basement Science Team, who will continue to elaborate what we began here last week with the discussion of the so-called Four Principles of Alexander Hamilton, as the basis for which we have to construct a constructive agenda in order to save the United States.

So, what I’m going to do to introduce Jeff Steinberg, is to present our institutional question, which came in this week; which is very simple, very direct, very to the point.  And I think Mr. LaRouche had a very succinct answer.  The question reads as follows:  “Mr. LaRouche, how do you see the United States economy under the Obama administration?”  So, Jeff, why don’t you come to the podium?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt.  I also want to thank you for having taken extremely copious notes on the discussion with Mr. LaRouche this afternoon.  I was in transit back from New York, so I was not in a position to take notes, but we have what’s not a precise, verbatim answer from Mr. LaRouche; but what we do have is a very clear and precise reflection of what he had to say.  It’s a quasi-transcript, and I’ll get to that in just a moment.

Some things happened today that were quite extraordinary. This really is a moment in which the entire Obama Presidency is now really standing out there, fully exposed.  And I’ll get to some of Mr. LaRouche’s direct comments on the implications of that in just a moment.  What we do know — and this is just by way of late-breaking news and also by way of some things that you should be on the lookout for over the weekend.  President Obama did come this morning to Capitol Hill.  Last night, he basically came to the annual Congressional baseball game — Democrats vs. Republicans — clearly he was sitting in the Republican bleachers, and he showed up last night basically to harangue Nancy Pelosi to make sure that she was on board for the historic vote today.  Obviously, that didn’t succeed; and a number of leading Democrats — some of them publicly, and some of them without name attribution — came out of that meeting, about a 40-minute meeting with President Obama, and they were furious. They said that towards the end of his presentation, he launched into an ad hominem diatribe; and basically threatened the Democrats that this was really not any longer about the trade issue, but was about him.  And that this was considered in his mind to be a mandate on his Presidency.  So, the implications of the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting thumbs-down, of Nancy Pelosi standing up on the floor of the House of Representatives and announcing that she was publicly going to be voting against the President; this has very profound implications.

So, what Mr. LaRouche had to say about this, and the strategic implications, and what this says for the period that we’re entering into over the immediate days and weeks ahead, is extremely important.  And I want to be as precise as possible in terms of what Mr. LaRouche had to say.  So, I’m going to read from — as I say, this is not a verbatim transcript — but it is a very good approximation of Mr. LaRouche’s words in our discussion this afternoon.  He said the outright rebellion by members of the Democratic Party in Congress against Obama’s trade bill today, was not something cobbled together at the last minute, as is being claimed, but in fact is a crystallization of a much broader movement of resistance within the institutions against the Obama regime both inside the United States as well as in Europe.  What is happening is a series of events which militates the opposition to Obama’s attempts to pull off a thermonuclear war.  With the oncoming collapse of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system, Obama, together with his British masters, would be inclined to provoke the occurrence of a thermonuclear war even within the coming three or four weeks. And the stinging defeat he suffered today will tend to increase his inclination in that direction even more.  However, in Germany, and now within the United States, Obama is being resisted; and being resisted with great force.  And that resistance is growing.  But what is causing this growing resistance?  It’s that Wall Street is on the chopping block; this bankrupt system cannot continue.  The entire trans-Atlantic system is hopelessly bankrupt, and large parts of the world are ready to go in an entirely different direction.  The sheer overwhelming numerical strength of their populations makes them quite strong in their power to oppose the will of this dying system.

However, the danger is that this could lead to chaos. Therefore, we need a program which can handle this collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system.  A showdown in this regard is now underway in the case of Greece; much of Europe is facing imminent crisis, including Spain, Italy, Portugal, and so on. This system cannot be held together for long.  Germany is in a relatively stronger position, but what we’re seeing right now is a great general breakdown crisis of the entire trans-Atlantic system.  We must take all of these things into consideration simultaneously; and then indicate the nature of what must be done to avoid both of these consequences — the economic breakdown and thermonuclear war.  What is needed are policies which will alleviate the factor of panic.  We must provide an FDR-style approach, resembling how he defeated the forces of Wall Street in 1932-33.  We must have a program which addresses all of the various hardships being experienced by our people.  A plan to ameliorate the immediate effects of the crisis as well as addressing the need for a more general solution to the crisis. What is our problem?  The problem is money — worthless money. If we are prepared to cancel these worthless debts, then we can produce a constructive program to allow the people in general to rise in their opportunities of life.  To Hell with the filthy rich, the speculators!  We must increase the productivity of the greatest number of people, upgrade their productivity; and we must extend this across the Atlantic as well.  Each nation has their own particular problems which need to be solved, but by increasing the general level of productivity overall, we can help each of these countries come together in common interest and for common benefit.  The best term to use in this regard is “win-win” as has been specified by the  Chinese.

