Author: adam

Hot off the heels of the Saturday conference in NYC, Lyndon LaRouche will be joined by 4 other LPAC Policy Committee members. As we get closer to bringing victory to mankind, the threat of World War III also increases. The only way out is to DUMP OBAMA NOW.

Hot off the heels of the Saturday conference in NYC, Lyndon LaRouche will be joined by 4 other LPAC Policy Committee members. As we get closer to bringing victory to mankind, the threat of World War III also increases. The only way out is to DUMP OBAMA NOW.

Hot off the heels of the Saturday conference in NYC, Lyndon LaRouche will be joined by 4 other LPAC Policy Committee members. As we get closer to bringing victory to mankind, the threat of World War III also increases. The only way out is to DUMP OBAMA NOW.

Hot off the heels of the Saturday conference in NYC, Lyndon LaRouche will be joined by 4 other LPAC Policy Committee members. As we get closer to bringing victory to mankind, the threat of World War III also increases. The only way out is to DUMP OBAMA NOW.

Matthew OGDEN:  Good afternoon, it’s June 8th, 2015.  My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our discussion here on Monday afternoon with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. We’re broadcasting over Google Hangouts On Air:  I’m joined via video by Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts.  And here in the studio, I’ve got a full house today:  We’re joined by Diane Sare, Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Basement team, and Bill Roberts, who just arrived via New York City — all three of whom had the opportunity to participate in the historic June 6th conference up in New York City that happened this past Saturday, which I’m sure we’ll discuss here.   I’m also joined in the studio as you can see by Mr. LaRouche.  So, Lyn, I’m going to let you begin.

Lyndon LAROUCHE:  Let’s take something which is a fresh issue.  That what has happened in Germany, is where the three officers, two former officers and one an active officer, of the three people, against Merkel, who is the louse of the case, shall we say; that the difference is, is an understanding which we have put on the record in our written publications, on Monday and before that, which says that the three officers, who either are presently or had been leading figures in Germany’s policymaking, have come to the conclusion that Merkel’s policy is contrary to the interests of Germany.

Now, they haven’t quite said it in those terms, but they’ve made it very clear in their arguments so far. Now in our , we had this reflected in detail. As of today, we have a slightly modified expression of the same thing, but it amounts to the same thing in effect.  So there’s some bouncing around between when Merkel is going to be thrown out, or is going to appear to come back in, so far.

But the essential thing is that Germany cannot live, under the economic conditions, which it’s living under now.  And Germany, in Europe in general, apart from Russia, Germany is the only nation which has any viability now; we ignore the British system.  But that’s it.  So therefore, the issue for Germany, in particular, is, that if it does not correct its own situation, which means dumping Merkel, unless that occurs, it’s doubtful that Germany, too, will not be able to get out of the mess it’s in.

And the other side of the thing is, the only solution of course, is the fact that Russia is in a close relationship implicitly, to Putin, and the common interests are, of Putin and the Russian organization, plus the German leadership, minus Mrs. Merkel. So this is bouncing back and forth.  But the point is, the time is reached, that unless Merkel’s policy is terminated, including perhaps her own occupation of her present position, that there’s no chance that Germany itself, could survive what would become very soon, a general collapse of the economies of all Western and Central Europe.  That’s where we are.

So now the point is, that against Obama on the other side, the likely option is that Germany would take a leading position, in working together with Russia;  in other words, the only way that Germany can survive the threatened economic condition which it faces right now, is to have a relationship, a functional relationship, with President Putin.  Now, that does not mean they’re going to marry each other: It means that they’re going to enter into trade with each other, economic relations, and these economic relations will be the means by which we can save the German economy, when the French economy, the Italian economy, the Spanish economy, so forth, are all going down, unless there’s a rescue message.  And a rescue message would be building up, opening the gates for Germany, under a new leadership, without Mrs. Merkel, that is.  And that would provide a solution to the economic crisis, at the same time it would be a peaceful integration in relations between Western Europe and Russia.

Now, this is not what some people want, especially our own President.  And we should dump him.  And the only sane thing to do is dump this guy.  But what we’re doing, we’re on an ignition, where the lack of balance in forces, demands that the only way that this whole system can avoid a thermonuclear war, because we’re on the edge of that, and the edge of it comes from Obama; and Obama is simply an agent of the British Monarchy.

So that the only option, real option for solving this problem, this global problem, which includes the threats against China and India and other parts of the world, are also being threatened.  Because the economic threats, now, and the military threats are an integrated mess!  And we have to untangle that mess, and the only way we can do that right now, on a global scale, is to have a leadership in Germany break the policies of the present chairman of the organization there, Merkel.  That’s the only solution that’s being offered.

Otherwise, we’re still hanging, at a point of a breakdown.

That is, Germany has reached the point, that if Merkel’s policy is extended, the German economy is will take a dive like that of the other Western economies.  And if that happens, together with the Greek issue, which is right there, also, you have the ignition of an explosion, or something equivalent to an explosion, in all kinds of directions.  And what this means is that this opens the gates to an actual, world thermonuclear war.

So that’s what we’ve got on our plate, on this weekend, on Friday, Saturday and now, Monday.  That’s what the issue is.  And that’s what the only solution is, in that direction.

In other words, the question is, if we can recreate a reconstruction of the economy, of Western and Central Europe, that means that we open the gates for peace, we shut down this crazy farce, of this Nazi-controlled Ukrainian organization, and suddenly we go for an economic recovery, for all of Europe, and for tying all of Europe together with China, India, and so forth.

That’s a solution.  It probably is the only solution.  If we do not get that solution, the aggravation which is going to be accumulating, threatens us with thermonuclear war, under the auspices of the British Queen, and her monkey Obama.

So this is the seriousness, the severity, of the circumstances which we are gathered this moment, today.  And it broke out over the week.  Now, we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, how it’s going to happen.  We have three German officials, of the highest quality and rank, as against Merkel, and that’s where the crux is.  And that has to be understood: Because Merkel is actually working as an agent, in effect, against German interests in the most vital sense — maybe out of her stupidity, which is probably immense.  And that’s the situation.

And we in the United States, our destiny depends upon those kinds of considerations, or related kinds of situations. That’s where we are.  And the problem is, as usual, in the usual course of great wars in modern history, is that, this is all it takes — keep Merkel in, that’s all it takes, to open the gates, to an early launching of a general thermonuclear war throughout the planet.  Because the fact that Germany is the one nation which has some viability in its own economy, in this whole equation, means that that is the only option available, the German option against Merkel.

Now, that can work in several ways. They can go ahead and throw Merkel out of office now; or they can mutilate her position, with a limited amount of time allowed.  And then the thing comes back, they get — Merkel again makes a big mistake, she makes a big boo-boo, she makes another boo-boo, she makes another boo-boo.  And then the Germans begin to realize what the situation is, and say, get her out, now!

OGDEN:  No, absolutely.  These three statesmen have very significant leverage over Merkel, because Schröder, former Chancellor, Schmidt, also a former Chancellor, and current Foreign Minister Steinmeier, all three of them are SPD, top leaders in the SPD party which is the coalition party in Merkel’s coalition government; she’s the CDU.  So they literally could withdraw their support from her, at any moment and literally bring her entire government down.

LAROUCHE:  That’s it. That’s the point.

SARE:  I was just going to say, you think about her relationship with Obama.  I mean, there have been a series of these major blunders, like the wiretapping.  If she was so upset about his listening to her cellphone conversations, why did she continue — and then you find out that there was some kind of agreement between the CIA and the German [foreign intelligence BND], to spy on  people in Germany.  So it’s really rotten!  And then you have her stupidity on Greece, where she takes the Wall Street line, that somehow we can have a hard line against the people of Greece, and that this also is not a detonator for thermonuclear war,  and a meltdown or blowout of the entire system.

OGDEN:  You know, one of the other things from this weekend, was President Putin delivered a very interview in a leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, and in that interview, I think he made two very calculated references to the two leading European statesmen:  Charles de Gaulle, and Chancellor Bismarck. And obviously, both of their relationships to the two great wars of the 20th century.  Bismarck, his ousting as you’ve made the point, leading directly into World War I, and, then, Charles de Gaulle’s role in the victory of World War II.  I think this is very clear, very calculated, and what Putin was doing with that, I think  shows an understanding on his part of this opposition that’s coming from within Germany to what Merkel’s doing, against the interests of her own country.

LAROUCHE:  I can make one other qualification to this thing: I’ve been involved in this issue, broadly, since the beginning of the 1970s.  I’ve been more actively involved, as a part of the policymaking under Ronald Reagan, in that period, and I was thrown into jail for that reason.  Exactly the right thing:  If you do the right thing, you go into jail! [laughs]

Since that time, we have always, those of us who were involved in this, have always understood this.  We had it with other Presidential people, talent: The thing right now, O’Malley. O’Malley is typical of what can be, and is potentially, the new basis for organizing a new Presidential system.

So what we’re faced with is a lot of options in various directions, but they all come back into one, single focus, and the question is, is:  And China is a big factor; India is a big factor; other parts of the world are real factors.  But the thing that pulls it together, is this relationship between the United States and Europe. And that’s how the history of now, from here on in, will go.

Dave CHRISTIE:  You know, Lyn,  you raised this in a similar context just about three months ago.  This was when O’Malley was very active, around the discussion of Glass-Steagall, but this was also when Steinmeier was the CSIS [in Washington, D.C.] and he had made a very clear intervention around the whole policy of Obama and the neoconservatives within the Congress who were discussion arming Ukraine.  And he made the point on this, as did as former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt at the time, who said, “this could lead to a hot war.”  But one of the other things that Schmidt said at that time, which Helga Zepp-LaRouche just referred to yesterday, was that Schmidt had also had made the point that the Ukraine crisis didn’t start with Russia, it started with the EU policy since Maastricht was created, of the EU expansion towards the east, and taking over more areas, obviously which Ukraine represents.

So, I think here, now, we see it in an even more elevated sense of danger, because at that time, it was just the discussion around giving weapons to the Ukrainian Nazis; now there’s a discussion, at least in different forms, of both the placing of nuclear weapons inside of Ukraine — none of this is confirmed, but at least this is an active part of the dialogue; and the medium-range missiles, which, you know, the Pershing missile crisis of the early ’80s had people out on the streets, and here we see where there’s no reaction from the American people, but in terms of the intensity and the danger of the situation, it’s even more intense now.

But the other point of what you had done, Lyn, at that point, was on the subject of Germany’s role, where you had discussed the need for an elevated conception around economics, and you cited the case of Kepler and the Vernadskian approach that mankind must increase the energy-flux density, but it seems that Russia and Germany coming together now, would be from that standpoint; would be from the standpoint of the Silk Road and the development of pushing the frontiers of our scientific and technological capability.

LAROUCHE:  The key thing here, is that the only part of Europe, which has any significance as an economy, is the German economy.  The German economy has a very large element, apart from the filthy stuff, the nonsense, the idiocy, it still retains a very significant, positive capability, in terms of economic development.  No other nation in Europe presently has a comparable, degree of competence in economy.  So this thing hangs on this issue.

So, once you get into logic, what happens is Russia becomes essentially, closely tied to Germany.  That doesn’t mean they have a formal alliance.  It means that they just agree to work together on the basis of common economic issues and economic concerns.

So the whole thing hangs on this particular point.  It’s a wonderful thing, because this is a reliving of principles of history, which have been forgotten since the 19th century and so forth, those lessons of history have been forgotten.  But this is the way things work.

And that’s what we have to focus on.  Because, when I say “we have to focus,” I’m talking about the people of the United States, we’re talking about the political process going on now, in the prospective new election.  But right now, getting rid of Obama, is the crucial thing which is required, to avoid thermonuclear war.  But the point is, the actuality of this threat, to becoming an insolvable problem, lies now with the option provided by the German case.  Which is not a conclusion, but it’s a live option.

So Germany represents now, as of this weekend, a live option.  It always has been, up to now, a live option, but the option was running out of steam.  And therefore, the saving of the steam, in the German economy, is crucial.  Now, that means a lot of changes inside the German economy politically, because who sections of the German economy politically are not on the right side.  But this is also a customary thing in history.

The other side is, we have to actually use, and convey to the American people, largely, what this issue is.  Now, we are doing that, and we outwitted the enemy, because the enemy was always trying to live in our organization to a bunch of bunch of, you know, slackers — weak-minded people.  and therefore, our job was finally, to out some of our own people who were being excluded from consideration, in shaping the policy of our organization nominally.

So, we had a little meeting and discussion and I said, “Yes,” and we have now found that we are building up a rapid expansion, in terms of hundreds of people being activated in our organization.  We are now in effect, a more effective political force, on two factors:  On this factor of our expansion, of an organization we already had; and on the other thing, moving the entire conception of U.S. policy, on the basis of Alexander Hamilton’s New York City.  These are the clues.  And it’s on these kinds of clues, and relative kinds of clues, and related kinds of clues, on which the future existence of the human species depends. And that’s the fun game.

Michael STEGER:  One of the things that came up over the weekend at the conference in New York, which  I thought indicated some of the context of what you’re referencing now, Lyn, is that the U.S. Presidency has had an integral part of a relationship to Germany, since the time of Ulysses S. Grant, which was a Presidency centered in the New York process, committed to the reconstruction of the United States, ending slavery and that there was an ongoing dialogue with Bismarck and the German tradition, on industrial process that represented the potential of what the 20th century could have become and what it failed to do. And I think that, you see that if Merkel’s government is brought down and the German economy is oriented towards Russia, China, India and the potential of Eurasia, and you break from this whole Greenie tradition, because Germany is the center of the attack, to shut down the industrial and scientific advancement, with this environmentalist anti-human program, there’s no way in hell, that Jerry Brown can stay in office at that point.  And that’s exactly what needs to happen in California:  A complete shift away from this environmentalist program, and then, a lot of these problems we face as a country can be solved, and that’s a critical part in shaping the new U.S. Presidency.

So this whole process you see is integrated as a shifting of the Presidency back to what it should have been in the turn of the 20th century.

LAROUCHE:  Yes.  Quite so.

Well, that means that we have to, from here, having said this much here at the table, we now have to go ahead and describe exactly what we are going to do, in the light of the advantage given to us, by the subject-matters which we have been discussing up to this point.

OGDEN:  Well, you laid out an 18-month timeline over the weekend, 15 to 18 months, which carries us through this upcoming Presidential campaign cycle and right into the inauguration in January of 2016.  And I think what you’ve highlighted, with the case of O’Malley thus far, and some of the other developments that we’ve seen, included the role of Rand Paul in introducing this 28 pages resolution, this is going to be a real showdown — he’s attached it to the NDAA bill [defense authorization], I think demonstrates that we are in the position, to shape from the top down, the shape of this Presidential election cycle, and also the creation of a new Presidency in the United States.  So maybe you want to say more about that.

LAROUCHE:  Well, I would say that one thing is clear:  What we need to do, is proceed not from this part of the planet or that part of the planet, we have to look at the condition of the planet as a whole.  We have to take the entirety of the planet system, recognize the parts of the thing, assessing the interrelationship among the parts, and how we build the kind of thing.  Now, you have a great power, between Russia, which was, for a long period of time, was very greatly weakened; now it’s back in business, but it’s still not a superpower. It just happens to be a great power, not a superpower.

But you have China; China is a superpower.  India is potentially a superpower, and will move in that direction very quickly.

Now, let’s talk, about the world:  Now look at these kinds of forces, if the United States — look at what’s happening in South America, the BRICS campaign, as in south America:  This is already part of the same thing.  We have to understand, we have to bring these forces, which are emergent forces or already established forces, in various parts of the planet, and that’s how we build a state system, under which the nations which continue to join with each other in alliances, in normal kinds of alliances, in economic and other alliances, these will begin to work.  When they begin to work, fine!  We’re out of it, we’re out of the worst.

But the problem is, we still have the worst before us, because we still have Obama as President, which itself is a catastrophe for the entire human species, because Obama is the instrument by which the British army, the British war machine, can do the impossible: They can use Obama, now, as an instrument to cause a general thermonuclear war.  And that’s where we’re at. So therefore, we have on the one hand, you have the score is added, you have the factors which have to be considered, but they have to be brought together, efficiently, because we have to prevent Obama, from continuing in the Presidency, because if he stays in the Presidency, is able to stay in the Presidency, the United States, and the world, the human species is in danger.

So we have to take all these various forces, not because they agree with each other, or sworn oaths or something, but because they know they don’t want to destroy their own human race.  They don’t want to destroy the human race.  And if Obama had his will, it would be the human race that would be destroyed!  Not by him, but because of him.

SARE:  Well, I think that’s where this series of calls you’ve been doing to our now-extended and -expanding organization on Thursday nights is so crucial.  Because one of the problems we’re dealing with is that the American population is severely disoriented and demoralized.  They’ve been through the recent 15 years since the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the takedown of Glass-Steagall, and then the 9/11 attacks, and then the Bush Presidency, and then Obama Presidency, young adults today can’t even think of a time when you had sane leadership.  And people who can think of that time, or who are among the leaders of the population, which are the people we meet on the street, and the people on that call,  we all have a challenge of becoming much better, because we have to quickly upgrade the thinking, of people here, in order to actually do what’s required.

LAROUCHE:  but this is propaganda.  The whole thing is based on the propaganda principle.  Because people vote for supporting members of Congress, who aren’t fit to live, let alone rule.  And we have similar kinds of things.  So what’s happened is a discouraging of the American people, and taking away their sense of authority, their rightful authority, the right they have to ask the questions and get honest answers and things like that, that simple.

Take the educational system:  What has happened over the period since, exactly the beginning of the new system, the 20th century, the 20th century has been the plague which has destroyed the United States, and destroyed much of civilization. Everything through that, from Hilbert and Bertrand Russell, this is what has determined everything, in the trends of the United States and in most of the world.  What you’re having is the areas which are least regarded, like China, India, so forth, other nations of this sort, suddenly now become extremely important, because they have a coherence, which the United States does not have, which the nations of Europe, generally, do not have.  So the fact that they have no moral strength, that is, no creative, moral strength, makes them impotent.  Our job is to unify those people by bringing them into a knowledge of what the powers are that lie within them.

Now, most of these students and so forth, in general, are absolutely incompetent these day. Anyone who’s been a university student, is generally, with rare exceptions, absolutely incompetent.  They’re not competent, they don’t know how to run an economy, they don’t know what an economy is, they don’t know what the principles are, they don’t know what science is — they really don’t know what science is, literally!  Remember, the last great scientist was who?

SARE:  Einstein.

LAROUCHE: Einstein.  And I think about what we have got from the past, at best, right now.

So, our job is to focus that.  We have to actually undermine and destroy, the frauds.  Wall Street, it’s a fraud, shut it down! It’s illegal!  It’s a thieves’ organization! It’s a murderers’ organization.  And most of them are bankrupt. Practically all of Wall Street is now, currently bankrupt!  How do you think it controls the things?  By dealing with the Presidential system, right?  That’s how it works.