Now, I should add that last night in the course of the discussion with the LaRouche PAC activists — which you can listen to as Matt indicated on this website — Mr. LaRouche called for an American win-win strategy.

So, I think that that’s the idea that should be in people’s minds as we consider the immediate answer to the question that was asked from our institutional friends, [to] which LaRouche said the following.  He said the answer to the question, “How do I see the United States economy under the Obama administration?” Simple.  It’s doomed.  What has now become clear is that our President has turned out to be a Republican.  No wonder his administration has been such a disaster.  But we can solve this crisis; we just need the constructive policy with which to do it. All this so-called “money” which the banks claim to own is all worthless.  It’s all gambling money; it doesn’t do anything, it’s not legitimate.  And that takes us back to Glass-Steagall.  What is real productivity, and how can we create real productivity? Just look at  Franklin Roosevelt.  He didn’t believe in the money system; in fact, he talked about the moneychangers in the temple. And he was proud of the fact that they hated him and he hated them right back.  He believed in productivity, just as Alexander Hamilton did.  What we have now is negative productivity, quite literally.  Wall Street not only has no value, but it has negative value in fact; and Glass-Steagall demonstrates that. Money is only worthwhile if it’s used as a weapon to increase productivity — as a means to that end.  How do we replace purely speculative monetary values with real credit which is being put to work for the creation of increases of productivity?  Simple. It is all contained within Alexander Hamilton’s Four Reports to the Congress; and Jason gave us a kind of preliminary map of those four reports during last week’s broadcast.  And I hope at least some of you out there have taken the time to actually read through them — extraordinarily important — they’re founding documents of the American Republic.  And when you read them, you will be stunned at how relevant they are today to addressing this question of speculative, worthless money — gambling debt — vs. credit that goes to real productivity.

So, what LaRouche said is, if we look back at what FDR did to overcome the process of accelerating economic depression with the process of increasing economic productivity, we can understand what must be done to reverse the crisis which we face today.  What Roosevelt did to increase the productive powers of the labor force, not only halted the crisis and provided relief to the suffering that was being felt immensely by our people at that time, but succeeded in turning the United States into an economic powerhouse such that the world had never seen before. This is what came to be the arsenal of democracy.  Yes, in the war period, it was turned toward military production, but prior to that, Roosevelt had created such an increase in the productive powers of labor of the overwhelming majority of Americans, and had created the basis for the kind of increase of productivity that is so vitally needed today.  All we need to do is really look at those principles as they’ve been further advanced and elaborated by Mr. LaRouche; the concept of energy-flux density, for example, is one much more scientifically precise measure of how you define boosts in productivity.  So, what LaRouche concluded is, the question which we must address, is how do we do that same thing today?  How do we launch a program to restructure our economy at the same time that Obama is going down in defeat? We must set ourselves the task of creating the future; and the key term is “win-win”.

The point is, there is a much more profound principle to be addressed, which is not always easy to get across, but is crucial; the idea of what is mankind.  What is the purpose of mankind?  How can we fulfill our mission of achieving increasing rates of progress within this galactic system, which we are only now beginning to get a window into; only now beginning to get a glimpse of?  Mankind is absolutely distinct from the animal; something which the great Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky understood.  Animal species may be able to innovate; but they can’t create.  And this is what we must understand as our primary consideration when it comes to the task that we now have before us; to face these two simultaneous threats to mankind’s existence — economic breakdown and thermonuclear war.  And carry out the type of sweeping changes needed in the face of both of these threats in order to insure the continued existence of mankind.