OGDEN:  O’Malley identified that.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah. So therefore, what we have to understand is, we have to educate the American population.  Now, we know how to do that:  First of all, you have to go to the smart people in our system, but who are blundering around it now.  And what O’Malley is tending to do, typifies that.  You take a step and you try to get the American people to realize they’re not stupid. Most Americans think they are stupid.  How do you know they’re stupid? Because they act stupidly; they react stupidly!  And therefore freeing them — this thing about, for me, in our organization, by free — we were operating on an enemy influence on our organization.  We were acting like yahoos, you know, stupid little yahoos, from some Virginia cult area.  And I had to stop that.  So we have stopped that, and we now have a very large organization, relatively speaking.  It was always there, ready, and this thing is growing at a rapid rate right now.

Now we have an education problem which is of a different nature.  People who don’t know enough, don’t have enough knowledge of principle, but they have a determination to go in the right direction; so our organization has a core, which has a few of us who understand what has to be done, actually know what has to be done.  But we have a larger group of people, who are attracted to us, and part of us, who realize that we are talking about something which they want to know about.  And that’s how you build a movement, to change things.  You get people to become curious, about what might be possible.

And if they see signs that maybe it actually would work, like in California for example, which is a real case: California’s on a desperate level right now, as long as they submit to that governor!  As long as they capitulate to that governor’s roles, they’ll be dead.  But Californians are not that stupid.  They are confused, but they’re not stupid.  And it doesn’t take too much, given them a few suggestions about how the problems might be solved:  Like how to get water, when the governor of California says you’re not allowed to have water, or you can only have water that’s not fit to drink?  That’s our problem, is to expose, make clear to our own people, our own citizens,  — make clear that we as citizens, have the latent power, to fix this situation.

BILL ROBERTS:  Well, I think this conference this weekend was a really good example of exactly how that’s done, in a similar type of way to what you’ve been doing with these calls, which is not some long speech, but a number of people asking questions, where the process is to get people reflecting on what is just wrong in the basic assumptions that people have.  For example, Helga gave a presentation in which she really developed this geopolitics process of the 20th century, as being exactly what you have going on right now, with Versailles.  You had a history panel on the discussion of the Presidency, that this has been a fight over principles.  It’s not a democratic process, it’s been a fight over conflicting principles, and you have an institution in the Presidency, which because of that, intersects a unique capability that the citizens have to intervene into the situation.

And people were very challenged.  You had historians, people who studied history their whole life, running out of this event, basically screaming “Omigod!  I’ve wasted my life in what I’ve been studying!”  People just challenged, people who would consider themselves highly educated, just extremely challenged by this whole process.

But then, in the evening, as we brought in the music work, because the question became, for the people who came in off the streets, who’ve had come in out of this organizing process in Manhattan, the question became “how do I find the courage, then, to fight against the falsehood in society?”  And that’s where the music work — I really saw the importance of the choral work in the music work, in being able to take those people who were highly conflicted, because they were saying to themselves, “how do I know this is something that is really moving me?  How do I know that when I challenge people, that they can’t challenge me and say, ‘oh, this is just a line, you’re just kidding’? How do know that this is actually something that I own?”  And the musical process, I think, brought people into that in a way that those who were most deeply challenged were also deeply appreciative, of finding that capability in themselves.

LAROUCHE:  I don’t think it came quite that way.  It came in the sense — look — look at the idea, how are members of families formed?  What’s the age-group of the formation of the family?  It’s generally within the order of about 25 years age. And if you don’t qualify, by your 25th year of existence, you are not going to make it.  And that’s what’s happened.

Now, what happens then, you put people to work, in this category, but you don’t develop them!  You give them the kind of work that they know, or have been taught, which is a fixed standard of work, like the railway system.  The railway system is a tragedy, and it’s one that’s dying.  Why? Because there was nobody left alive, to organize a competent railway system as a modern railway system as opposed to an old one!  Trolley cars would disappear.  They would have been useful if people had known how to use them.  The use of a high-speed trolley car is a very useful — one of the more useful instruments you can have. Because all the automobiles that are running around loose, you wouldn’t require those things, because you would have various steps of systems, that engage each other.  But nobody did the work of doing that!  The science was not allowed.

Well, you can’t say, you can’t go back and say, I’m going to get science back into the human species; that doesn’t work that way.  What happens, you get younger people who grow up a little bit, and they become exposed to the option of understanding science.  And the rest of the sciences thing are a very limited number of people, the ones who are competent.  But if you increase the number of people who are competent in this respect, then you change society.

So what’s happened is, during the entirety of this century and beyond, from the year of the beginning of the 20th century, up to now, there has been a consistent process of degeneration, moral and intellectual degeneration, of the citizens of the United States as categories.  And only the people who are exceptions to those categories, which are exceptional, have any idea what this is all about.  The typical student, today, is absolutely incompetent!  And the teachers are even worse than the students — it’s a fact, as some of you know.

So the point is, what we have to do, is we have to have a motivation, to a structure of organizing of society, which will provide a revolution as has been done before in other parts of the world.  We’ve had a limited number of people will become forth as the potential  geniuses of that age.  And their influence, and the fact you turn them loose, to practice what they didn’t know beforehand, you turn them loose and that’s how you develop nations.

What happened with China?  China had a very deep capability, despite everything else, they had residual quality which was always there.  But the relative quantity, of that capability was reduced.  So all you have to do is take the steps forward, and then, broaden those steps at the same time.  And that’s what we have to do now.  We have to set up the educational process which is necessary to bring people, who are six years of age or something, well, they’re never going to make it,  except by reconstruction of their thinking.

Jason ROSS: Yeah, putting people in touch with their ability to figure these things out, this is one of the aspects of 1900 that might be less immediately apparent, is that when you do things that destroy the ability of science to function, when you say that there isn’t going to be any more creativity, there won’t be truly new ideas, it has the effect, also on individuals of their relationship to what they might think is knowledge, comes to be convention, what they’ve heard, etc., if you don’t have a relationship personally to having discovered things, to the process of discovery.  Then people aren’t going to be able to figure out their abilities to act politically, their abilities to understand history, their abilities to act with science.  So even things that might seem like they’re true, if you don’t have that process of moving forward, they’re missing that human aspect: Like infrastructure.  Even if we’d maintained our railroads in good condition, and we still had a whopping 70 miles an hour tops on Amtrak, that doesn’t represent an improvement any more. Building that up doesn’t represent the kind of improvement that a real intent to say, let’s really be human, would embody.

LAROUCHE:  No, we don’t have the mechanisms.  We have to have a new science-driver program.  But you’re going to create that new science-driver program out of what Ben Deniston has just impressed:  Galactic method.  The water supply of mankind, lies in the galaxy, not on Earth!  The water supply on Earth is very limited;  the water system as a whole is a galactic phenomenon, not a social process.

So therefore, what you have to do, is the discovery of the galactic principle, and these kinds of things by Kepler, for example, before then who started the whole business:  Kepler was the one who created the understanding which led to the possibility of galactic insight.  Now that’s working.

So our job is what the Chinese are doing with their science-driver program, is exactly in that direction: Go to the higher level of the organization of the Solar System, and go beyond the Solar System per se, into the galactic system.  And it’s on that level, of understanding the galactic principle and how it works, how we can use it, how mankind can take advantage of the galactic principle, that’s where the future destiny of mankind lies, in that direction.

And we have to actually start science.

What’s called science today, remember the principle: there was only one true competent scientist in the 20th century during that period, Einstein.  All the others were, to one degree or other, fakers or relied on relatively fake values.  So the point is, we always go, in the history of mankind, you go beyond what mankind has been able to achieve now, and you force the issue, to go to the areas, where mankind has never gone before! And our mission is that.  Our mission is to demand that the development of our people, is based on that:  Going to levels of reality which have never been known before, and carry them out!

Kesha ROGERS:  Yes, and I think that’s why the structure of organizing society, embodied in what China and Russia are doing, by putting the focus on the posterity, on the future, the generations to come, the generations that haven’t been born yet, when you put that as the primary focus, as is being done by China with their space program, with India, with its commitment towards its young generation and development of leadership coming from the younger generation, then you look at you say, “how absurd can it be, that you would have a nation so viable, such as Russia, that genocidal and suicidal idiots would say, because of our differences we’re going to exclude Russia from talks and dialogue with the G7 summit.” And given the fact that, as many already know, without Russia you cannot have real focus and discussion toward economic development and toward solving the problems confronting mankind of war.

I think what you said earlier about having a planetary, global-wide perspective as to what is being acquired right now, really sheds some light, particularly on what for instance the Pope is doing in his travels, throughout South America, in Argentina, and in two days or so is going to meet with President Putin.  Because you have people who understand that the real question gets down to the point again, of the nature of mankind, and relationships among human beings across the planet. That if we do not build these relationships around a solid foundation of economic cooperation and development for the progress of mankind, then as you have clearly stated, as the Pope has stated, as many have stated, we’re headed toward a total demise of the human species, of obliteration through wars.  And people uses these insane differences of opinion, or allowing for the Empire to control nations, to control relationships and fall for this insanity, as the U.S. media and other things are doing by painting Russia, painting Putin, painting China as a threat to the human species.

But the reality is, is that if we don’t wake up the American people now around the fact that everything can be lost in a matter of a short period of time, if we don’t actually take up these policies that have been set forth.  The fact of the matter is, that we won’t be long to exist on this planet.  And I think if people kind of take a step back, and look at that reality — I just want to make one, final point,  — is that people who didn’t have a chance to participate or watch the proceedings of the conference just this past weekend, what Mrs. LaRouche presented in her presentation was  — what’s the words?—I mean, really, the sense of passion and a connection to future generations that came out of that presentation and the reality that we are at a moment right now which is requiring a turning point for mankind, was absolutely and clearly defined by what she presented. Because it was the quality of an artist, painting a picture of the world that has, as you just said, a world that’s never been seen before, but a world that can be right at our fingertips.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, that’s true. That  is absolutely true.

Rachel BRINKLEY:  I’ll just add in this question of giving people a sense of their strategic power, that everything we’ve seen in this previous system was a few people trying to dominate a less powerful group, and steal the resources from them.  That was the Bush-Cheney policy, that’s the Obama, British Empire, Roman Empire, policy:  Steal the resources for yourself, until that system collapses.  But what’s not included is the creation of the value of new resources, which is what the BRICS are doing, which is extending around the world, South America, all of Eurasia, — anyway, this is as you’re saying new potential that has never been seen before.  That’s the strategic power which Americans have to have a sense of, that there’s a scientific superiority in this question of creation of new value.

LAROUCHE:  One thing I add on, because it’s relevant to what you were doing some years ago, now, in your role in Boston, in organizing our movement in Boston:  Now, what happened?  The organization in Boston fell backwards, after your relevant term of office around these two campaigns.  All throughout our organization the same thing happened.  What happened?

Well, what happened is that the element of corruption which was introduced by influences on our organization, and people came up with the slogan “be practical, be practical, be practical.” Now the meaning of “be practical,” ends up with being stupid, and so the problem was, we had also a relatively large organization, actually operating inside the United States.  But the leadership of the organization so-called, was a bunch of shylocks, fakers, or incompetents.

So therefore we went through a period of incompetence in our organization, and how was that effected?  By suppressing the people who were competent.  By demanding that we “be practical, be practical, be practical.”  Don’t try to explain things too much, make it simple, make it simple-minded, that would be better.

And what we’ve done now, in the recent period, we’ve had the option of recognizing that we had a much larger organization than these guys were willing to admit, because they were trying to mother everything, by controlling everything.  “We will decide, we will decide, we will tell you want to do, we will teach you, we will write the books, we will write the publications, we’ll circulate the publication.”  Which is actually brainwashing our members.  And when I got onto how this thing was working and saw how it was working, I just said, “We’re going to wipe this thing out!”  And we began looking around how we were going to wipe that thing out, and we’re having a fine, ol’ time, right now.

But that’s the answer.  The point was the possibility of rebuilding our organization after it had been massacred, essentially, by a bunch of creeps, who took over the organization.  They set the standard, they set the standard!  It wasn’t everyone in our organization, but a lot of them — “be practical, be practical, be practical.”  And we said, “end with that!”  And that’s the way we got out as far as we’ve gone so far, now.

Don’t be practical!  Practical is for jerks!  Be scientific, be creative.  Look beyond the popular opinion.  Look for the truth, not for the popular opinion.  Because popular opinion generally is either for stupid people, or bigotted people who think they’re smart, but they’re actually dumb.

So leadership, this kind of conception of educational leadership, of scientific drive, these are the issues that make it possible for us to do something useful, on behalf of mankind.

OGDEN:  Which goes to what you were saying earlier:  The American people have been discouraged, they’ve been robbed of their rightful sense of authority, they’ve been forced to think of themselves as small, little people, “I have no effect, I have to accept a modest, humble expectation,” and there’s a minority which realizes that this is not true, and have the responsibility to lead and allow  people to escape that kind of sense of discouragement.

LAROUCHE:  Well, the lesson of that which I had in childhood, or the process of childhood, was with the idea of teaching, public school teaching.  And public school teaching produced brainless people; they weren’t stupid, but they were sort of brainless, because they had a textbook, or they had a standard class education.  And they would go by these assumptions they were taught at them, which was taught at them!  And the way I got out of this thing, I never liked that stuff.  I just never would accept it.

And I used to get these IQ tests — people would say, you must be stupid, you must be stupid — so they would give me an IQ test.  And I would always come way ahead! [laughter]

And so, the obvious thing was for anybody who was intelligent who knew me, was, well, don’t believe what you’re getting from the teachers, because even the teachers who were honest in their intention, are being subjected of the educational system!  And that’s what you have in universities today:  why are people so stupid?  Because they go to universities.  And very few universities turn out people who are qualified to do anything in terms of thinking.

So therefore, the question, “are you accepted?”  by what? By authority!  What is the nature of that mysterious authority? It’s the educational system, it’s the public opinion system.  And it’s only when you get rid of that evil, which it is evil, because when you make a human being into something stupid which was done by most of the 20th century educational processes, you destroy the ability of the people to survive.

And now the time has come:  don’t listen to anything from those kinds of sources.  Just don’t do it.  Always look beyond, look into science.  Look to Kepler.  most people paid no attention to Kepler, even into modern times, and yet, the secret of science, lay mostly in the hands of Kepler.  The whole principle, what’s the whole system?  What is the system?  The system?  Kepler, it’s all Kepler!  So,  what do they do?  They usher Kepler out, or interpret him in ways which are absurd.

So that’s the problem.  And it’s this kind of brainwashing, which what it really is, which destroys the mental powers of most of our citizens, and has done so over past hundred years. And that’s what we have to fix!

OGDEN:  Okay.  I think that’s a place to conclude:  I want to just return to the point you made in the beginning, with the dramatic potential that’s represented by these three German statesmen, and what has to happen in terms of removing  the power that Merkel has, and then specifically what’s happening here in the United States with Obama.  So I think that’s a very significant thing for people to keep in mind, and to follow very closely over the next few days.

So thank you for joining us here today, and please stay tuned to [url:”http://larouchepac.com]larouchepac.com.

Today’s show was pre-recorded, we discuss both the World War III crisis and a short history of Alexander Hamilton. Tune in Saturday LIVE at 1pm Eastern.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s June 5th, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our Friday evening broadcast here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined here in the studio today by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review, and Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Basement team, and the three of us just literally came from a meeting with Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. LaRouche where we discussed the content of tonight’s broadcast. We’re meeting here tonight on a very auspicious occasion. We are on the verge tomorrow of the next in a series of major conferences being held in New York City, as part of the so-called Manhattan project. This conference is going to be broadcast live, on the LaRouche PAC website; we’ll have live coverage which you’re invited to tune in for tomorrow afternoon.

And this is just one more in a series of live broadcasts that we’ve had literally every single day on the LaRouche PAC website this week, starting with the Policy Committee show on Monday, the live press conference that was broadcast from Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the New Paradigm show that was broadcast regularly on Wednesday; the activists’ call that Mr. LaRouche held, the third in the so-called “Fireside Chats,” that was broadcast last night, Thursday; the broadcast that you’re watching right here, Friday, and this conference in New York coming up on Saturday, tomorrow.

And as I said, this has been an extraordinary week, really a dramatic escalation on all fronts. What we began this week with, was the announcement last Saturday, by Martin O’Malley of his official campaign for the United States Presidency, which he announced from Baltimore, Maryland and which has gained him the notoriety of being named “Public Enemy #1” by Wall Street. And I know this will be the subject of our institutional question which we’ll get to very shortly.

But this announcement by O’Malley was coupled with the press conference which was held on Tuesday which I just mentioned by Sen. Rand Paul. Sen. Rand Paul introduced his Senate bill, the equivalent of what has been introduced already by Walter Jones [nc], Stephen Lynch [ma], and Thomas Massie [ky] in the United States House of Representatives, to force the declassification of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report. This has been covered widely; I know Jeff will probably elaborate more on this. Rand Paul was joined by former Sen. Bob Graham, three members of the House of Representatives, as well as leading members of the 9/11 families. And this has been a very significant escalation in the campaign to force President Obama to declassify these 28 pages.

And then, what we’ve had with the third in this series of Fireside Chats with Mr. LaRouche, which has engaged an increasing number of LaRouche PAC activists across the United States, with a very intensive dialogue that happened last night. And like I said, this was the first time that we live-broadcast this discussion on the LaRouche PAC website. [https://youtu.be/8JVkEXy1cYM, or https://soundcloud.com/larouche-pac/lyndon-larouche-on-the-lpac- activist-call-june-4-2015] It’s now available there in archive; it’s at the very top of our website today, and it’s available for you to go back and listen to, if you haven’t already. And this involved people from every corner of the United States, the East Coast, the West Coast, everywhere in between. And this is a very important escalation on the part of Mr. LaRouche personally, intervening to shape the institution of the United States Presidency.

Now, I’d like to transition directly into the remarks that Jeff Steinberg will make, which then will be followed by a further elaboration of certain aspects by Jason Ross. But what I’d like to do, at this point, is read the institutional question that has come in this week, which we discussed with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, and it’s on the subject of Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley. It reads as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, last week Fox Business Network’s Charles Gasparino reported from Wall Street sources that Goldman Sachs and other big Wall Street banks view Martin O’Malley as their ‘Public Enemy #1, persona non grata.’ In your view, what are the qualities of Democratic Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley? And what impact will his candidacy have on Wall Street? Thank you.”