Now, I just want to add — those were Mr. LaRouche’s comments.  I just want to add that the situation that we’re facing, what he referred to earlier in this discussion as a crisis that could play out as early as the next three to four weeks, is that you’ve got simultaneously, a showdown  deadline of June 30 for the Greek debt crisis; which is really the crisis of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system.  And in that same timeframe, President Obama — on behalf of London — is moving to escalate the confrontation against both Russia and China.  Russia is the most immediate and obvious target, but China represents the real anchor and the depth of the new win-win paradigm.  So, you can’t separate the threat to Russia from the intent of Obama and the British to also carry out a major threat to China at the same time.

So, right now, what do we have?  We have NATO maneuvers going on in the Baltic Sea right off the Russian coast, which are going to be going on throughout the month of June.  You have ground maneuvers in Poland; you have the construction of an Aegis ground-based missile defense system right on the Black Sea in Romania.  And you’ve had incursions into the Black Sea by USS Aegis destroyers, coming into the very edge of Russian coastal waters.  All of these things are going on at the same time that just these past few days, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yatsenyuk — whom Victoria Nuland fondly refers to as her “Yats” — was in Washington at the same time that Samantha Power was sent to Kiev to really  deliver a blood-curdling attack against President Putin of Russia, and to blame the entirety of the Ukraine-Russian crisis on Putin, personally, and on Russia, fully ignoring the fact that Victoria Nuland, Samantha Power—this apparatus—installed a neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, on the basis of an illegal military coup, carried out by these neo-Nazi paramilitaries.

Now, this week, the House of Representatives passed an Amendment [to the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 2015, H.R.2685], that passed by a unanimous voice-vote, indicating that the U.S. should provide no military assistance to the Azov Brigade, which is explicitly identified in this Congressional resolution as a neo-Nazi organization. And, the Russian media today took note of this and said, “better late than never. This is exactly what we’ve been saying since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis.” Now, the Ukrainian government, clearly under instructions from Obama and Nuland and now Power, has cut off all military cooperation with Russia, which means that the overflight permission that Russia had had for years, to provide supplies and personnel rotation to Russian peacekeepers in the Transdniestria region—a breakaway region next to Moldova, on the Ukrainian border—has now been cut off.

So, this incident, alone, represents the potential for a new “Sarajevo moment,” except the difference between then and now, is that we’re facing potential thermonuclear war. The United States, this week, formally accused Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty, which was signed in 1987, and yet the United States refused to provide any details, whatsoever, of what the so-called violations are. But the U.S. administration announced that they’re considering withdrawing from the INF Treaty and resuming the deployment of intermediate-range missiles to Europe, carrying nuclear warheads. The British government, not surprisingly, has welcomed this offer with open arms, and is considering basing these new intermediate-range advanced, much more modern weapons, on British soil. There is an increasing deployment of tactical nuclear weapons into parts of Western Europe, stretching into Eastern Europe.

So, in other words, the idea of a danger of a hair-trigger for thermonuclear war, is very real. Fortunately, there are people in Europe, in the United States, who see this madness and want nothing of it.

But the question that Mr. LaRouche posed throughout this past week, is, will these forces have the courage to take the necessary measures? [Chancellor Angela] Merkel, in Germany, should be removed from office. The issues are there, with the NSA scandal, and other things. The SPD portion of the coalition government broke with her decisively. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, current Foreign Minister [frank-walter] Steinmeier—have all come out and said that Merkel made a horrible and dangerous mistake, in not inviting Putin to attend the G7 meeting that she hosted several days ago. So, there are splits there.

The events today demonstrate that the Democratic Party is in a state of revolt against Obama. Given the war danger, given the danger of chaos, the real question is: Will  you make sure, that those people who understand, at least in a limited way, that Obama is an enemy to the future of this country, that they take the proper steps?

He’s committed impeachable crimes. The idea of playing around with nuclear war, is a form of insanity. That, alone, could be a trigger for invoking the 25th Amendment. But that means that you‘ve got to be on the case. Members of Congress are moving in a certain direction, but left to their own devices, they won’t go far enough.  So, the burden is on our shoulders.

OGDEN:  Great. Yeah. Thank you very much, Jeff. As you just made the point, and let me reiterate: In this context, Mr. LaRouche’s specification, was that our responsibility is to create the kind of “constructive agenda” that will overwhelm the danger that we face, in this double danger of thermonuclear war, as you just elaborated; and this imminent disintegration of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system.

The reference point that Mr. LaRouche was referring to earlier this afternoon, was the case of Franklin Roosevelt—Franklin Roosevelt’s courage to send these Wall Street criminals to jail. His sorting out of the truly legitimate value of productivity, vs. the completely worthless money that was accumulated in the Wall Street banks, through the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall; and the application of what really should be identified as the “Hamilton Principle,” or, in a certain way, you can identify the four principles which were elaborated by Hamilton in these four different reports that he drafted for Congress. They were the Report on Manufactures, the Report on Public Credit, the Report on National Banking, and then his argument on the “Constitutionality of the National Bank.”

So, last week, we had a sort of preliminary exploration of this subject by Jason Ross, who is joining us here, again, this evening. Jason had the occasion to participate in the conference up in New York last weekend, as part of our ongoing “Manhattan Project,” the seat of Alexander Hamilton. In light of what Mr. LaRouche specified earlier today, about what our responsibility is, now, to create this “constructive agenda” for the country, and our role in shaping the incoming institution of the Presidency, which will supplant what Obama’s failed Presidency has represented, I’d like to introduce Jason Ross, and ask him to come to the podium.

JASON ROSS:  All right. Thanks Matt. So, to discuss what an “American win-win” situation, an “American win-win” outlook would mean, I want to first take an historical glance back, at more on Hamilton, Lincoln, some other examples from the past, and pull out some generalizing, or unifying, or subsuming concepts that Mr. LaRouche has used, to develop a more comprehensive and universal notion of economic value, and then discuss what that would mean for applications today, to create a global “win-win” situation.

As we discussed last week, the policies of Hamilton included techniques, and they included intentions. By funding the public debt, he was able to raise the value of debt certificates, to allow them to perform almost all the functions of money. He created a national bank. He created the possibility, by these techniques—by these financial, monetary, his fiscal policies—to have a supply of money, and the ability for loans, and things like this, in the new country.

But, that wasn’t really his intent, and it wasn’t his goal, and it wasn’t the full scope of what he intended. His Report on Manufactures, which, unlike his other reports on the public debt and on the national bank—which were voted on by the Congress and implemented—his Report on Manufactures didn’t get that same treatment. It didn’t have that same “success,” full success, in his time.

What was Hamilton doing? He wanted a manufacturing nation. He recognized that the United States had been put in a position of being, especially in the South, very agriculturally based. And, there was even an ideology going around, that agriculture was the only real source of economic value, and he knew that wasn’t true. He knew that by increasing what he called the “productive powers of labor”—making each hour of work more productive, instead of doing only more work—that in this way, the economy could actually develop, over time; wealth could be increased. He saw that in manufacturing, the potential for increasing these productive powers of labor, was far beyond what it was in agriculture itself. He said, with all of the different possibilities, the different opportunities people have, to apply their different gifts and talents and insights, there could be a great blossoming through the promotion of manufacturers.

So, he had mechanisms to make these things happen. But he had an intention. He had a view of where he wanted the nation to go, and what kind of direction, that was outside the specific policies themselves, would be the path forward for the nation.

Jump ahead, to briefly consider Abraham Lincoln, who Jeff had discussed a few weeks ago, about the trans-continental railroad, where, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln is moving ahead with the financing, with the building of the trans-continental railroad, as a massive project, to unify the nation, with what was then the highest level of technology:  The steam engine’s being used for transportation.  He did this with a different funding mechanism than Alexander Hamilton.  He did it with the greenback policy.  Although the techniques were different, the intent of bringing the higher technologies, the higher productivity to the nation — and a higher view of mankind — was analogous.

Look at Franklin Roosevelt:  Matt just mentioned the taking down Wall Street.  Yeah, Roosevelt had Glass-Steagall.  Roosevelt went through a bankruptcy reorganization of the nation’s banks, right went he came in, as most of the banks in the country were under water.  He used the Reconstruction Finance Corp., that Hoover had created to bail-out, to act for banks; Roosevelt used the Reconstruction Finance Corp. like a National Bank, like Lincoln’s greenback policy in some way, but he didn’t just throw around money idly.  He chose projects that were designed from a top-down perspective to have the greatest possible impact on the nation, projects that couldn’t be built without the Federal government, the Four Corners projects, for example.  Among which the Tennessee Valley Authority, as an integrated, regional development system drew visitors, politicians, economists, from all over the world, to the Tennessee Valley, to see the incredible economic development that that region saw under Roosevelt’s guidance.