So, Jeff, why don’t you come to the podium?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Well, as Matt indicated, just a few moments ago, we had an extensive discussion with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche on this subject and on a number of other things that you’ll be hearing about, later in this broadcast. So I’ve got some direct quotes from Mr. LaRouche, which I want to share with you, and then I’ll elaborate on some of the further points of that discussion that are relevant to this institutional question. What Mr. LaRouche said is, “O’Malley is doing the right thing. Right now he’s the only qualified candidate. The issue is that we must assemble a team around him. This is the Presidential system; we need a group of qualified minds, working in coordination. We need to assemble a group of faces to do the right thing, and O’Malley is going in that direction. Hillary can’t make it.

“One of the immediate priorities is to get rid of Obama. If Obama remains in control, under British direction, we may be facing thermonuclear war this summer. Obama must be thrown out. That means O’Malley is in, not formally as the replacement President, but as the emerging figure around which a new Presidency can be immediately assembled.

“The action this week by Rand Paul has contributed to pulling down Obama. The Senate initiative on the 28 pages was a crucial flanking operation, and is one of the things that further pull down Obama this week.”

Now, the opening that has been provided by the fact that we now have bills in both the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, demanding the immediate declassification of the 28 pages from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, means that this is now a serious legislative proposition. You have House Resolution 14, H.Res.14, and you have now Senate bill S.1471; those two bills in combination, put onto President Obama’s desk, forces the issue of the Saudi and Anglo-Saudi forces that combined to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

This must become part of the public record, public recognition of what this world is really all about, and what must be done to alter the course of international affairs and change radically, the policies that have been pursued by the last two Presidential administrations. The fact that both President Bush and President Obama chose willfully to conceal the hand of the Saudis, and the British behind them, in the 9/11 attacks is one of the most significant factors that has driven the United States in the wrong direction on virtually every major policy over the last 15-year period.

Now, the immediate situation that we are dealing with, that prompts Mr. LaRouche to insist that the first step in a new Presidency must be the removal of President Obama from office, is the fact that there is right now, an intensification of the drive for war against Russia. In the most recent developments, you have Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, touring around Europe, meeting both with American military officials and American diplomats in Europe, considering a range of options directed against Russia, including the possible deployment of new generation, theater nuclear weapons into continental Western Europe, with the idea that some of these weapons might be used in a preemptive strike against strategic targets inside Russian territory: This is the threat of thermonuclear war, over the very near future.

Now the fact that of the matter is, that from the moment that the United States broke the understanding with Russia about the deployment of a fully integrated and joint missile defense system, to protect Europe against possible missile attacks coming out of the Middle East, from that point on, in the eyes of the Russians, and in the eyes of many American specialists, the U.S. and NATO have been moving towards a potential first-strike doctrine against Russia.

President Putin has made this point clear; the Foreign Minister Lavrov has made this point clear, and Russia has moved very rapidly to modernize their own strategic force, in order to retain a certain balance of nuclear terror. We’re still under the horrors of MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction]. And so, now, with these latest moves coming out of the Obama administration, considering a new doctrine of possible offensive, first-strike nuclear attacks against Russian targets, we see just how precariously close we are towards war.

Now, in our discussions just a little while ago with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche, Lyn also made the point very clearly, there are now three leading German statesmen — two former Chancellors, Helmut Schmidt and Gerhard Schröder; along with the current SPD Foreign Minister of Germany [frank-walter] Steinmeier — who have all publicly criticized Chancellor Angela Merkel for having refused to invite Russian President Putin to fully participate in the G7 summit meeting that will be taking place this weekend. This should have been a resumption of the G8 summit process, by reincluding Russia in it, and as a result of failing to do that, Merkel has herself further extended and increased the danger of a war that would very rapidly become a thermonuclear war of annihilation directed against Russia.

This is exactly why Mr. LaRouche said, just hours ago, that we not only have to get rid of Obama, but Merkel has to be brought down as well. This kind of playing “Russian Roulette” with the survival of mankind by threatening nuclear first strike and moving the world closer and closer to this kind of confrontation, is a hallmark of leaders who have gone completely insane and must be removed from office, for the sake of mankind.

You have a situation in Ukraine right now, where you see a similar form of flight-forward madness, where President Poroshenko has claimed that Ukraine is bracing for a full-scale Russian invasion of eastern Europe, which would create a state of outright warfare between Ukraine and Russia. Now, if you study the recent statements, as recently as earlier today, from Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, you see that the Russians are calling for exactly the opposite: They’re calling for the full and total implementation of the agreements that were made in Minsk in February of this year, for a de-escalation of the Ukrainian crisis.

So we are at a moment where, we have in the case of O’Malley, the potentiality for organizing a new American Presidency, where we can assemble a team of qualified individuals, many of whom have been absolutely excluded from any involvement in the official Executive branch over the last 15 years of Bush and Cheney, and now Obama, but who are still there and are available. We have that capability.

And one of the critical points that I’ll briefly mention and that Jason will take up at greater length, is that a key measure of an effective new Presidency, is starting from the recognition that we have a long constitutional tradition of how to develop the U.S. economy, by extension, how to develop the world economy. There were four principal reports that were presented to the U.S. Congress, by our first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, one of the seminal of Manhattan, that was his Report on Manufacturing, his Report on the National Bank, his Report on Public Credit, and his “Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank.” Those four documents represent the founding principles of the American System of political economy. On those rare occasions where American Presidents have pursued those policies, the nation has prospered, the nation has been at war, we’ve made great scientific and economic strides, the conditions of life for all Americans have been uplifted, and in the case of John Quincy Adams, those principles became the basis for developing American foreign policy and American diplomacy towards the rest of the world.

Far too many occasions, we’ve seen Presidents and Congresses, that have failed to grasp those core principles. And I must say that those reports, while they were written in the late 18th century, by and large in the 1790s, they still are as relevant today, as they were back then.

And so anybody who wants to truly understand what the cornerstone what the cornerstone principles must be of the kind of new Presidency that we’re talking about, right now centering around the one candidate who’s expressed those ideas clearly, which is why Wall Street hates him: And that’s Martin O’Malley.

It’s essential to read those documents, to study them, to think about it, and then to hold up the hideous economic performance of the last two Presidents and most 20th century Presidents, when compared to the standards that were clearly defined by Hamilton, as the basis for our constitutional republic, and for what all educated people in the 19th century widely referred to as the American System of political economy, which was the enemy of the British system.

OGDEN: Well, it really reminds you what Martin O’Malley had to say in response to this declaration that he was persona non grata on Wall Street. It really reminds you of what Franklin Roosevelt said, when he was in the exact same position: He said, “They hate me, and I relish their hatred.” This is actually a very famous speech he made at Madison Square Garden, in New York City, on Oct. 31, 1936. And I just want to read a short excerpt from that if people aren’t familiar with this. This is what President Franklin Roosevelt said. He said: “We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

“They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

“I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.”

So, I think you could possibly put those words into Martin O’Malley’s mouth at this point.

Now, what Mr. LaRouche, as Jeff just mentioned, was emphasizing when we met with him this morning, is that we now have to clearly define our role. It’s very clear that the formation of a new Presidency is being determined from the top down, by Mr. LaRouche’s leadership and the leadership that he has provided over the last several years: Glass-Steagall, and shutting down a bankrupt Wall Street with that O’Malley is doing, and another Presidential candidate, Rand Paul, and his move now to force the declassification of the 28 pages and expose the Saudi role in funding 9/11 and other global terror operations.

But we have to escalate, and we have to continue to provide that top-down leadership, as Mr. LaRouche very clearly did in his discussion with the national activists, the so-called “Fireside Chat,” yesterday. And what Mr. LaRouche said is that we must clearly define our role around the Alexander Hamilton principle, that all the greatest leaders of this country have adopted Hamilton as their guidepost and have implemented the Hamiltonian principle in order to save and build the United States. And Mr. LaRouche emphasized, as Jeff mentioned that the four reports by Alexander Hamilton, his Report on Public Credit, his Report on Manufactures, his Report on the National Bank, and his argument “The Constitutionality of the National Bank”: All four of these reports constitute sort of a fourfold principle by which we can implement Hamilton’s policies today.

And what Mr. LaRouche said is, “The time has come to remind the citizens of our United States what the mission of these United States is. We must refresh our knowledge of our own history.” So here to do that for us tonight, at least preliminarily, is Mr. Jason Ross, who has recently done some work on refreshing his own knowledge of the principles of Alexander Hamilton. And we would like to initiate that discussion here, today, and I’m sure it will be a discussion that will continue into the conference up in New York tomorrow. So, Jason why don’t you come to the podium?

JASON ROSS: Yes, some very recent refreshing. So, Webster said of the work of Hamilton, that just as Athena burst forth, fully armed from the head of Zeus, so did the economy of America burst forth from the mind of Alexander Hamilton, over a very short period of time. As Jeff had said, these four major reports of Hamilton’s that we’ll discuss were written over the span of only two years: These Reports on Public Credit, on the National Bank, the “Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank” — which was written to counter Thomas Jefferson’s nonsense on it — and his Report on Manufactures.

In all of these, and in Hamilton’s work as Treasury Secretary and in his work for the nation, before and after that, he did lot of work on finance directly, on monetary and tax matters, but his objectives, his goal, his real work, was not to achieve financial policy. It was to promote social, political, cultural ideas of what the human species was, how the nation’s economy should move forward, and really what we ought to do, how can we move forward? What’s the purpose of the nation? What’s the purpose of a person?

So, let’s — I support it makes sense to take these in order, as a brief summary of them. So the Report on the Public Credit: Hamilton came into office, he was confirmed by the Senate, he became our first Treasury Secretary on Sept. 11, 1789. He was tasked by the Congress to pull together a report on the nation’s finances. The amount of debt that the United States owed at this point was over $70 million, at that time, a huge sum/ And things weren’t being paid; this debt included states’ debts, included foreign debts, it included IOUs from the time of the Revolution. It seemed impossible to make payments on them, or really, to figure out how much it was.

So over the course of only a few months, Hamilton wrote a book-length report where he pulled everything together, he got a clear sense of what the situation of the debts was, and he used it as an opportunity, both to unify the nation and to develop the economy. So among the things that he did was push for the Federal assumption of the states’ debts, that the national government would take up the state debts that were incurred as part of the Revolution, as something that was of an entire national action.

This was opposed. As a matter of fact, for some of the Southerners to give their assent to the assumption of the state debts, they demanded that the capital move, that it no longer be in New York or in Philadelphia, where it later went, but that it be on the Potomac. That was — see, way back, from the very beginning of our country, it was an unfortunate compromise that seemingly had to be made with the Southern influence that we’ve now got D.C., that we’ve got the Federal government in D.C. which is very unfortunate because just being in Manhattan would immediately improve the intelligence and functioning of our country. But this was a compromise that was made at the time.

So assumption of the state debts, pulling the debts together, basically reissuing as one kind of unified debt, to pay off all the old debts, call them in and have a unified form of debt with a specific way of paying it off, through import taxes, which he said should be controlled only by the Federal government; the states should not be involved in collecting imports, so already a fight with the states’ rights, or people like Governor Clinton of New York who wanted to maintain New York as his own sort of kingdom, not really part of the country. As well as taxing — and this got controversial — whiskey and other products inside the U.S. that were produced domestically.

So, overall, by his actions, he was able to save the U.S. from bankruptcy; he was able to make good on the debt payments and start to develop the nation’s credit, which he said, this is important if we’re ever going to get more loans, keep the interest rate down, this will be an important thing for our development as a nation. And, by making good on the debts, the value government debt that was out in circulation, tripled.

Why would that be important or good? Well, he gets to that in his Report on the National Bank: In this report, Hamilton works to what Washington and others almost seemed like magic, which is that he turned debt into money. What he did was to create a National Bank as a repository for incoming imports, other taxes, a place to centralize the nation’s finances; and, he allowed people to get in on the bank, by capitalizing it with actual specie, as it’s called, gold or silver; but also, by depositing the Federal debt. The capitalization was most Federal debt and not specie.

So by using the debt that now had almost a full value, full face value, as deposits for capitalizing the bank, the bank was now able to give out loans, money, monetize that amount. Meaning that instead of being a burden, debt has to be paid off over time, etc., — you know, obviously, he still wanted to pay off the debt — but in the meantime, it now served as a basis for having circulating money, for making it possible to get loans and things of that sort, and overall finance the development of the nation in a way that couldn’t be controlled by the European, British ability to have a control over specie, which they had been sucking out of the United States.

So, unfortunately, this idea of having a National Bank was not well received by everybody, including Thomas Jefferson, who urged President Washington, not to sign the law, that the National Bank was actually unconstitutional, because the Constitution didn’t say “the U.S. government may create a National Bank” — it wasn’t enumerated there. And that Hamilton was going too far in saying, well, this is necessary and proper, this is just required to fulfill the obligations and the responsibilities and the powers that the Federal government does have.

So this is a major point: Can the Congress, can the government, only do the specific things enumerated in the Constitution? Or, is it necessary to engage in activities, in order to bring those things about? In this article, — let me read this for you: This is about how much Jefferson was opposed to the National Bank. He said that if anybody in Virginia tried to help or assist in creating a branch of the National Bank in Virginia, that that person “shall be adjudged guilty of high treason and shall suffer death.”

Jefferson said that any Virginian helping to set up a National Bank branch in Virginia should be executed for treason against the state of Virginia!

So this was very — this was pretty intense. In his report, this “Opinion on the Constitutionality of Bank of the U.S.,” which was delivered from Hamilton to Washington on Feb. 23, 1791, just a very short time before Washington had to make a decision, on signing or vetoing the bill, Hamilton has — it’s really a very fun read — he goes through why the bank is necessary, why it’s beneficial, and demolishes Jefferson’s complaints. There’s this one, for example, possibly in an attempt to confuse Washington, or overwhelm him with legalisms, Jefferson said that the National Bank would violate the laws of “alienage, dissent, escheat, forfeiture, and distribution.” I don’t know if anybody hearing this is familiar with any of those terms. Some of them are somewhat outdated, but Hamilton took care of all of that in one single paragraph, just pointing out that Jefferson was making arguments, not legitimate on their face, but because he had an ulterior motive.

And this is what comes in a very direct way, in the Report on Manufactures. Because this really got to the kernel of things, and this is where Hamilton was able to most directly put forward his vision for the nation. Which, at that time, it was actually controversial about whether it would be good to be a manufacturing nation. For example, Thomas Jefferson said that would be a bad idea, that farming was the way to go, that we should be agricultural, and that we shouldn’t sully ourselves with manufacturing.

For example Jefferson said about the life of the farmer, possibly, specifically meaning a “farmer” who has slaves doing the farming; he said, [as read] “Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators [farmers] is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example.” Farmer cannot be immoral, according to Jefferson. And then, he describes how manufacturing is “pestilence” upon society. He says, “While we have land to labor then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a workbench, or twirling a distaff. … let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. … The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body.” That’s Jefferson’s views on manufacturing!

So what did Hamilton do on this front? In addition to his work as Treasury Secretary, he also set up the Society for the Promotion of Useful Manufactures, which created a model industrial park in what’s today known as Paterson, New Jersey — Paterson, named after then then Governor, who supported the formation of a whole series of workshops, based on water power. So, a centralized way to take the flow of the river than had a good drop there, take the water, channel it through, use water wheels to have a major industrial center.

Hamilton believed that not only was it important to have import duties, to prevent the flooding of the market with British manufactured goods, to make it possible for American industry to get going, but that that shouldn’t be relied on; that it could encourage laziness among manufacturers, and that the government should take an active role in promoting manufactures. And he saw this Society for the Promotion of Useful Manufactures, and the model production that was set up in Paterson, as an example of that.

Let me read a quote from Hamilton, from his . This was delivered December 5th, 1791, so within two years: Jan. 14th, 1790, the first of his major reports, and this is his fourth out of these four. And he directly addressed the idea that only agriculture was useful. He said,

“That the annual produce of the land and labour of a country can only be encreased, in two ways — by some improvement in the productive powers of the useful labour, which actually exists within it, or by some increase in the quantity of such labour: That with regard to the first,” he says “the labour of Artificers [manufacturers, non-farming] being capable of greater subdivision and simplicity of operation, than that of Cultivators [farmers], it is susceptible, in a proportionably greater degree, of improvement in its productive powers, whether to be derived from an accession of Skill, or from the application of ingenious machinery; in which particular, therefore, the labour employed in the culture of land can pretend to no advantage over that engaged in manufactures….”

This is certainly born out in the ongoing history of the country, where, as the time of these reports, 90% of the population was involved in agriculture, whereas today, it’s below 1%. This didn’t occur by improvements in agriculture itself. It came from developing industry, “manufacturers,” as Hamilton would call it, and the incredible developments in that field — the steam engine, internal combustion engine, nuclear power, — these didn’t come out of farming. This came out of being industrial, and being a science oriented society, rather than a tradition-oriented society.

So, I think if you think about this, today, if we consider the understanding that Hamilton had of how to actually improve the wealth of the nation, of the real source of economic growth, that he was able to express that in its most direct and straightforward form in the Report on Manufactures, although, as an outlook it pervades his entire approach to economy as seen in the previous reports, as well, where although they treat financial subjects, they have a much broader ranging goal embedded in them.

In the Report on Manufactures Hamilton describes all the sorts of different ways that the Federal government could assist the growth of manufactures, how duties ought to be set, the use of “bounties,” or bonuses, to manufacturers who were developing new techniques, new technologies. And he has an understanding that that’s the kind of society, of a hardworking and developing society, which will be necessary to develop a strong nation.

I think he’d be shocked to visit today’s Manhattan, and see that we’ve gone below the level of agriculture, even, at least agriculture is productive. Now some people say that we can have an economy that’s based on finance itself. A large portion of the GDP, etc., of the country is now based on finance, not manufacturing, not production, not even agriculture.

And that, we have to keep in mind his approach to physical economy. So many of the debates that happen today, about the states versus the Federal government, or how far can the Federal government go? Is it the Federal government’s business to interfere in the economy? To promote the economy as a whole? The answers to so many of these live questions today, can already be found, in the work of Alexander Hamilton. And in reading through these reports, I think will give a very excellent foundation on our country’s history, on the kinds of economics that actually worked to develop, and provide very helpful insights into how to move forward today, physically, and as a science-driven economy.

OGDEN: And I should just say, that these four reports to Congress by Alexander Hamilton are not classified. They are in the public domain! So they’re available to anybody to read. You don’t need to declassify these. You can read them and study them — including members of Congress.

Now, I just want to say in conclusion that we will be live-streaming coverage of the Schiller Institute conference that’s occurring tomorrow in New York City. The name of this is “Decision Day for Humanity: The U.S. must return to its founding principles and join the BRICS alliance now.” And obviously, this is occurring on June 6th, which is the anniversary of D-Day, which marked the beginning of the downfall of Nazism. So this is a very auspicious occasion and we invite you, if you’re in the New York City area, please attend in person; contact our office there, or our national office. If you’re not in the New York area please tune in on the LaRouche PAC website.