Consider John F. Kennedy:  He didn’t have Hamilton’s National Bank.  He didn’t have greenbacks.  He didn’t use the Reconstruction Finance Corp.  He made use of other techniques: Government spending, investment tax credits, and he invested in a direct way, in science and technology, with the Apollo program, which, while it didn’t develop fusion power or anything like this, going to the Moon, the technologies required to successfully go to the Moon with people, and back, this had the effect of upgrading the industrial potential of the nation as a whole.

So, these great leaders, under whom we saw tremendous, or at least, marked economic advancement, didn’t have a financial policy per se.  They didn’t have a monetary scheme, or a monetary economic outlook.  They had intentions about where to take the country, and that’s essential:  You have to actually have a plan, at least in the broad sense.

So, how do you measure growth that you’re creating?  What should the metric be?  So let’s take a look at how Lyndon LaRouche approaches this question:  Today, some people say, “How many jobs does it make?”  They say, “Hey! One of the benefits of green energy, is that people have jobs.”  Well, yes, it’s true people may get jobs dusting off solar panels or that kind of thing, and you might pay them to clear out all the dead birds that are underneath the windmills, but being paid to do something — I mean, people should be paid — but being paid to do something that isn’t actually useful, is that really the right measure?  How about, being useful?  How about taking part in progress, making the economy more productive, raising living standards.  The fact that you’re being paid to “do something,” doesn’t necessarily mean you’re being useful — as I think many Americans are very familiar with in the kinds of occupations available today.

So, two metrics from Lyndon LaRouche:  One,  potential relative population-density.  What’s the potential population-density?  How many people could we support in a certain area? That’s something that’s changed, by us, uniquely as a species.  Other animals don’t change their carrying capacity. Cows don’t build canals to water grass so they’ve got more room to eat and have more cows.  Only human beings do this.

And to measure the kinds of scientific developments and the technologies that make this possible, LaRouche uses the concept of energy-flux density.  So if we look over, say, the history of our nation, the amount of energy used per capita has increased dramatically, from the level it was at the time of the American Revolution and our founding.  Through the 1800s introduction of coal as a new fuel source, and importantly a more dense fuel source that made it possible to have steam engines, that made it possible to save the forests from destruction, because you could use coal instead; to the later use of oil, more dense than coal, allowing for internal combustion engines; natural gas, nuclear.

Really at about the time of Kennedy, the time of Kennedy’s assassination, U.S. energy use  per capita plateaued.  It didn’t plateau because we realized that we should be using fluorescent light bulbs.  It plateaued because the next level, the next levels of technology, of higher energy-flux density, of nuclear, of the research that most likely, it’s hard to say exactly, could have produced fusion commercially today, those technologies would have transformed what we would do as a species, on a level akin to what the steam engine make it possible for society to do.

So, this is something, again, that only the human mind can create.  As an example of the difference between something that increases the potential population-density, something that exists at a higher energy-flux density, compared to monetary value, consider for a moment fracking.  Let’s even leave aside all of the considerations — I’m not saying they’re legitimate, I’m just saying let’s leave aside for a moment, any of the human health and cherry orchard health considerations around fracking, if none of that occurred even.  What it is, is the use of more and more and more technology, energy, more and more inputs, to receive the same kinds of fuel.  And granted, monetarily, it can be cheaper than what could otherwise be gathered from conventional wells?

But what’s the opportunity cost, you might say?  What has been the cost to us as a nation, to have not fully embraced nuclear power, to not have achieved fusion power today?  You have to look at anything we’re doing today from the standpoint of what could we be doing, and that requires a universal outlook on this.

So, let’s discuss “win-win”:  This is a phrase, this is a Chinese concept about how nations can relate with each other, let’s have “win-win” cooperation.  There isn’t a fixed pie that we’re fighting for slices of, we can bake more pies; we can collaborate with other nations in a way that increases the wealth, the economy for all.

Contrast that to geopolitics, where the attempt is to control what currently exists. Instead, looking towards the future, towards a viable partnership on the basis of shared future prosperity, a creative outlook.  You could compare these two outlooks to those of Prometheus and Zeus.  Prometheus who brought fire and creativity to mankind, offered us our humanity, our ability to transform what we do, develop new principle, develop new technologies, and grow.