Also, all of the other videos that have been streamed on our website this week are available in archive, including the video of the extraordinary press conference that occurred on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with Senator Rand Paul, https://youtu.be/-ozSLcVT8nM; as well as the third in the series of Fireside Chats which Mr. LaRouche hosted yesterday with the national LaRouche PAC activists. So we encourage you to watch those if you haven’t already, but also absolutely please circulate them as widely as you can.

So that’s going to bring a conclusion to our webcast here, tonight. We thank you for joining us, and please tune in again tomorrow at 1 o’clock Eastern for our live coverage of the event in New York City. Thank you very much, and good night.

Today’s show was pre-recorded, we discuss both the World War III crisis and a short history of Alexander Hamilton. Tune in Saturday LIVE at 1pm Eastern.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s June 5th, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our Friday evening broadcast here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined here in the studio today by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review, and Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Basement team, and the three of us just literally came from a meeting with Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. LaRouche where we discussed the content of tonight’s broadcast. We’re meeting here tonight on a very auspicious occasion. We are on the verge tomorrow of the next in a series of major conferences being held in New York City, as part of the so-called Manhattan project. This conference is going to be broadcast live, on the LaRouche PAC website; we’ll have live coverage which you’re invited to tune in for tomorrow afternoon.

And this is just one more in a series of live broadcasts that we’ve had literally every single day on the LaRouche PAC website this week, starting with the Policy Committee show on Monday, the live press conference that was broadcast from Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the New Paradigm show that was broadcast regularly on Wednesday; the activists’ call that Mr. LaRouche held, the third in the so-called “Fireside Chats,” that was broadcast last night, Thursday; the broadcast that you’re watching right here, Friday, and this conference in New York coming up on Saturday, tomorrow.

And as I said, this has been an extraordinary week, really a dramatic escalation on all fronts. What we began this week with, was the announcement last Saturday, by Martin O’Malley of his official campaign for the United States Presidency, which he announced from Baltimore, Maryland and which has gained him the notoriety of being named “Public Enemy #1” by Wall Street. And I know this will be the subject of our institutional question which we’ll get to very shortly.

But this announcement by O’Malley was coupled with the press conference which was held on Tuesday which I just mentioned by Sen. Rand Paul. Sen. Rand Paul introduced his Senate bill, the equivalent of what has been introduced already by Walter Jones [nc], Stephen Lynch [ma], and Thomas Massie [ky] in the United States House of Representatives, to force the declassification of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report. This has been covered widely; I know Jeff will probably elaborate more on this. Rand Paul was joined by former Sen. Bob Graham, three members of the House of Representatives, as well as leading members of the 9/11 families. And this has been a very significant escalation in the campaign to force President Obama to declassify these 28 pages.

And then, what we’ve had with the third in this series of Fireside Chats with Mr. LaRouche, which has engaged an increasing number of LaRouche PAC activists across the United States, with a very intensive dialogue that happened last night. And like I said, this was the first time that we live-broadcast this discussion on the LaRouche PAC website. [https://youtu.be/8JVkEXy1cYM, or https://soundcloud.com/larouche-pac/lyndon-larouche-on-the-lpac- activist-call-june-4-2015] It’s now available there in archive; it’s at the very top of our website today, and it’s available for you to go back and listen to, if you haven’t already. And this involved people from every corner of the United States, the East Coast, the West Coast, everywhere in between. And this is a very important escalation on the part of Mr. LaRouche personally, intervening to shape the institution of the United States Presidency.

Now, I’d like to transition directly into the remarks that Jeff Steinberg will make, which then will be followed by a further elaboration of certain aspects by Jason Ross. But what I’d like to do, at this point, is read the institutional question that has come in this week, which we discussed with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, and it’s on the subject of Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley. It reads as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, last week Fox Business Network’s Charles Gasparino reported from Wall Street sources that Goldman Sachs and other big Wall Street banks view Martin O’Malley as their ‘Public Enemy #1, persona non grata.’ In your view, what are the qualities of Democratic Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley? And what impact will his candidacy have on Wall Street? Thank you.”

So, Jeff, why don’t you come to the podium?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Well, as Matt indicated, just a few moments ago, we had an extensive discussion with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche on this subject and on a number of other things that you’ll be hearing about, later in this broadcast. So I’ve got some direct quotes from Mr. LaRouche, which I want to share with you, and then I’ll elaborate on some of the further points of that discussion that are relevant to this institutional question. What Mr. LaRouche said is, “O’Malley is doing the right thing. Right now he’s the only qualified candidate. The issue is that we must assemble a team around him. This is the Presidential system; we need a group of qualified minds, working in coordination. We need to assemble a group of faces to do the right thing, and O’Malley is going in that direction. Hillary can’t make it.

“One of the immediate priorities is to get rid of Obama. If Obama remains in control, under British direction, we may be facing thermonuclear war this summer. Obama must be thrown out. That means O’Malley is in, not formally as the replacement President, but as the emerging figure around which a new Presidency can be immediately assembled.

“The action this week by Rand Paul has contributed to pulling down Obama. The Senate initiative on the 28 pages was a crucial flanking operation, and is one of the things that further pull down Obama this week.”

Now, the opening that has been provided by the fact that we now have bills in both the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, demanding the immediate declassification of the 28 pages from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, means that this is now a serious legislative proposition. You have House Resolution 14, H.Res.14, and you have now Senate bill S.1471; those two bills in combination, put onto President Obama’s desk, forces the issue of the Saudi and Anglo-Saudi forces that combined to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

This must become part of the public record, public recognition of what this world is really all about, and what must be done to alter the course of international affairs and change radically, the policies that have been pursued by the last two Presidential administrations. The fact that both President Bush and President Obama chose willfully to conceal the hand of the Saudis, and the British behind them, in the 9/11 attacks is one of the most significant factors that has driven the United States in the wrong direction on virtually every major policy over the last 15-year period.

Now, the immediate situation that we are dealing with, that prompts Mr. LaRouche to insist that the first step in a new Presidency must be the removal of President Obama from office, is the fact that there is right now, an intensification of the drive for war against Russia. In the most recent developments, you have Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, touring around Europe, meeting both with American military officials and American diplomats in Europe, considering a range of options directed against Russia, including the possible deployment of new generation, theater nuclear weapons into continental Western Europe, with the idea that some of these weapons might be used in a preemptive strike against strategic targets inside Russian territory: This is the threat of thermonuclear war, over the very near future.

Now the fact that of the matter is, that from the moment that the United States broke the understanding with Russia about the deployment of a fully integrated and joint missile defense system, to protect Europe against possible missile attacks coming out of the Middle East, from that point on, in the eyes of the Russians, and in the eyes of many American specialists, the U.S. and NATO have been moving towards a potential first-strike doctrine against Russia.

President Putin has made this point clear; the Foreign Minister Lavrov has made this point clear, and Russia has moved very rapidly to modernize their own strategic force, in order to retain a certain balance of nuclear terror. We’re still under the horrors of MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction]. And so, now, with these latest moves coming out of the Obama administration, considering a new doctrine of possible offensive, first-strike nuclear attacks against Russian targets, we see just how precariously close we are towards war.

Now, in our discussions just a little while ago with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche, Lyn also made the point very clearly, there are now three leading German statesmen — two former Chancellors, Helmut Schmidt and Gerhard Schröder; along with the current SPD Foreign Minister of Germany [frank-walter] Steinmeier — who have all publicly criticized Chancellor Angela Merkel for having refused to invite Russian President Putin to fully participate in the G7 summit meeting that will be taking place this weekend. This should have been a resumption of the G8 summit process, by reincluding Russia in it, and as a result of failing to do that, Merkel has herself further extended and increased the danger of a war that would very rapidly become a thermonuclear war of annihilation directed against Russia.

This is exactly why Mr. LaRouche said, just hours ago, that we not only have to get rid of Obama, but Merkel has to be brought down as well. This kind of playing “Russian Roulette” with the survival of mankind by threatening nuclear first strike and moving the world closer and closer to this kind of confrontation, is a hallmark of leaders who have gone completely insane and must be removed from office, for the sake of mankind.

You have a situation in Ukraine right now, where you see a similar form of flight-forward madness, where President Poroshenko has claimed that Ukraine is bracing for a full-scale Russian invasion of eastern Europe, which would create a state of outright warfare between Ukraine and Russia. Now, if you study the recent statements, as recently as earlier today, from Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, you see that the Russians are calling for exactly the opposite: They’re calling for the full and total implementation of the agreements that were made in Minsk in February of this year, for a de-escalation of the Ukrainian crisis.

So we are at a moment where, we have in the case of O’Malley, the potentiality for organizing a new American Presidency, where we can assemble a team of qualified individuals, many of whom have been absolutely excluded from any involvement in the official Executive branch over the last 15 years of Bush and Cheney, and now Obama, but who are still there and are available. We have that capability.

And one of the critical points that I’ll briefly mention and that Jason will take up at greater length, is that a key measure of an effective new Presidency, is starting from the recognition that we have a long constitutional tradition of how to develop the U.S. economy, by extension, how to develop the world economy. There were four principal reports that were presented to the U.S. Congress, by our first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, one of the seminal of Manhattan, that was his Report on Manufacturing, his Report on the National Bank, his Report on Public Credit, and his “Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank.” Those four documents represent the founding principles of the American System of political economy. On those rare occasions where American Presidents have pursued those policies, the nation has prospered, the nation has been at war, we’ve made great scientific and economic strides, the conditions of life for all Americans have been uplifted, and in the case of John Quincy Adams, those principles became the basis for developing American foreign policy and American diplomacy towards the rest of the world.

Far too many occasions, we’ve seen Presidents and Congresses, that have failed to grasp those core principles. And I must say that those reports, while they were written in the late 18th century, by and large in the 1790s, they still are as relevant today, as they were back then.

And so anybody who wants to truly understand what the cornerstone what the cornerstone principles must be of the kind of new Presidency that we’re talking about, right now centering around the one candidate who’s expressed those ideas clearly, which is why Wall Street hates him: And that’s Martin O’Malley.

It’s essential to read those documents, to study them, to think about it, and then to hold up the hideous economic performance of the last two Presidents and most 20th century Presidents, when compared to the standards that were clearly defined by Hamilton, as the basis for our constitutional republic, and for what all educated people in the 19th century widely referred to as the American System of political economy, which was the enemy of the British system.

OGDEN: Well, it really reminds you what Martin O’Malley had to say in response to this declaration that he was persona non grata on Wall Street. It really reminds you of what Franklin Roosevelt said, when he was in the exact same position: He said, “They hate me, and I relish their hatred.” This is actually a very famous speech he made at Madison Square Garden, in New York City, on Oct. 31, 1936. And I just want to read a short excerpt from that if people aren’t familiar with this. This is what President Franklin Roosevelt said. He said: “We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

“They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

“I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.”

So, I think you could possibly put those words into Martin O’Malley’s mouth at this point.

Now, what Mr. LaRouche, as Jeff just mentioned, was emphasizing when we met with him this morning, is that we now have to clearly define our role. It’s very clear that the formation of a new Presidency is being determined from the top down, by Mr. LaRouche’s leadership and the leadership that he has provided over the last several years: Glass-Steagall, and shutting down a bankrupt Wall Street with that O’Malley is doing, and another Presidential candidate, Rand Paul, and his move now to force the declassification of the 28 pages and expose the Saudi role in funding 9/11 and other global terror operations.

But we have to escalate, and we have to continue to provide that top-down leadership, as Mr. LaRouche very clearly did in his discussion with the national activists, the so-called “Fireside Chat,” yesterday. And what Mr. LaRouche said is that we must clearly define our role around the Alexander Hamilton principle, that all the greatest leaders of this country have adopted Hamilton as their guidepost and have implemented the Hamiltonian principle in order to save and build the United States. And Mr. LaRouche emphasized, as Jeff mentioned that the four reports by Alexander Hamilton, his Report on Public Credit, his Report on Manufactures, his Report on the National Bank, and his argument “The Constitutionality of the National Bank”: All four of these reports constitute sort of a fourfold principle by which we can implement Hamilton’s policies today.

And what Mr. LaRouche said is, “The time has come to remind the citizens of our United States what the mission of these United States is. We must refresh our knowledge of our own history.” So here to do that for us tonight, at least preliminarily, is Mr. Jason Ross, who has recently done some work on refreshing his own knowledge of the principles of Alexander Hamilton. And we would like to initiate that discussion here, today, and I’m sure it will be a discussion that will continue into the conference up in New York tomorrow. So, Jason why don’t you come to the podium?

JASON ROSS: Yes, some very recent refreshing. So, Webster said of the work of Hamilton, that just as Athena burst forth, fully armed from the head of Zeus, so did the economy of America burst forth from the mind of Alexander Hamilton, over a very short period of time. As Jeff had said, these four major reports of Hamilton’s that we’ll discuss were written over the span of only two years: These Reports on Public Credit, on the National Bank, the “Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank” — which was written to counter Thomas Jefferson’s nonsense on it — and his Report on Manufactures.

In all of these, and in Hamilton’s work as Treasury Secretary and in his work for the nation, before and after that, he did lot of work on finance directly, on monetary and tax matters, but his objectives, his goal, his real work, was not to achieve financial policy. It was to promote social, political, cultural ideas of what the human species was, how the nation’s economy should move forward, and really what we ought to do, how can we move forward? What’s the purpose of the nation? What’s the purpose of a person?

So, let’s — I support it makes sense to take these in order, as a brief summary of them. So the Report on the Public Credit: Hamilton came into office, he was confirmed by the Senate, he became our first Treasury Secretary on Sept. 11, 1789. He was tasked by the Congress to pull together a report on the nation’s finances. The amount of debt that the United States owed at this point was over $70 million, at that time, a huge sum/ And things weren’t being paid; this debt included states’ debts, included foreign debts, it included IOUs from the time of the Revolution. It seemed impossible to make payments on them, or really, to figure out how much it was.

So over the course of only a few months, Hamilton wrote a book-length report where he pulled everything together, he got a clear sense of what the situation of the debts was, and he used it as an opportunity, both to unify the nation and to develop the economy. So among the things that he did was push for the Federal assumption of the states’ debts, that the national government would take up the state debts that were incurred as part of the Revolution, as something that was of an entire national action.

This was opposed. As a matter of fact, for some of the Southerners to give their assent to the assumption of the state debts, they demanded that the capital move, that it no longer be in New York or in Philadelphia, where it later went, but that it be on the Potomac. That was — see, way back, from the very beginning of our country, it was an unfortunate compromise that seemingly had to be made with the Southern influence that we’ve now got D.C., that we’ve got the Federal government in D.C. which is very unfortunate because just being in Manhattan would immediately improve the intelligence and functioning of our country. But this was a compromise that was made at the time.

So assumption of the state debts, pulling the debts together, basically reissuing as one kind of unified debt, to pay off all the old debts, call them in and have a unified form of debt with a specific way of paying it off, through import taxes, which he said should be controlled only by the Federal government; the states should not be involved in collecting imports, so already a fight with the states’ rights, or people like Governor Clinton of New York who wanted to maintain New York as his own sort of kingdom, not really part of the country. As well as taxing — and this got controversial — whiskey and other products inside the U.S. that were produced domestically.

So, overall, by his actions, he was able to save the U.S. from bankruptcy; he was able to make good on the debt payments and start to develop the nation’s credit, which he said, this is important if we’re ever going to get more loans, keep the interest rate down, this will be an important thing for our development as a nation. And, by making good on the debts, the value government debt that was out in circulation, tripled.

Why would that be important or good? Well, he gets to that in his Report on the National Bank: In this report, Hamilton works to what Washington and others almost seemed like magic, which is that he turned debt into money. What he did was to create a National Bank as a repository for incoming imports, other taxes, a place to centralize the nation’s finances; and, he allowed people to get in on the bank, by capitalizing it with actual specie, as it’s called, gold or silver; but also, by depositing the Federal debt. The capitalization was most Federal debt and not specie.

So by using the debt that now had almost a full value, full face value, as deposits for capitalizing the bank, the bank was now able to give out loans, money, monetize that amount. Meaning that instead of being a burden, debt has to be paid off over time, etc., — you know, obviously, he still wanted to pay off the debt — but in the meantime, it now served as a basis for having circulating money, for making it possible to get loans and things of that sort, and overall finance the development of the nation in a way that couldn’t be controlled by the European, British ability to have a control over specie, which they had been sucking out of the United States.

So, unfortunately, this idea of having a National Bank was not well received by everybody, including Thomas Jefferson, who urged President Washington, not to sign the law, that the National Bank was actually unconstitutional, because the Constitution didn’t say “the U.S. government may create a National Bank” — it wasn’t enumerated there. And that Hamilton was going too far in saying, well, this is necessary and proper, this is just required to fulfill the obligations and the responsibilities and the powers that the Federal government does have.

So this is a major point: Can the Congress, can the government, only do the specific things enumerated in the Constitution? Or, is it necessary to engage in activities, in order to bring those things about? In this article, — let me read this for you: This is about how much Jefferson was opposed to the National Bank. He said that if anybody in Virginia tried to help or assist in creating a branch of the National Bank in Virginia, that that person “shall be adjudged guilty of high treason and shall suffer death.”

Jefferson said that any Virginian helping to set up a National Bank branch in Virginia should be executed for treason against the state of Virginia!

So this was very — this was pretty intense. In his report, this “Opinion on the Constitutionality of Bank of the U.S.,” which was delivered from Hamilton to Washington on Feb. 23, 1791, just a very short time before Washington had to make a decision, on signing or vetoing the bill, Hamilton has — it’s really a very fun read — he goes through why the bank is necessary, why it’s beneficial, and demolishes Jefferson’s complaints. There’s this one, for example, possibly in an attempt to confuse Washington, or overwhelm him with legalisms, Jefferson said that the National Bank would violate the laws of “alienage, dissent, escheat, forfeiture, and distribution.” I don’t know if anybody hearing this is familiar with any of those terms. Some of them are somewhat outdated, but Hamilton took care of all of that in one single paragraph, just pointing out that Jefferson was making arguments, not legitimate on their face, but because he had an ulterior motive.

And this is what comes in a very direct way, in the Report on Manufactures. Because this really got to the kernel of things, and this is where Hamilton was able to most directly put forward his vision for the nation. Which, at that time, it was actually controversial about whether it would be good to be a manufacturing nation. For example, Thomas Jefferson said that would be a bad idea, that farming was the way to go, that we should be agricultural, and that we shouldn’t sully ourselves with manufacturing.

For example Jefferson said about the life of the farmer, possibly, specifically meaning a “farmer” who has slaves doing the farming; he said, [as read] “Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators [farmers] is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example.” Farmer cannot be immoral, according to Jefferson. And then, he describes how manufacturing is “pestilence” upon society. He says, “While we have land to labor then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a workbench, or twirling a distaff. … let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. … The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body.” That’s Jefferson’s views on manufacturing!

So what did Hamilton do on this front? In addition to his work as Treasury Secretary, he also set up the Society for the Promotion of Useful Manufactures, which created a model industrial park in what’s today known as Paterson, New Jersey — Paterson, named after then then Governor, who supported the formation of a whole series of workshops, based on water power. So, a centralized way to take the flow of the river than had a good drop there, take the water, channel it through, use water wheels to have a major industrial center.

Hamilton believed that not only was it important to have import duties, to prevent the flooding of the market with British manufactured goods, to make it possible for American industry to get going, but that that shouldn’t be relied on; that it could encourage laziness among manufacturers, and that the government should take an active role in promoting manufactures. And he saw this Society for the Promotion of Useful Manufactures, and the model production that was set up in Paterson, as an example of that.

Let me read a quote from Hamilton, from his . This was delivered December 5th, 1791, so within two years: Jan. 14th, 1790, the first of his major reports, and this is his fourth out of these four. And he directly addressed the idea that only agriculture was useful. He said,

“That the annual produce of the land and labour of a country can only be encreased, in two ways — by some improvement in the productive powers of the useful labour, which actually exists within it, or by some increase in the quantity of such labour: That with regard to the first,” he says “the labour of Artificers [manufacturers, non-farming] being capable of greater subdivision and simplicity of operation, than that of Cultivators [farmers], it is susceptible, in a proportionably greater degree, of improvement in its productive powers, whether to be derived from an accession of Skill, or from the application of ingenious machinery; in which particular, therefore, the labour employed in the culture of land can pretend to no advantage over that engaged in manufactures….”

This is certainly born out in the ongoing history of the country, where, as the time of these reports, 90% of the population was involved in agriculture, whereas today, it’s below 1%. This didn’t occur by improvements in agriculture itself. It came from developing industry, “manufacturers,” as Hamilton would call it, and the incredible developments in that field — the steam engine, internal combustion engine, nuclear power, — these didn’t come out of farming. This came out of being industrial, and being a science oriented society, rather than a tradition-oriented society.

So, I think if you think about this, today, if we consider the understanding that Hamilton had of how to actually improve the wealth of the nation, of the real source of economic growth, that he was able to express that in its most direct and straightforward form in the Report on Manufactures, although, as an outlook it pervades his entire approach to economy as seen in the previous reports, as well, where although they treat financial subjects, they have a much broader ranging goal embedded in them.

In the Report on Manufactures Hamilton describes all the sorts of different ways that the Federal government could assist the growth of manufactures, how duties ought to be set, the use of “bounties,” or bonuses, to manufacturers who were developing new techniques, new technologies. And he has an understanding that that’s the kind of society, of a hardworking and developing society, which will be necessary to develop a strong nation.

I think he’d be shocked to visit today’s Manhattan, and see that we’ve gone below the level of agriculture, even, at least agriculture is productive. Now some people say that we can have an economy that’s based on finance itself. A large portion of the GDP, etc., of the country is now based on finance, not manufacturing, not production, not even agriculture.

And that, we have to keep in mind his approach to physical economy. So many of the debates that happen today, about the states versus the Federal government, or how far can the Federal government go? Is it the Federal government’s business to interfere in the economy? To promote the economy as a whole? The answers to so many of these live questions today, can already be found, in the work of Alexander Hamilton. And in reading through these reports, I think will give a very excellent foundation on our country’s history, on the kinds of economics that actually worked to develop, and provide very helpful insights into how to move forward today, physically, and as a science-driven economy.

OGDEN: And I should just say, that these four reports to Congress by Alexander Hamilton are not classified. They are in the public domain! So they’re available to anybody to read. You don’t need to declassify these. You can read them and study them — including members of Congress.

Now, I just want to say in conclusion that we will be live-streaming coverage of the Schiller Institute conference that’s occurring tomorrow in New York City. The name of this is “Decision Day for Humanity: The U.S. must return to its founding principles and join the BRICS alliance now.” And obviously, this is occurring on June 6th, which is the anniversary of D-Day, which marked the beginning of the downfall of Nazism. So this is a very auspicious occasion and we invite you, if you’re in the New York City area, please attend in person; contact our office there, or our national office. If you’re not in the New York area please tune in on the LaRouche PAC website.

Also, all of the other videos that have been streamed on our website this week are available in archive, including the video of the extraordinary press conference that occurred on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with Senator Rand Paul, https://youtu.be/-ozSLcVT8nM; as well as the third in the series of Fireside Chats which Mr. LaRouche hosted yesterday with the national LaRouche PAC activists. So we encourage you to watch those if you haven’t already, but also absolutely please circulate them as widely as you can.

So that’s going to bring a conclusion to our webcast here, tonight. We thank you for joining us, and please tune in again tomorrow at 1 o’clock Eastern for our live coverage of the event in New York City. Thank you very much, and good night.

Today’s show was pre-recorded, we discuss both the World War III crisis and a short history of Alexander Hamilton. Tune in Saturday LIVE at 1pm Eastern.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s June 5th, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our Friday evening broadcast here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined here in the studio today by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review, and Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Basement team, and the three of us just literally came from a meeting with Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. LaRouche where we discussed the content of tonight’s broadcast. We’re meeting here tonight on a very auspicious occasion. We are on the verge tomorrow of the next in a series of major conferences being held in New York City, as part of the so-called Manhattan project. This conference is going to be broadcast live, on the LaRouche PAC website; we’ll have live coverage which you’re invited to tune in for tomorrow afternoon.

And this is just one more in a series of live broadcasts that we’ve had literally every single day on the LaRouche PAC website this week, starting with the Policy Committee show on Monday, the live press conference that was broadcast from Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the New Paradigm show that was broadcast regularly on Wednesday; the activists’ call that Mr. LaRouche held, the third in the so-called “Fireside Chats,” that was broadcast last night, Thursday; the broadcast that you’re watching right here, Friday, and this conference in New York coming up on Saturday, tomorrow.

And as I said, this has been an extraordinary week, really a dramatic escalation on all fronts. What we began this week with, was the announcement last Saturday, by Martin O’Malley of his official campaign for the United States Presidency, which he announced from Baltimore, Maryland and which has gained him the notoriety of being named “Public Enemy #1” by Wall Street. And I know this will be the subject of our institutional question which we’ll get to very shortly.

But this announcement by O’Malley was coupled with the press conference which was held on Tuesday which I just mentioned by Sen. Rand Paul. Sen. Rand Paul introduced his Senate bill, the equivalent of what has been introduced already by Walter Jones [nc], Stephen Lynch [ma], and Thomas Massie [ky] in the United States House of Representatives, to force the declassification of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report. This has been covered widely; I know Jeff will probably elaborate more on this. Rand Paul was joined by former Sen. Bob Graham, three members of the House of Representatives, as well as leading members of the 9/11 families. And this has been a very significant escalation in the campaign to force President Obama to declassify these 28 pages.

And then, what we’ve had with the third in this series of Fireside Chats with Mr. LaRouche, which has engaged an increasing number of LaRouche PAC activists across the United States, with a very intensive dialogue that happened last night. And like I said, this was the first time that we live-broadcast this discussion on the LaRouche PAC website. [https://youtu.be/8JVkEXy1cYM, or https://soundcloud.com/larouche-pac/lyndon-larouche-on-the-lpac- activist-call-june-4-2015] It’s now available there in archive; it’s at the very top of our website today, and it’s available for you to go back and listen to, if you haven’t already. And this involved people from every corner of the United States, the East Coast, the West Coast, everywhere in between. And this is a very important escalation on the part of Mr. LaRouche personally, intervening to shape the institution of the United States Presidency.

Now, I’d like to transition directly into the remarks that Jeff Steinberg will make, which then will be followed by a further elaboration of certain aspects by Jason Ross. But what I’d like to do, at this point, is read the institutional question that has come in this week, which we discussed with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, and it’s on the subject of Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley. It reads as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, last week Fox Business Network’s Charles Gasparino reported from Wall Street sources that Goldman Sachs and other big Wall Street banks view Martin O’Malley as their ‘Public Enemy #1, persona non grata.’ In your view, what are the qualities of Democratic Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley? And what impact will his candidacy have on Wall Street? Thank you.”

So, Jeff, why don’t you come to the podium?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Well, as Matt indicated, just a few moments ago, we had an extensive discussion with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche on this subject and on a number of other things that you’ll be hearing about, later in this broadcast. So I’ve got some direct quotes from Mr. LaRouche, which I want to share with you, and then I’ll elaborate on some of the further points of that discussion that are relevant to this institutional question. What Mr. LaRouche said is, “O’Malley is doing the right thing. Right now he’s the only qualified candidate. The issue is that we must assemble a team around him. This is the Presidential system; we need a group of qualified minds, working in coordination. We need to assemble a group of faces to do the right thing, and O’Malley is going in that direction. Hillary can’t make it.

“One of the immediate priorities is to get rid of Obama. If Obama remains in control, under British direction, we may be facing thermonuclear war this summer. Obama must be thrown out. That means O’Malley is in, not formally as the replacement President, but as the emerging figure around which a new Presidency can be immediately assembled.

“The action this week by Rand Paul has contributed to pulling down Obama. The Senate initiative on the 28 pages was a crucial flanking operation, and is one of the things that further pull down Obama this week.”

Now, the opening that has been provided by the fact that we now have bills in both the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, demanding the immediate declassification of the 28 pages from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, means that this is now a serious legislative proposition. You have House Resolution 14, H.Res.14, and you have now Senate bill S.1471; those two bills in combination, put onto President Obama’s desk, forces the issue of the Saudi and Anglo-Saudi forces that combined to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

This must become part of the public record, public recognition of what this world is really all about, and what must be done to alter the course of international affairs and change radically, the policies that have been pursued by the last two Presidential administrations. The fact that both President Bush and President Obama chose willfully to conceal the hand of the Saudis, and the British behind them, in the 9/11 attacks is one of the most significant factors that has driven the United States in the wrong direction on virtually every major policy over the last 15-year period.

Now, the immediate situation that we are dealing with, that prompts Mr. LaRouche to insist that the first step in a new Presidency must be the removal of President Obama from office, is the fact that there is right now, an intensification of the drive for war against Russia. In the most recent developments, you have Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, touring around Europe, meeting both with American military officials and American diplomats in Europe, considering a range of options directed against Russia, including the possible deployment of new generation, theater nuclear weapons into continental Western Europe, with the idea that some of these weapons might be used in a preemptive strike against strategic targets inside Russian territory: This is the threat of thermonuclear war, over the very near future.

Now the fact that of the matter is, that from the moment that the United States broke the understanding with Russia about the deployment of a fully integrated and joint missile defense system, to protect Europe against possible missile attacks coming out of the Middle East, from that point on, in the eyes of the Russians, and in the eyes of many American specialists, the U.S. and NATO have been moving towards a potential first-strike doctrine against Russia.

President Putin has made this point clear; the Foreign Minister Lavrov has made this point clear, and Russia has moved very rapidly to modernize their own strategic force, in order to retain a certain balance of nuclear terror. We’re still under the horrors of MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction]. And so, now, with these latest moves coming out of the Obama administration, considering a new doctrine of possible offensive, first-strike nuclear attacks against Russian targets, we see just how precariously close we are towards war.

Now, in our discussions just a little while ago with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche, Lyn also made the point very clearly, there are now three leading German statesmen — two former Chancellors, Helmut Schmidt and Gerhard Schröder; along with the current SPD Foreign Minister of Germany [frank-walter] Steinmeier — who have all publicly criticized Chancellor Angela Merkel for having refused to invite Russian President Putin to fully participate in the G7 summit meeting that will be taking place this weekend. This should have been a resumption of the G8 summit process, by reincluding Russia in it, and as a result of failing to do that, Merkel has herself further extended and increased the danger of a war that would very rapidly become a thermonuclear war of annihilation directed against Russia.

This is exactly why Mr. LaRouche said, just hours ago, that we not only have to get rid of Obama, but Merkel has to be brought down as well. This kind of playing “Russian Roulette” with the survival of mankind by threatening nuclear first strike and moving the world closer and closer to this kind of confrontation, is a hallmark of leaders who have gone completely insane and must be removed from office, for the sake of mankind.

You have a situation in Ukraine right now, where you see a similar form of flight-forward madness, where President Poroshenko has claimed that Ukraine is bracing for a full-scale Russian invasion of eastern Europe, which would create a state of outright warfare between Ukraine and Russia. Now, if you study the recent statements, as recently as earlier today, from Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, you see that the Russians are calling for exactly the opposite: They’re calling for the full and total implementation of the agreements that were made in Minsk in February of this year, for a de-escalation of the Ukrainian crisis.

So we are at a moment where, we have in the case of O’Malley, the potentiality for organizing a new American Presidency, where we can assemble a team of qualified individuals, many of whom have been absolutely excluded from any involvement in the official Executive branch over the last 15 years of Bush and Cheney, and now Obama, but who are still there and are available. We have that capability.

And one of the critical points that I’ll briefly mention and that Jason will take up at greater length, is that a key measure of an effective new Presidency, is starting from the recognition that we have a long constitutional tradition of how to develop the U.S. economy, by extension, how to develop the world economy. There were four principal reports that were presented to the U.S. Congress, by our first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, one of the seminal of Manhattan, that was his Report on Manufacturing, his Report on the National Bank, his Report on Public Credit, and his “Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank.” Those four documents represent the founding principles of the American System of political economy. On those rare occasions where American Presidents have pursued those policies, the nation has prospered, the nation has been at war, we’ve made great scientific and economic strides, the conditions of life for all Americans have been uplifted, and in the case of John Quincy Adams, those principles became the basis for developing American foreign policy and American diplomacy towards the rest of the world.

Far too many occasions, we’ve seen Presidents and Congresses, that have failed to grasp those core principles. And I must say that those reports, while they were written in the late 18th century, by and large in the 1790s, they still are as relevant today, as they were back then.

And so anybody who wants to truly understand what the cornerstone what the cornerstone principles must be of the kind of new Presidency that we’re talking about, right now centering around the one candidate who’s expressed those ideas clearly, which is why Wall Street hates him: And that’s Martin O’Malley.

It’s essential to read those documents, to study them, to think about it, and then to hold up the hideous economic performance of the last two Presidents and most 20th century Presidents, when compared to the standards that were clearly defined by Hamilton, as the basis for our constitutional republic, and for what all educated people in the 19th century widely referred to as the American System of political economy, which was the enemy of the British system.

OGDEN: Well, it really reminds you what Martin O’Malley had to say in response to this declaration that he was persona non grata on Wall Street. It really reminds you of what Franklin Roosevelt said, when he was in the exact same position: He said, “They hate me, and I relish their hatred.” This is actually a very famous speech he made at Madison Square Garden, in New York City, on Oct. 31, 1936. And I just want to read a short excerpt from that if people aren’t familiar with this. This is what President Franklin Roosevelt said. He said: “We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

“They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

“I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.”

So, I think you could possibly put those words into Martin O’Malley’s mouth at this point.

Now, what Mr. LaRouche, as Jeff just mentioned, was emphasizing when we met with him this morning, is that we now have to clearly define our role. It’s very clear that the formation of a new Presidency is being determined from the top down, by Mr. LaRouche’s leadership and the leadership that he has provided over the last several years: Glass-Steagall, and shutting down a bankrupt Wall Street with that O’Malley is doing, and another Presidential candidate, Rand Paul, and his move now to force the declassification of the 28 pages and expose the Saudi role in funding 9/11 and other global terror operations.

But we have to escalate, and we have to continue to provide that top-down leadership, as Mr. LaRouche very clearly did in his discussion with the national activists, the so-called “Fireside Chat,” yesterday. And what Mr. LaRouche said is that we must clearly define our role around the Alexander Hamilton principle, that all the greatest leaders of this country have adopted Hamilton as their guidepost and have implemented the Hamiltonian principle in order to save and build the United States. And Mr. LaRouche emphasized, as Jeff mentioned that the four reports by Alexander Hamilton, his Report on Public Credit, his Report on Manufactures, his Report on the National Bank, and his argument “The Constitutionality of the National Bank”: All four of these reports constitute sort of a fourfold principle by which we can implement Hamilton’s policies today.

And what Mr. LaRouche said is, “The time has come to remind the citizens of our United States what the mission of these United States is. We must refresh our knowledge of our own history.” So here to do that for us tonight, at least preliminarily, is Mr. Jason Ross, who has recently done some work on refreshing his own knowledge of the principles of Alexander Hamilton. And we would like to initiate that discussion here, today, and I’m sure it will be a discussion that will continue into the conference up in New York tomorrow. So, Jason why don’t you come to the podium?

JASON ROSS: Yes, some very recent refreshing. So, Webster said of the work of Hamilton, that just as Athena burst forth, fully armed from the head of Zeus, so did the economy of America burst forth from the mind of Alexander Hamilton, over a very short period of time. As Jeff had said, these four major reports of Hamilton’s that we’ll discuss were written over the span of only two years: These Reports on Public Credit, on the National Bank, the “Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank” — which was written to counter Thomas Jefferson’s nonsense on it — and his Report on Manufactures.

In all of these, and in Hamilton’s work as Treasury Secretary and in his work for the nation, before and after that, he did lot of work on finance directly, on monetary and tax matters, but his objectives, his goal, his real work, was not to achieve financial policy. It was to promote social, political, cultural ideas of what the human species was, how the nation’s economy should move forward, and really what we ought to do, how can we move forward? What’s the purpose of the nation? What’s the purpose of a person?

So, let’s — I support it makes sense to take these in order, as a brief summary of them. So the Report on the Public Credit: Hamilton came into office, he was confirmed by the Senate, he became our first Treasury Secretary on Sept. 11, 1789. He was tasked by the Congress to pull together a report on the nation’s finances. The amount of debt that the United States owed at this point was over $70 million, at that time, a huge sum/ And things weren’t being paid; this debt included states’ debts, included foreign debts, it included IOUs from the time of the Revolution. It seemed impossible to make payments on them, or really, to figure out how much it was.

So over the course of only a few months, Hamilton wrote a book-length report where he pulled everything together, he got a clear sense of what the situation of the debts was, and he used it as an opportunity, both to unify the nation and to develop the economy. So among the things that he did was push for the Federal assumption of the states’ debts, that the national government would take up the state debts that were incurred as part of the Revolution, as something that was of an entire national action.

This was opposed. As a matter of fact, for some of the Southerners to give their assent to the assumption of the state debts, they demanded that the capital move, that it no longer be in New York or in Philadelphia, where it later went, but that it be on the Potomac. That was — see, way back, from the very beginning of our country, it was an unfortunate compromise that seemingly had to be made with the Southern influence that we’ve now got D.C., that we’ve got the Federal government in D.C. which is very unfortunate because just being in Manhattan would immediately improve the intelligence and functioning of our country. But this was a compromise that was made at the time.