In contrast, Zeus, like a modern-day climate-anthropogenic global warming alarmist, says, “sorry, carbon dioxide, we can’t allow that to the developing countries of the world — or, the more developed ones, either.”  It’s like Zeus saying that fire is for him, but not for the others. The modern Zeus, as seen in the Green movement, in which the WWF, founded by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a member of the Nazi Party, this movement is a real embodiment, along with Wall Street and the City of London British financial empire, is an embodiment today of Zeus.  It says, human beings aren’t creative.  There won’t be new technologies in the future.  We’re not going to discover anything new.  We’ve got limited resources, we’re going to share them in an equitable way, and have less people so that they last longer — that’s an outlook of suicide.

And it’s not one that the BRICS nations can accept or are embracing.

So instead, think today, what do we do?  What’s the Promethean outlook for today?  What’s the “win-win” cooperation potential now? There’s some things, like implementing existing technologies that are long overdue.  Should we have maglev rail? Absolutely!  Should we have high-speed rail lines in the nation? Yes.

But that’s not enough.  What about developing our abilities as a species of galactic proportions to use our insights into how the Earth responds to the Solar System as a whole, how it plays a role in our Solar System’s motion through the Galaxy; to use some of those same discoveries that we learn from studying these fields, in their impact on our climate, on our environment, to use those insights to control the weather ourselves.  To solve the California, and other areas in the world, drought crisis, not by taking a shorter shower and hoping that will somehow cause water to fall in the peach orchards — it won’t;  if you go to the bathroom and you don’t flush it, that will not save cherry trees, it won’t do anything to create rain.  What we have to do, is act on that much higher level:  desalination, water control, water transfer, you know, really take on that identity as the creative species.

In that respect, we have a basis for cooperation with other nations:  how can we work together, to develop and discover new principles about how the universe works, about how to work together, to implement those breakthroughs, and how are we going to use that to eliminate poverty worldwide, eliminate through reinstating Glass-Steagall, asap, eliminating the power of the oligarchy to hold back human civilization.  And obviously, as we’ve discussed, that won’t occur without a fight, as we’re seeing with the response to the BRICS orientation, with the threat of wars we’ve been discussing.

So that’s what I’d like to say.

OGDEN:  Now, I do want to mention, as Jason has here, a copy of the report that has been put together by Executive Intelligence Review, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.”  This is an EIR Special Report; this was released last year, but I know it’s continuing to grow in circulation, and we encourage you to get a copy of this, and also to encourage others:  It’s a comprehensive, very, very thorough picture of exactly the kind of global outlook, the kind of intent that the United States could become a part of, especially with this defeat of the anti-China, Obama Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bill.  A real engagement for the United States in the world and in economic progress, would be for the United States to join the BRICS, as we’ve been encouraging, as has been the subject of these ongoing conferences, sponsored by the Schiller Institute, Including the conference which will occur this weekend in Paris, and you know, to take up the invitation by President Xi Jinping of China, to join the AIIB.  We know it was Obama who tried to intimidate European countries into not joining the AIIB.  They decided to ignore his advice and they joined anyhow.  And the United States should ignore Obama’s advice, and we should join anyhow.

So, contained in this report is a very comprehensive article, by Jason Ross, whom you just heard from, on the principles behind energy-flux density and the development of this as a true metric of economic progress and a measurement of productivity.  So I wanted to mention that.

And what I wanted to invite everybody to do here, is to really think through, how are we going to continue to engage an ever-broader portion of the American population, in this kind of discussion?  We’ve been responsible for setting up the opportunity that’s now arisen, through the defeat of Obama that occurred today, in Washington, and the continued shaping of the institution of the Presidency and the ongoing discussion in the Presidential campaigns:  Martin O’Malley’s adoption of the Glass-Steagall policy, for example.

But we need to expand this effort in a very broad, very dramatic, very rapid way.  And one very great opportunity, in order to do that, are these Thursday night discussions that Mr. LaRouche has been leading, the so-called “Fireside Chats.”  This is open to your friend, to your family, to all of your political networks. We have the capacity for hundreds and thousands of more people to be engaged in this, and this is urgently necessary. We’ve been broadcasting these discussions for the last two weeks, like on YouTube, on the LaRouche PAC website.  [url:”https://www.youtube.com/ playlist?list=PLM6byG9IYiESW_eVUR6Lc8b0Bu0nJ44xW”]The archive of this discussion is available