So assumption of the state debts, pulling the debts together, basically reissuing as one kind of unified debt, to pay off all the old debts, call them in and have a unified form of debt with a specific way of paying it off, through import taxes, which he said should be controlled only by the Federal government; the states should not be involved in collecting imports, so already a fight with the states’ rights, or people like Governor Clinton of New York who wanted to maintain New York as his own sort of kingdom, not really part of the country. As well as taxing — and this got controversial — whiskey and other products inside the U.S. that were produced domestically.

So, overall, by his actions, he was able to save the U.S. from bankruptcy; he was able to make good on the debt payments and start to develop the nation’s credit, which he said, this is important if we’re ever going to get more loans, keep the interest rate down, this will be an important thing for our development as a nation. And, by making good on the debts, the value government debt that was out in circulation, tripled.

Why would that be important or good? Well, he gets to that in his Report on the National Bank: In this report, Hamilton works to what Washington and others almost seemed like magic, which is that he turned debt into money. What he did was to create a National Bank as a repository for incoming imports, other taxes, a place to centralize the nation’s finances; and, he allowed people to get in on the bank, by capitalizing it with actual specie, as it’s called, gold or silver; but also, by depositing the Federal debt. The capitalization was most Federal debt and not specie.

So by using the debt that now had almost a full value, full face value, as deposits for capitalizing the bank, the bank was now able to give out loans, money, monetize that amount. Meaning that instead of being a burden, debt has to be paid off over time, etc., — you know, obviously, he still wanted to pay off the debt — but in the meantime, it now served as a basis for having circulating money, for making it possible to get loans and things of that sort, and overall finance the development of the nation in a way that couldn’t be controlled by the European, British ability to have a control over specie, which they had been sucking out of the United States.

So, unfortunately, this idea of having a National Bank was not well received by everybody, including Thomas Jefferson, who urged President Washington, not to sign the law, that the National Bank was actually unconstitutional, because the Constitution didn’t say “the U.S. government may create a National Bank” — it wasn’t enumerated there. And that Hamilton was going too far in saying, well, this is necessary and proper, this is just required to fulfill the obligations and the responsibilities and the powers that the Federal government does have.

So this is a major point: Can the Congress, can the government, only do the specific things enumerated in the Constitution? Or, is it necessary to engage in activities, in order to bring those things about? In this article, — let me read this for you: This is about how much Jefferson was opposed to the National Bank. He said that if anybody in Virginia tried to help or assist in creating a branch of the National Bank in Virginia, that that person “shall be adjudged guilty of high treason and shall suffer death.”

Jefferson said that any Virginian helping to set up a National Bank branch in Virginia should be executed for treason against the state of Virginia!

So this was very — this was pretty intense. In his report, this “Opinion on the Constitutionality of Bank of the U.S.,” which was delivered from Hamilton to Washington on Feb. 23, 1791, just a very short time before Washington had to make a decision, on signing or vetoing the bill, Hamilton has — it’s really a very fun read — he goes through why the bank is necessary, why it’s beneficial, and demolishes Jefferson’s complaints. There’s this one, for example, possibly in an attempt to confuse Washington, or overwhelm him with legalisms, Jefferson said that the National Bank would violate the laws of “alienage, dissent, escheat, forfeiture, and distribution.” I don’t know if anybody hearing this is familiar with any of those terms. Some of them are somewhat outdated, but Hamilton took care of all of that in one single paragraph, just pointing out that Jefferson was making arguments, not legitimate on their face, but because he had an ulterior motive.

And this is what comes in a very direct way, in the Report on Manufactures. Because this really got to the kernel of things, and this is where Hamilton was able to most directly put forward his vision for the nation. Which, at that time, it was actually controversial about whether it would be good to be a manufacturing nation. For example, Thomas Jefferson said that would be a bad idea, that farming was the way to go, that we should be agricultural, and that we shouldn’t sully ourselves with manufacturing.

For example Jefferson said about the life of the farmer, possibly, specifically meaning a “farmer” who has slaves doing the farming; he said, [as read] “Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators [farmers] is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example.” Farmer cannot be immoral, according to Jefferson. And then, he describes how manufacturing is “pestilence” upon society. He says, “While we have land to labor then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a workbench, or twirling a distaff. … let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. … The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body.” That’s Jefferson’s views on manufacturing!

So what did Hamilton do on this front? In addition to his work as Treasury Secretary, he also set up the Society for the Promotion of Useful Manufactures, which created a model industrial park in what’s today known as Paterson, New Jersey — Paterson, named after then then Governor, who supported the formation of a whole series of workshops, based on water power. So, a centralized way to take the flow of the river than had a good drop there, take the water, channel it through, use water wheels to have a major industrial center.

Hamilton believed that not only was it important to have import duties, to prevent the flooding of the market with British manufactured goods, to make it possible for American industry to get going, but that that shouldn’t be relied on; that it could encourage laziness among manufacturers, and that the government should take an active role in promoting manufactures. And he saw this Society for the Promotion of Useful Manufactures, and the model production that was set up in Paterson, as an example of that.

Let me read a quote from Hamilton, from his . This was delivered December 5th, 1791, so within two years: Jan. 14th, 1790, the first of his major reports, and this is his fourth out of these four. And he directly addressed the idea that only agriculture was useful. He said,

“That the annual produce of the land and labour of a country can only be encreased, in two ways — by some improvement in the productive powers of the useful labour, which actually exists within it, or by some increase in the quantity of such labour: That with regard to the first,” he says “the labour of Artificers [manufacturers, non-farming] being capable of greater subdivision and simplicity of operation, than that of Cultivators [farmers], it is susceptible, in a proportionably greater degree, of improvement in its productive powers, whether to be derived from an accession of Skill, or from the application of ingenious machinery; in which particular, therefore, the labour employed in the culture of land can pretend to no advantage over that engaged in manufactures….”

This is certainly born out in the ongoing history of the country, where, as the time of these reports, 90% of the population was involved in agriculture, whereas today, it’s below 1%. This didn’t occur by improvements in agriculture itself. It came from developing industry, “manufacturers,” as Hamilton would call it, and the incredible developments in that field — the steam engine, internal combustion engine, nuclear power, — these didn’t come out of farming. This came out of being industrial, and being a science oriented society, rather than a tradition-oriented society.

So, I think if you think about this, today, if we consider the understanding that Hamilton had of how to actually improve the wealth of the nation, of the real source of economic growth, that he was able to express that in its most direct and straightforward form in the Report on Manufactures, although, as an outlook it pervades his entire approach to economy as seen in the previous reports, as well, where although they treat financial subjects, they have a much broader ranging goal embedded in them.

In the Report on Manufactures Hamilton describes all the sorts of different ways that the Federal government could assist the growth of manufactures, how duties ought to be set, the use of “bounties,” or bonuses, to manufacturers who were developing new techniques, new technologies. And he has an understanding that that’s the kind of society, of a hardworking and developing society, which will be necessary to develop a strong nation.

I think he’d be shocked to visit today’s Manhattan, and see that we’ve gone below the level of agriculture, even, at least agriculture is productive. Now some people say that we can have an economy that’s based on finance itself. A large portion of the GDP, etc., of the country is now based on finance, not manufacturing, not production, not even agriculture.

And that, we have to keep in mind his approach to physical economy. So many of the debates that happen today, about the states versus the Federal government, or how far can the Federal government go? Is it the Federal government’s business to interfere in the economy? To promote the economy as a whole? The answers to so many of these live questions today, can already be found, in the work of Alexander Hamilton. And in reading through these reports, I think will give a very excellent foundation on our country’s history, on the kinds of economics that actually worked to develop, and provide very helpful insights into how to move forward today, physically, and as a science-driven economy.

OGDEN: And I should just say, that these four reports to Congress by Alexander Hamilton are not classified. They are in the public domain! So they’re available to anybody to read. You don’t need to declassify these. You can read them and study them — including members of Congress.

Now, I just want to say in conclusion that we will be live-streaming coverage of the Schiller Institute conference that’s occurring tomorrow in New York City. The name of this is “Decision Day for Humanity: The U.S. must return to its founding principles and join the BRICS alliance now.” And obviously, this is occurring on June 6th, which is the anniversary of D-Day, which marked the beginning of the downfall of Nazism. So this is a very auspicious occasion and we invite you, if you’re in the New York City area, please attend in person; contact our office there, or our national office. If you’re not in the New York area please tune in on the LaRouche PAC website.

Also, all of the other videos that have been streamed on our website this week are available in archive, including the video of the extraordinary press conference that occurred on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with Senator Rand Paul, https://youtu.be/-ozSLcVT8nM; as well as the third in the series of Fireside Chats which Mr. LaRouche hosted yesterday with the national LaRouche PAC activists. So we encourage you to watch those if you haven’t already, but also absolutely please circulate them as widely as you can.

So that’s going to bring a conclusion to our webcast here, tonight. We thank you for joining us, and please tune in again tomorrow at 1 o’clock Eastern for our live coverage of the event in New York City. Thank you very much, and good night.

Transcript now available—How can mankind get its identity back? This question is explored with guests Jeff Steinberg and Jason Ross, with Matt Ogden moderating.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it’s May 15, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I’d like to welcome you to our regular Friday evening webcast from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by both Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Science Team. Both of whom will be participating as featured speakers in an event up in New York City tomorrow, which is titled “Prometheus Unbound: Defeating the Gods of Olympus”. And this is precisely the subject which Mr. LaRouche wished tonight’s webcast to be concentrated upon as well. Specifically as Mr. LaRouche identified during a preliminary, preparatory discussion that we had with him, what is the true meaning of the human species; and how can we regain a moral and intellectual connection and commitment to that, despite the efforts of individuals such as Bertrand Russell and other modern day Zeussians over the course of the 20th Century to degrade the human species to nothing more than mere beasts. Or, said otherwise, how can we give mankind his true sense of identity back? So, we thought we’d elaborate on some of these topics here tonight as a sort of preview of what you can expect to occur tomorrow up in New York City.

So, first we’re going to hear briefly from Jeffrey Steinberg; who will be followed by a somewhat longer presentation by Jason Ross, who will elaborate on what has been the cause of the moral and intellectual decline that has characterized the United States and Europe over the course of most the 20th Century, and what must be done to reverse that. And let me just say that Mr. LaRouche emphasized that far from being an abstract point of discussion, this question is a factor of crucial importance in the context of the present period; especially in the trans-Atlantic region, where in the 20th Century we’ve seen the net decline in the moral, intellectual, and really spiritual commitment to what it means to be human at the point now where we are faced with the danger of general thermonuclear war and the threat to mankind’s very existence. It’s at times like these that we must penetrate below and beyond the conventional banality of practical political issues, so-called; and proceed to the axiomatics which determine whether or not great civilizations rise or fall. We must address questions such as what is the true destiny of the human species? And for those of you who have been watching these broadcasts over the course of the last several weeks, you’ll know that we’ve been doing just that with the work that Benjamin Deniston has been presenting on this forum and elsewhere, along with others. And as we begin to confront this in various ways, these questions, our true identity as an actually galactic species, we are forced to ask and answer completely new questions that our species must fulfill. These are moral and even spiritual questions, which go far beyond what we tend to call science today in conventional terms, precisely because persons such as Bertrand Russell and others, bastardized the name of science over the course of the 20th Century in opposition to a small handful of true scientists in fact, such as Albert Einstein, who we’ll be discussing more later this evening.

So, before we get to that, I’m going to ask Jeffrey Steinberg to address briefly some of the more proximate immediate developments which pertain to our discussion here tonight. And I think a good way of introducing what Jeff has to say, is to read the institutional question which we received for tonight’s broadcast, which was presented to Mr. LaRouche during our preparatory discussions with him. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, the United States House of Representatives has voted to end the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records. The vote was 338 to 88; henceforth the NSA will have to go to court for case-by-case approval. Bulk collection was revealed in 2013 by ex-security contractor Edward Snowden. The bill passed by the House, ‘The United States Freedom Act’, is supported by privacy and civil rights advocates, who say it protects privacy while preserving national security. The bill amends select of the US Patriot Act, which expires June 1. Earlier this month, the US Appeals Court also ruled that bulk collection of phone records by the NSA was illegal. What are your views about the US House of Representatives vote, and the NSA collections?” So, let me just ask Jeff to come to the podium to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response to that question.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Matt. Well, first of all, on the immediate issue of the Congressional action and also the ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last week, I think that part of it is pretty obvious. We’ve been living under a tyranny since the original September 11, 2001 attacks. For many young people — virtually anyone under the age of 21 — who spent their entire conscious adolescent and adult life living under the Bush/Cheney Presidency followed by the Obama Presidency, there’s virtually no real sense of any actual connection to our Constitutional republic and what it means to live under a viable Presidency that’s operating under those Constitutional principles. So quite clearly, this action is important and is positive. But it must be understood in a larger context that we’ve been discussing on this show for the past several months. Namely the fact that as a result of the policies, first of the Bush/Cheney administration, reinforced and further advanced by the policies of the last six years plus of the Obama administration, we reached a point where many leading political and national security circles in the United States — at least sane elements — as well as similar elements in Russia, in China, in India, and in many parts of western Europe, concluded that we are on the verge of a war that could very rapidly become a war of thermonuclear extinction. The entirety of Obama Presidency, up until very recently, has been singularly directed at forcing a confrontation with Russia and China. And in that sense, every aspect of the Obama Presidency has been a thorough continuity from the Bush/Cheney administration and for the drive for tyranny and dictatorship that came as the result of the Anglo-Saudi operation known as the 9/11 attacks. So, yes the action by Congress — a bipartisan overwhelming vote — was significant; but it must be understood that this was one of a number of actions that have been clearly taken by certain leading institutional circles here in the United States, who are motivated by the fact that we are on the very edge of thermonuclear war. A war that would be a war of absolute annihilation of humanity; and therefore, this is the height of insanity.

Now, as Mr. LaRouche has been arguing, really persistently since April of 2009, President Obama should be removed from office. He should have been impeached long ago; he could have been removed from office by elements within the Cabinet invoking the 25th Amendment. That clearly has not happened; in the same way that Bush and Cheney were not impeached for cause back when they were in power. So, what we’re dealing with now, is a situation which one could describe as the bringing down of the Obama Presidency by 1000 political cuts. So you had the House vote earlier this week; the overwhelming repudiation of one element of the police state structure. But you’ve had quite a number of other developments indicate that there is a substantial institutional break with President Obama; and that we can expect a lot more of this to happen. And that cumulatively, it must very rapidly lead to the end of this Presidency by Constitutional means.

So, what are some of the other developments that we’ve seen just in the last several weeks? Well, for one thing, you had the vote in the US Senate, earlier this week in which every Senate Democrat with only one exception voted against the President on the fast track for passage of the two big trade agreements — the Asia-Pacific free trade agreement, and the trans-Atlantic free trade agreement. Ultimately, there was enormous arm twisting and pressure by the White House; and so there was a reversal of that vote in the Senate. But it put President Obama clearly on the spot; and represents the clearest indication of a decisive break. We’ll see many more manifestations of it coming from elements within the Democrat Party.

We’ve had the revelations published last week in the London Review of Books by American write Seymour Hersh, that basically exposed the fact that, in collusion with the Saudis, President Obama lied to the American people repeatedly about the circumstances around the killing of Osama bin Laden. And as the Hersh article — 10,000 word article — revealed, although the killing was carried out by American special forces teams, virtually every other detailing of the killing was completely fabricated. Was a series of lies and cover stories that persist to this day, including the fact that the Obama White House tried to dismiss the Hersh article, and claimed that it was based on one single, unreliable source; which was absolutely untrue. So, this was not a commando raid against some al-Qaeda stronghold that was unbeknownst to the Pakistani government. Every aspect of the description that came out from President Obama’s own lips just hours after the killing of bin Laden, is now exposed as an absolute lie, fabrication, and fraud. So, in effect, the one “great foreign policy accomplishment” of the Obama Presidency, namely the killing of Osama bin Laden, was completely misreported and lied about; including allegations that some of the evidence leading to the assault on the bin Laden compound came as the result of waterboarding and other torture methods. That was all fabricated after the fact; and now many people around the world are fully aware of that as the result of both Hersh’s article and the clumsy efforts by the White House to cover it up.

Now, we’ve had other developments as well. We’ve had the fact that Secretary of State John Kerry, in complete contrast to every aspect of President Obama’s poisonous policy towards Russia and China, was able to visit with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Russian President Putin earlier this week for eight hours. And the net effect of that visit was: 1) a serious effort to de-escalate the war danger. A danger which I said earlier, and that Mr. LaRouche has emphasized for months, is really a danger of thermonuclear annihilation of mankind. Secondly, what Kerry did in the context of eight hours of discussions in Sochi with Lavrov and Putin, was to — in effect — stab President Obama in the back by moving in an opposite direction from the confrontation that has been characteristic of President Obama’s policy toward Russia and President Putin since the day Obama came into office. Evidence number one is the continuing role of Victoria Nuland; who openly engineered and supported the neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine, which really started a certain escalating phase of this drive towards confrontation with Russia and the prospective danger of thermonuclear war. Secretary Kerry, over this weekend, will be traveling to China; and I suspect that his efforts there will similarly go against the directionality of the Obama policy towards China, and reflects a certain move by senior figures within the governing institutions in the United States, who have recognized that the continuation of the Obama Presidency unchecked, will be a recipe for potential nuclear war and thermonuclear extinction. So, you have institutional elements that are moving in those directions.

And of course, as you step back and look at the global scale of events, we’ve had extraordinary developments this past week; further movement towards the emergence of a new paradigm which is much more in line with the real nature of mankind’s mission toward the future within this galaxy and Solar System. Namely, the further advances of the BRICS towards cooperation among a large array of sovereign nation-states; principally in the Asia-Pacific region, extending into parts of Europe, with cooperation in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere as well. You have Prime Minister Modi of India, on day two right now of his three-day historic visit to China; hosted by President Xi Jinping. You’ve had cooperation announced during last Saturday’s victory celebration on the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Hitler, that there will be convergence of the Eurasian Economic Union’s efforts with those of China’s initiatives around the New Silk Road policy. So, much of mankind is moving in a direction that reflects the actual nature of man and his potential as a truly, uniquely creative species.

Now, these actions that have been taken by certain leading institutional circles in the United States and elsewhere are being undertaken precisely because the situation is so dangerous and so grave. And on a certain level, at least some of the people that we’re referring to here are aware of the fact that the general level of moral, of culture, and of comprehension among the vast majority of Americans, and really citizens of the entire trans-Atlantic region, is something that falls way beyond the standard of human behavior. And in our lengthy discussion yesterday afternoon with Mr. LaRouche, among the points which he reiterated, and which Jason will take up in much more detail in just a few moments is the fact that since the very onset of the 20th Century, the entire trans-Atlantic region has gone through an extraordinary degeneration. The educational system has been destroyed in large measure; the scientific accomplishments that were reaching breakthrough levels in the latter part of the 19th Century, were completely suppressed by a tyranny of mathematics over physical science. And as Mr. LaRouche emphasized in numerous writings, one of the key figures in that assault, was the late Lord Bertrand Russell; whom Mr. LaRouche has described on many occasions as the most evil man of the 20th Century. Now, think for yourselves about the image that many of you have of Bertrand Russell — the wizened haired old anti-nuclear war activist. The fraud that has been perpetrated around the actual nature of Bertrand Russell, and Russell’s role in the moral and cultural destruction of the populations of the trans-Atlantic region, is one of the greatest frauds of the entire 20th Century. As devastating as the fraudulent idea that mathematics is superior to physical science.

Now, I just want to read a few quotes from Bertrand Russell, from published material that he had written over the span of a 20-year period during the peak of his economic and political and scientific life. I want to first read, and I want you think about these words, and judge for yourself both Russell’s intention on behalf of an evil, Satanic British Empire; and I want you to also weigh those intentions against where things now stand, here in the United States and across the Atlantic, in much of Western Europe, ask yourself: “Has Russell’s vision been accomplished? How far along the downward slope have we actually reached already?”

First of all, I want to read you a segment from a 1951 book by Bertrand Russell, called The Impact of Science on Society, and then I’ll read you a quote, similarly oriented from an earlier work by Russell. Here’s what Russell had to say: [as written]

“Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development. Two great men, Pavlov and Freud, have laid the foundation. I do not accept the view that they are in any essential conflict, but what structure will be built on their foundations is still in doubt. I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology…. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education.’ Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part…. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

“The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship…. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray. …

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

So that was 1951. These were not new ideas, because in in 1931, Russell wrote another book in which he again betrayed his abusive notion of the term “science.” This book was called The Scientific Outlook, and in a chapter called “Education in a Scientific Society,” he wrote:

“[t]he scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play…. All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called ‘co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.

“Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific technique, and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements….

“On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it.”

OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. And I think it was a very appropriate way to end your opening remarks here, by citing those thoroughly evil quotations by Bertrand Russell.

And as I stated at the introduction of this webcast, our mission here tonight is to address the fact that throughout the trans-Atlantic region, largely because of the influence of Bertrand Russell, we have lost touch with what it means to be human. And as Mr. LaRouche specified in our discussions with him, one of the most efficient ways to do that, is by means of the personality of Albert Einstein.

As Mr. LaRouche has been elaborating over the course of this week, in discussions, Einstein uniquely possessed the moral and the intellectual commitment to the true meaning of human life, a commitment which he defended and sustained while practically no other scientist, or no other associate of his in the 20th century, possessed the strength and the courage to do so. It was Albert Einstein’s devotion to what he understood to be the true identity of the human being, which was the source not only of his moral strength, but also of his intellectual genius which distinguished him from the vast majority of other so-called scientists, both among his contemporaries and since.

And in that context, I would just like to quickly call our viewers’ attention, to two articles that were featured in this week’s issue of Executive Intelligence Review magazine: One by Tony Papert, titled “Albert Einstein’s God” and the second, “The First Solvay, 350 B.C.: Aristotle’s Assault on Plato”, by Susan Kokinda, both of which tell the story that we’re addressing here tonight, how the 20th century became a century of moral, intellectual, and spiritual degeneration, and how this narrow thread of true science has been defended, only by those precious few, who had the integrity to reject this bestialization of man.

Now also featured in this week’s EIR is a very short article which was written by Albert Einstein himself. He wrote this article about another scientists who was very similar to himself in his lonely, but unshakable devotion, to the true identity of the human species: This man was Johannes Kepler. And this was an article which Einstein published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Nov. 9th, 1930, marking the 300th anniversary of the death of Johannes Kepler. And I just want to read two short excerpts from this, because I think they’re highly apropos too what we’re discussing here tonight, and I think will set up quite well, what Jason is going to present.

So, Einstein begins this article as follows:

” Precisely in such a troubled and turbulent time as ours, when it is hard to summon up joy about mankind and the progress of human affairs, it is especially comforting to think of such a great and serene person as Kepler.

“He lived at a time when the very conception of universal lawfulness of nature was not at all established. How great must have been his faith in such lawfulness, to have the strength to endure decades of patient, difficult work—supported by no one and understood by few….”

And then, after Einstein elaborates Kepler’s absolutely unique method by which he made his discoveries concerning the planets, he concludes this article with an almost religious statement of what he calls a “feeling of … veneration … for the mysterious harmony of nature into which we were born”; also a reference back to the “faith” that guided Kepler, and something that he calls elsewhere, a “cosmic religious feeling,” which you can find in other writings by Einstein.

So after this, he then concludes his article with a strong denunciation of empiricism, asserting that the work of Kepler proves that imagination must precede sense experience in any competent scientific work. So this is what Einstein says in conclusion:

“Our admiration for this wonderful man is joined with another feeling of admiration and veneration, not for any person, but for the mysterious harmony of Nature into which we were born. In ancient times, men already thought about lines of the simplest conceivable regularity. Among these, the foremost, next to the straight line and the circle, was the ellipse…. We see these latter forms realized, at least in close approximation, in the orbits of the heavenly bodies.

“It seems that human reason first has to independently construct the forms, before we can detect them in things. Kepler’s marvelous life’s work shows us especially beautifully, that cognition cannot blossom from sheer empirics, but from the comparison of what is imagined, with what is observed.”

So with that, I’d like to invite Jason to come to the podium.

JASON ROSS: All right, thank you, both. That’s quite a set-up. Keep in mind, those were only Bertrand Russell’s public commentary. It makes you wonder what — it’s actually hard to imagine what he could say that would even be any worse than that in his private dealings.

So, let’s take a look at this. It might seem surprising to hear the notion that the 20th century was one of degeneration — of moral and cultural degeneration, and of intellectual degeneration. You might say, yeah, music was more refined, perhaps, or social interactions used to be more polite — but didn’t we make a lot of breakthroughs in science in the 20th century? Don’t we have a huge technological advancement over 100 years ago? The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Keep in mind the origin of science, the origin of technological advancements and what it is at its heart. To get at this, we’ve got to track how this fight has played out, from look at Prometheus, Plato and Aristotle, into the Renaissance, and then make the point about Einstein. So, if we go back to the story of Prometheus, the giver of fire, to mankind, fire, but also music, astronomy, homebuilding, the use of beasts of burden, sailing ships, agriculture, poetry, calendars; among all of these gifts, Prometheus gave humanity. This is the origin of having a human society, because beyond the specific breakthroughs that are made, you can ask yourself, what is the origin of them, what’s the nature of the mind that creates these kinds of things?

And the greatest and most threatening thing Prometheus had given was the culture, or the identity of human beings, as being creatures that were able to create and discover more such principles and increase their power. That was what Zeus found most revolting about Prometheus, most dangerous about Prometheus, and the reason, in addition to the others, that he had him chained to the rock, tortured and so on.

So think about what this difference is, our ability to make discoveries. You know, LaRouche often references that people don’t have an understanding of what makes human beings different from animals. I think today, many people don’t know what makes people different from computers, and as seen in the concern that some people have, like Elon Musk or Stephen Hawking about “artificial intelligence taking over the world,” being the worst possible threat to mankind. It’s just not true.

Artificial intelligence will never supplant human creativity. Having a self-driving car, or a robotic auto line-worker is a little bit different than saying, “could we have an automatic laboratory?” or an automated set of robot musicians, or robot composers, computers creating music that’s new and worth hearing. Or are computers going to create new discoveries that overturn all of the thoughts that came before? They won’t and they can’t.

We’ll get at this from the Plato/Aristotle fight, and then in the 1900s with Hilbert and Einstein.

So, going back to Plato and Aristotle. Many people heart that, or many people say that Plato and Aristotle were the two founders of the “Western canon” or “Greek thought” or “Western civilization” — it’s just not true. They don’t have really anything in common in their outlook. Were they contemporaries? Did they know each other? Yes. Was Aristotle in some respects a student of Plato?—you could say that, but they didn’t see things the same way at all. Three examples:

One, an approach to looking at human beings and their social status. Plato has a dialogue in which Socrates discusses with Meno a number of topics. Eventually, the topic of education comes up, and Socrates performs a demonstration with one of Meno’s slaves, in which Socrates reveals that this slave-boy, who’s had no education, who Meno would think is inferior to his own sons, nonetheless, this slave-boy is able to discover and own knowledge of a non-insignificant geometrical demonstration. That’s in Plato’s dialogue of Meno.

What does Aristotle have to say about slavery? Well, he says in his Politics, you’ll note that it’s easier to quote Aristotle than Plato, because Plato has discussions and Aristotle just tells you things. So Aristotle says [as read]: “The slave is a living possession and property, an instrument. The master is only the master of the slave, he does not belong to him. Whereas the slave is not only the slave of his master, but wholly belongs to him! For that some should rule and others be ruled, is a thing not only necessary but expedient. From the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjugation, others for rule.” That’s Aristotle.

Compare that to Plato’s Socrates, showing that the potential for discovery and knowledge exists in a slave.

How about one where discoveries come from? Let’s start with Aristotle, first on this time. Aristotle, on the origin of thoughts, he says, [as read] “Since, according to common agreement” — that’s a great way to start, right? — “since everybody says that there’s nothing outside and separate in existence, from sensible spatial magnitudes, then the objects of thought are all in sensible forms, both abstract objects and the states of affections of sensible things. Hence no one can learn or understand anything in the absence of senses. And when the mind is actively aware of anything, it is necessarily aware of it along with an image, for images are like sensuous contents.”

So what makes people different? Don’t animals have sense-perceptions, too? Don’t worry, Aristotle thought of this. He said, “While in respect of all the other senses we fall below many species of animals, in respect to touch, we far excel all other species in exactness of discrimination. That is why man is the most intelligent of all animals.”

That really should be enough to not bother with Aristotle any more and in fact, I’m going to leave out the third quote I was going to read about this.

If we contrast that with the Plato’s discussion; this is an actual quote from Plato, which is difficult. He’s not quite so quotable. But he says that “t is necessary to learn at the same time both what is false and what is true of the whole of Existence, and that through the most diligent and prolonged investigation…; and it is by means of the examination of each of these objects, comparing one with another — names and definitions, visions and sense-perceptions, — proving them by kindly proofs and employing questionings and answerings that are void of envy — it is by such means, and hardly so, that there bursts out the light of intelligence and reason [noös] regarding each object in the mind of him who uses every effort of which mankind is capable.” Discovery is required; study is required; questions and answers, and contradictions.

I’ll leave it with that for those two. If you just open up a book of Aristotle and start reading I think you’ll convince yourself about him.

So what do these guys do politically? You’ve also possibly heard that Aristotle is a tutor of Alexander the Great, which isn’t true. In fact, his nephew tried to poison Alexander and was executed by him. And then, a colleague of Aristotle’s son did poison Alexander the Great. Actually, it was the Platonic tradition that educated and was the faction behind the Alexander the Great.

After his murder, the need existed to eliminate the possibility of further uprisings of thought and further creations of new concepts, and so a program was put into place, very much along the lines of what Jeff had read from Bertrand Russell about how can people’s minds be controlled in the kinds of thoughts that they consider possible or acceptable to have. That operation was known as Euclid.

Now, you might not remember from school, but I guarantee everybody’s heard of Euclid; Euclid’s Elements of Geometry, Euclid the creator of logic, Euclid the thinker who made reasoning concrete.

What Euclid did was, pull together discoveries that people had made about geometry, by some means that actually allowed them to make those discoveries in the first place, beat the discoveries out of them, and then presented them as deriving from a small number of basic assumptions. When you go to read those assumptions, they sound pretty awkward — many f them do — but the important aspect of it, is that if Euclid is held up as the standard of thought, all future knowledge already exists in the past, by just pasting it together and combining it, and drawing new conclusions from old material.

Nowhere does Euclid discuss the creation of new axioms, the discovery of new, fundamental principles. That doesn’t happen.

So, if that’s the standard, as it was, through the Dark Ages, if that’s the standard of education in large part, if that’s the standard of what thinking is, of what rigor is, no one’s ever going to discover anything new. And indeed, people who support that outlook don’t — can’t.

When the Renaissance began launched by Nicholas of Cusa, who was opposed to and attacked Aristotle as having eliminated the only possibility for breakthrough, Cusa said that opposites can coincide. That when we ask questions, or think in ways that result in contradictory answers that both seem right in some way, that’s our clue to then make some new hypothesis, a thought in the mind which can be in resonance with how the universe unfolds as a new principle. That’s what Kepler did: Kepler, the first modern scientist, the astronomer, who in 1609 in his work The New Astronomy, applied Cusa’s method, asked a question about Mars in particular, but about planets, got two contradictory answers, and said, aha! Dear reader, this is proof, this is a demonstration to you, that the mode of questioning is wrong. That trying to fit geometry to the planets will never succeed.

Then he says, come with me into the domain of physics, which mathematics can’t touch. Let’s go into the domain of physics, and we’ll figure out how the planets actually move. And he did. He wasn’t led by mathematics, he was led by a physical hypothesis that came from his mind, that was new, that didn’t come from the past, that wasn’t deductive, that Euclid of Aristotle never could have arrived at and that Aristotle opposed; to make a breakthrough in our understanding of what science itself is, in addition to making a discovery in astrophysics.

So: Let’s get into this 1900, Hilbert, Russell, Einstein period, by leading into it from Dmitri Mendeleyev. So in the latter 1800s, Dmitri Mendeleyev, who developed a periodic table, he advanced the science by rejecting the concept that our notions should be related to sense-perceptions. Let me say what I mean by that: Mendeleyev made it clear that the actual elements of chemistry — what they were was a potential for activity, but those elements themselves had no physical, sensual, sense-perceptible characteristics. For example, Mendeleyev would point to carbon. Now, carbon could be a diamond; carbon could be graphite in a pencil; carbon could be coal. These different substances are different! Obviously, if you look at a diamond and coal, they don’t really look alike at all, except neither of them is a liquid or gas; but beyond that, they’re completely different. So Mendeleyev said, yeah, carbon doesn’t have any characteristics. The potential for it to do things, the potential for it to form compounds, what it’s able to do: that’s its existence, not how it appears or any of those measurable characteristics.

So he developed a new foundation for considering chemistry overall. Through his periodic table, periodic system, he developed a hypothesis about a unity behind all of chemistry, behind all of material, behind all of matter, there is something that it all has in common. They weren’t all completely different. Something unified them.

So now let’s come to 1900. Let’s start by looking at Max Planck. Now, Planck, when he went into physics, was urged not to. one of his mentors, who fortunately he didn’t listen to, said: Look Planck, in this field, the physics, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes. This is in the 1870s, I believe. That’s not what really happened.

So, the year 1900: At the end of the year 1900, Planck didn’t fill a few holes, he showed that the foundation of a major part of all of physics had to be overturned and was wrong. His hypothesis of the quantum made over October through December 1900, this was not derived from the past, as Aristotle said knowledge was; it didn’t come from previous axioms, as everything in geometry does according to Euclid. It was a new hypothesis, that contradicted what already existed, which couldn’t be stated in the already-existing physical language. Which gave results that said that everything about physics that we thought, was actually at least a little bit wrong. Nothing was unchanged by what Planck had done.

In that same year of 1900, in Paris in the summertime, the mathematician David Hilbert spoke at the International Congress of Mathematicians. You might ask: How could that possibly be important for world history? Who would attend an International Congress of Mathematicians — I can’t imagine any bothering to read the news reports about it, who could possible care about this? What if he spoke at the Thimble Collectors’ Society, what difference would it make?

Well, this was actually of crucial importance because what Hilbert said at that conference, was that he wanted to bring “rigor” to mathematics, and he says, “what does it mean to know something?” Here’s Hilbert’s view of that — here’s his answer:

“It shall be possible to establish the correctness of the solution by means of a finite number of steps based upon a finite number of hypotheses which are implied in the statement of the problem and which must always be exactly formulated. This requirement of logical deduction by means of a finite number of processes is simply the requirement of rigor in reasoning. Indeed the requirement of rigor, which has become proverbial in mathematics, corresponds to a universal philosophical necessity of our understanding….” [emphasis added] He’s saying that logical deduction, which he calls “rigor,” is “a universal philosophical necessity of our understanding,” that the only way we know anything is by deduction, by the method of Euclid.

Kind of bad timing on his part, that only a few months later, Planck had developed something which overthrew all of the axioms of physics, and it was not derived from them! But that didn’t stop Hilbert, and it certainly didn’t stop Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russell, in 1903, published a book called the Principles of Mathematics, in which he tried to do what Hilbert had set out. He tried to show that all of mathematics could be demonstrated logically. So that’s what he was up to. Two years later, Albert Einstein, instead of showing that things are logical and everything derives from what we already know, shows that our thoughts about space and time and energy and matter are all wrong, when he discovers relativity. When he works on the photoelectric effect and starts creating quantum physics based on Planck’s discovery.

So while Russell and Hilbert are trying to say that rigor is the basis — essential, necessary basis of knowledge, and that all future thoughts will only be new derivations from what we already know, at almost the exact same time period, Planck and Einstein have overthrown our understanding, in a way that contradicts what came before.

The results of this, who would you look to as a basis for understanding what science ought to be? Somebody who wrote a math book that Kurt Gödel proved was pointless in 1931? On the guys who made the last, real fundamental breakthroughs that have been made in physics? These are a hundred years old! And although we’ve seen a number of new technologies, have we discovered any new principles, that overthrow the basic concepts? Ask yourself that.

So, let’s come to Einstein. Einstein was attacked in 1927, at the Solvay Conference, where groupings came together to discuss quantum physics, etc. What occurred there was that Niels Bohr was trying to force what’s known as the “Copenhagen interpretation” on the world. What Bohr had said was that, due to some of the unusual paradoxes that follow from quantum physics, that the old idea that we could actually know what made the world work, was an idea that was now passé. Bohr famously said, “We can’t know what the quantum world is. All science includes now is, what can we say about that world?” Bohr said, we have our sense-perception, we have our observations, we can come up with formulas and concepts that explain those sense-perceptions, but the claim to truth that any of our thoughts have is, do they match the perceptions, not do they correspond to a human principle, a human hypothesis?

Now, almost everybody gave in on this. But Einstein didn’t, leading him to be increasingly ostracized. Amazingly, the man who had created and developed quantum physics was considered an old dodderer. He wasn’t keeping up with the times: He still held onto the idea that eventually we could discover things that would feel like causes in the human sense. How passé of him!

As a matter of fact, Bertrand Russell, who wrote — he certainly kept himself busy, I’ll give him that — he wrote a book called The ABCs of Relativity, in which he offers some remarks on Einstein’s relativity, and he talks about how a single concept of time no longer exists in Einstein’s world, which is true; two events in different places, which one occurred first and which one occurred second, or were they simultaneous, could depend on who was watching. So, that does come in relativity theory.

Here’s what Russell says about it: “[t]he question of whether, on the whole, there is progress in the universe, may depend upon our choice of a measure of time. If we choose one of a number of equally good clocks, we may find that the universe is progressing as fast as the most optimistic American thinks it is; if we choose another equally good clock, we may find that the universe is going from bad to worse as fast as the most melancholy Slav could imagine. This optimism and pessimism are neither true nor false, but depend upon the choice of clocks.”

I want to leave off on some reflections of Vernadsky and Lyndon LaRouche. Vernadsky in a soon-to-be-published in English translation of a paper on The Study of Life in the New Physics, points out that the very concepts that we use to describe the world around us, space, time, energy, matter, they’ve all undergone dramatic transformations in the first few decades of the 20th century, and he asks, how will the study of life and humanity advance upon this? And this silly notion of relativity that we see in Russell’s attack on Einstein’s relativity, — that everything’s relative, there is no truth — in part depends upon assuming a world in which creativity can’t exist.

I mean, whether this lightning strike occurred before or after another one, depending on how you’re moving in the universe when you watch them, that doesn’t prove that there’s no causality in the universe. Since you can’t say which came before the other, you don’t know which one caused which, etc., etc., etc. that’s all really irrelevant, when you try to look at the unique type of causality that exists in the human mind. And the ability of people like Kepler, like Planck, like Einstein, like Mendeleyev to develop new concepts, that we then use to transform our relationship and our power over nature, what kind of time does that cause exist in? Is the before and after of a discover just the ticking of a clock? Or is there something else? Is it a different kind of time, altogether, after a discovery is made, than before it was?

Lyndon LaRouche, in his economics discoveries worked out in a very similar time period to the work of Vernadsky, draw upon this ability of human beings to transform our power, as a force of nature, to consider that as the foundation of economic value, the creation of economic wealth, the characteristic of our species, and the basis of what has to be promoted, to create a future, to create a better future in the economic and in other senses.

So, although it might seem distant, and this was not a comprehensive coverage here, — we will be having more, what Hilbert did in 1900, what Russell did in collaboration with him, was the same thing that Aristotle’s groupings did with Euclid, to say, we will define what it means “to know something,” and if you try to know something by other means, it’ll have to be considered a “morbid taste for eccentricity” in the words of Russell.

So there is an importance in understanding where our concept of what science is comes from, if we’re going to be free from its effects, unconscious usually, upon our thinking. And that’s an essential and powerful aspect of the transformations that we need to create, politically and economically, in the world today.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jason. And let me just say before we conclude: The event from New York City tomorrow will be streamed live on the LaRouche PAC website. It’ll be 2 o’clock Eastern Time, so we ask you to join us again, tomorrow afternoon: Both Jason and Jeff will be featured speakers at that event.

So thank you for participating in our webcast tonight, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Transcript now available—Tonight’s webcast includes Lyndon’s response to our weekly, institutional question, and a discussion with the LaRouchePAC Science Team on the future of fresh water on earth. Governor Jerry Brown continues his push for fascist water conservation policies. We start at 8pm Eastern.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it’s May 1, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I will be hosting tonight’s webcast here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Benjamin Deniston and Megan Beets, both from the LaRouche PAC Scientific Research Team, who will be presenting an up-to-date report on ongoing work that they and their team have been continuing to develop.

As Mr. LaRouche specified during a meeting we had with him this morning, the theme of tonight’s webcast is “What Is the Future of Mankind?” The topics which you will hear tonight presented will be ideas which will challenge you, and will challenge what you think you know about the world around you. They might not be ideas that are necessarily popular, or which you are personally familiar with as of yet; but after going through the process of tonight’s proceedings, you will hopefully gain an apprehension, at least, of a universe beyond what you thought you knew before, and a reality beyond what you have previously accepted as self-evident experience. And in so doing, we intend to create in your imagination an image of the potential for the future which the options are available to us to create if we adopt those necessary actions. And from that standpoint, I’d like to emphasize that what Megan and Ben will present tonight is by no means a subject matter abstracted in any way from the great dangers facing mankind at the present time. But rather, they must be understood as an integral part of the great political and historical drama which the world is now engaged in. It must be seen from the standpoint of living history, a living history in which we — all of us — are actors; actively and willfully creating the future and the form of the options which are available to mankind. New principles, new modes of action which will dramatically change mankind’s view of himself as a species.

Now, just look for a moment, before we get to that, at the crisis that is now confronting us. When you look out and you survey the utter devastation which we now face both in Europe and here in the United States; the drought in California, the riots in Baltimore, the drownings in the Mediterranean, the spreading war and terrorism across the Middle East, the rise of fascism on the borders of Russia — sponsored by Obama and Victoria Nuland — and the looming threat of thermonuclear war. The conclusion cannot be made more clear; we cannot continue to operate within the paradigm of this dying system. What has been accepted heretofore as tradition and popular opinion has absolutely failed; and only a handful of leaders, who have the courage to overturn those traditions and to confront the failings and the falsehoods of popularly accepted opinion, will be successful in creating the future. Civilization, especially in this part of the planet, can only survive if we can succeed in creating an entirely new paradigm; in choosing an alternative system which is now coming into being in China and the other nations associated with the BRICS. As Helga Zepp-LaRouche very clearly and beautifully presented in a short video presentation, which was posted on this website earlier this week, which is called “A New Paradigm for Civilization”; a video which I strongly encourage you to watch and to share as widely as you can.

Now, as many people know, V-E Day is a week from today — May 8 — on which day we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the defeat of fascism during World War II. In Russia, this is observed on May 9. Our allies in that war — especially Russia and China — were critical in securing the victory alongside President Franklin Roosevelt, who was the greatest President of the 20th Century. This was a war in which 27 million Russians died — which was 13% of the entire population of the Soviet Union at that time; and approximately 20 million Chinese, according to certain estimates. And the effect of this war remains vividly imprinted in the living memories of those who are alive today, but whose fathers and brothers and sometimes even sisters and mothers fought and died in that war. President Putin himself is counted among those; President Putin just published a very rare editorial piece in which he remembered his brother — who perished during the siege of Leningrad — and his father, who was nearly killed by a German grenade. So you can imagine the utter horror of the people of these nations, and which these nations feel when they see a resurgence of fascism in places like Ukraine; which is being actively supported and encouraged by Obama and members of his administration, who have subverted and usurped the office of the once-great institution of the Presidency of the United States. The same office which Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington once held.

Now, as we’ve elaborated on previous broadcasts here, the intent of LaRouche PAC at this time is to recreate the institution of the American Presidency in the image of what its founders intended it to be. I’d like to draw our viewers’ attention in that regard, to an article which will be published soon in Executive Intelligence Review magazine, by Bob Ingraham, who is an historian and an active member of the LaRouche movement out in California. He vividly in this article elaborates the mortal struggle between Alexander Hamilton and his circle of allies in New York State, who fought against the traitors from among the Southern slaveholders and their allies on Wall Street, who began their attempts to destroy the constitutional republic which Alexander Hamilton and Washington had created, from the very first day of Washington’s Presidency, if not before. And which they continue to do to this day; those efforts have not ceased. As Mr. LaRouche has repeatedly pointed out, only rarely have we had truly great Presidents who stand in the tradition of Washington and Hamilton, assume the office of the President of the United States. And it’s only been through the efforts of those few that this nation has even survived to the present.

Now earlier today, we discussed with Mr. LaRouche an institutional question which came in for him this morning, and which is among the items that we discussed with him when we had our meeting. The question was simple and to the point, and I think germane to this subject. It read, very briefly as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, in your view, should Martin O’Malley announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President?”

Mr. LaRouche’s response was that it was not necessarily his place to involve himself in the details and tell O’Malley specifically what he should do and when he should do it. But, that if you look at the process that is now underway, O’Malley’s candidacy is extremely significant and unique; especially when you view his rise as counterposed to the accelerating rate of decline of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Mr. LaRouche said, with her failure to be a credible candidate at this point, O’Malley comes up as presently the only viable and credible contender to the Bushes and to the Republican Party. And then, if you factor in to this the accelerating decline of Obama, with the trap which he is setting up for himself essentially with the TPP, where he’s openly attacking leading members of his own party such as Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and others, then it’s clear that Obama can be taken down and a very credible team can be put together around an O’Malley candidacy — which is now beginning to take shape. And I should mention that the so-called “Manhattan Project” — this initiative in New York City which Mr. LaRouche launched in the fall of last year — is playing a very significant role in this process; as can be seen both by the introduction of a Glass-Steagall resolution in the New York State Assembly, which is gaining broad support, as well as the passage of an anti-TPP resolution in the New York City Council, which we just received news of earlier today. This resolution declares the City of New York to be a “TPP-free zone” and urges Congress to oppose President Obama’s attempts to obtain so-called “fast track” authority to negotiate and approve the TPP with only the yea or nay of Congress. So this is clearly a major challenge to Obama, coming from the heart of New York City, and represents a very significant revolt from within the Democratic Party.

Now the point that Mr. LaRouche made earlier this afternoon, was that Obama was clearly crumbling, but he’s not his own man. Obama represents his masters; and their effort will be to try to use him as an instrument to launch a world war, even as he’s collapsing. He is increasingly losing his power, but as a result of this, his predisposition towards rage will incline him toward launching just such a world war while he still has hold of his Presidency. And Mr. LaRouche said that in his decline, Obama is becoming even more rapacious, and even more murderous, and even more of a killer, because of his rage at his own decline. And therefore, in light of the increasingly obvious failure as of now, of the Hillary Clinton candidacy, the most significant factor at this point, is the campaign being run by O’Malley and the O’Malley/Warren team, you could call it, who are clearly on the rise.

And for those who saw it, I think Martin O’Malley’s statements on the riots in Baltimore were absolutely to the point on this. And I’d just to actually read a short excerpt from them. I think if people heard Mr. LaRouche’s comments on this subject during our discussion with the members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee on Monday, only a few hours before the violence broke out in Baltimore, what O’Malley had to say on this I think will resonate. O’Malley’s statement reads as follows:

“As Dr. Martin Luther King once said, ‘a riot is the language of the unheard.’ This week, the people of our city and our entire country, were forced to listen; to listen to the anger of young American men who are growing into adulthood with grim prospects of survival, and even lesser prospects of success. To listen to the fears of young men with little hope of finding a summer job, let alone a job that might one day support a family. To listen to the silent scream within the vacant hearts of young American boys, who feel that America has forgotten them; that America doesn’t care about them. That America wishes not to look at them; that America wishes they would go away, or be locked away. Surely, we are capable of more as a nation. But,” O’Malley continued, “the anger that we have seen in Ferguson, in Cleveland, in Staten Island, in North Charleston, and in the flames of north Baltimore, is not just about policing; it is not just about race. It is about declining wages and the lack of opportunity in our country today. It is about the brutality of an economic system that devalues human labor, human potential, and human lives. It is about the lie that we make of the American dream, when we put the needs of the most powerful wealthy ahead of the well-being of our nation’s many. Extreme poverty is extremely dangerous. This is about the country we are allowing ourselves to become, and the affront that it is to the country that we are meant to be. We are Americans, and we are still capable of remaking our future. And this generation of Americans still has time to be called great. But only our actions can save us.”

So, I think this is actually very appropriate to the theme of tonight’s webcast. What is the future of our nation? What is the future of mankind? And when everything is collapsing, when civilization is crumbling, when Europe and the United States are disintegrating and the lives of our people are getting worse and worse at an accelerating rate, what is the solution? How do we create the future? And the future is always defined not by what you already know, not by what you already experienced; but rather by what you don’t know, by what mankind has never before experienced. So with that said, I’d like to hand the podium over to Megan Beets, who will deliver a short introduction to this evening’s presentation by Ben.

MEGAN BEETS: Thank you, Matthew. Now as Matt just said, the mission at hand, the mission which all of us here in the LaRouche movement have taken up, and the mission which we pose to all of you, is to create a future for civilization. One of the most important people who will determine whether or not that effort to create a future for civilization will succeed or fail is the figure of Johannes Kepler, who died in 1630. So why is Kepler one of the most crucial human beings present — in a certain way — in society today? Kepler proved in practice, through his discovery of the Solar System, that mankind is not a species of animal. Now, Kepler lived 400 years ago, and he lived at a time in Europe which was engulfed in the flames of religious war for generations and in the midst of a dark age. Not unlike what stares us in the face today.

However, Kepler’s legacy draws not from what he was surrounded by in his daily life, but Kepler goes straight to the Italian Renaissance and to the great mind of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who was the founder of modern scientific method. Now Cusa posited the idea that man, being an image of the Creator, has a mind which can generate conceptions which are completely beyond and above the imaging power of sense perception. Concepts which have no existence in the realm of sense perception, and yet, are true hypotheses about the mind of God.

Now Kepler followed his teacher Cusa, and Kepler proved with his scientific work that man indeed has a mental life; has mental processes which are not derivatives of the information gathered via sense perception and observations. That man has a mental experience that goes beyond the furthest reach of sense perception. And this mental experience is the source of concepts about principles shaping the universe which are true. Now that is the essence of science. Kepler presents this in detail very clearly, in one of his last works, called the Harmony of the World; where Kepler begins from the knowledge of the nature of the motion of the planets which is based on a revolutionary conception that he had proven ten years earlier. That the Sun was a physical force; the Sun was not just a passive observer of the motions of the Solar System, as had been believed by all of his predecessors. But the Sun itself is the seat of the physical power which causes the motions of the planets; and the Sun itself is a changing physical process.

Now based upon that, Kepler was able to ask the question what is the unifying principle of the Solar System as a one. What is the single principle which unites the multiplicity of motions of the entire system as the unfolding of one single intention. Another way to say the same thing is, why are all of the motions of the solar system as they are, and not otherwise. Now, Kepler discovered that each of the planets’ motions is not an individual motion. No planet is acting as an individual being, but that each planet’s motion belonged to a set of tuned motions, much like the individual member of a string quartet isn’t acting on his own, but is responding and participating in the unfolding of one unified tuned whole. Now. Kepler discovered this, not by calculation, not by mathematics, but by generating within his mind as an original idea — as if he had created the solar system from the start — of what the principle of the composition of the solar system ought to be. So he conceived of the physical power of the sun, serving the function of tuning and regulating each motion within it, to reflect a single tuned unity, which reflected a system of human polyphonic music. So in other words, Kepler re-cast the solar system as an object of human thought, as a human system. And he was right. And because of Kepler, for the first time man’s mind encompassed the principle of the solar system. Now, animals don’t do this. Animals are bound to earth. Animals are creatures of their senses. They respond to stimuli, they adjust their behavior based on stimuli, they adjust their behavior to adapt to the circumstances of the environment around them. But man is different. Man in his essence is a creature of a higher power.

So Kepler has left us with this legacy. He took the first step of discovery of the solar system, but as I think Ben will open up for us, what we know today is that the earth and the solar system are encompassed, subsumed, within an even larger system, and we know that the earth itself is part of this larger galactic system which has effects directly for everyone living on earth. And so the challenge and the mission before us, which I’m going to ask Ben to come to the podium to elaborate, is how do we begin to tackle that — mastering that principle of the galactic system and the legacy of Kepler.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Megan. Some of this comes directly out of our discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, and his emphasis on including this as a featured part of our intervention in this point of the discussion. And I think as you just posed it very clearly, it needs to be clear to people that Kepler provides a reference point for the creation of the future, for where we need to go, as much as what he did to define this revolution of the past, so to speak. And this does not mean that he gives us, you know, some practical solutions or something, you know. The average person will say, okay, does he tell us, you know, where to get the water now, or something silly like that, you know. It’s not — he doesn’t give us like your playbook you can go run to. He gives us something more important than that. He gives us an understanding of how mankind is able to develop new solutions to new problems — a better understanding of, as Megan was discussing, how it is that mankind uniquely relates to the universe, and how mankind can change that relation. You know, these are the big question that we really are facing right now as a species.

In that context, an expression of that, we have this water crisis. We have a major crisis developing in California immediately, other locations in the Southwest are, you know, maybe one or two steps behind California. Other places around the world are also facing similar water crises. So let’s take this in this context. The water crisis in California — first of all, there’s clear levels to the crisis, it’s not just one thing. On the first level, we have a drought. We have an immediate drought right now. It hasn’t rained much, there hasn’t been a lot of precipitation for the past years. So the amount of water coming into the state is lower. That’s one aspect, but that’s not the entire picture.

You go to a deeper level, there’s been no development in the state for water projects, these types of things, for nearly fifty years. For nearly fifty years, there’s been no major investment in developing the water resources that we knew were needed. Desalination was put on the table — it wasn’t done. NAWAPA was put on the table — it wasn’t done. And so for the past almost fifty years, we haven’t even been operating at breakeven, we’ve been actually drawing down the system in California. We’ve been consistently depleting the aquifers in the Central Valley, for example, for decades. You know, this current drought is not a new, out-of-the-blue thing, we’ve been — we’ve known we’ve been operating beyond the capacity of the water system of the state as it existed, for decades now. We refused to take action. And now we have a drought hitting on top of that, so that’s creating a certain culmination in the crisis.

But there’s another level, there’s another aspect on the water crisis in California right now, which is the response of the Governor. He is another layer to the crisis. Governor Brown is a crisis in California. The drought, and you have the Brown crisis — that’s an additional aspect. You know, his response is to say, we’re just going to impose a policy of — essentially, population reduction. You know, whether he is fully recognizing this or not, he is completely buying into the policy of the British Empire, the policy of Prince Philip, the World Wildlife Fund. He is fully on board with that entire program: genocide, population reduction. That’s the policy response that he is putting on the table in reaction to this current crisis in California.

So, how do we handle this crisis now, what do we actually do, to address the imminent water crisis in California. Well, the first thing is obvious, we’ve said it, we’re going to continue to say it: Get rid of Jerry Brown. If you have — the first step, you take out the trash, get rid of the problem, get rid of the active factor worsening the situation, now, which is Jerry Brown.

But, that aside, that done, as we want to really elaborate here today, we also need the positive solutions. We need to act human, we need to act creatively. We need to create new solutions, create in effect a new future condition which doesn’t yet exist. Something which Jerry Brown either doesn’t understand, or he doesn’t want. But either way, he is right now acting to suppress the people of California, to deny them their natural human right for creative progress. He is acting as a modern lackey of Zeus. That is what he is doing.

So the only true real solutions, aside from taking out the garbage, getting rid of Jerry Brown, getting rid of his policy, the real solutions are, you know, as Megan introduced this aspect of the discussion here, are for mankind to create the new conditions which don’t yet exist. The action of the creation of new states, new conditions in the universe which would never have existed without mankind’s creation, now mankind’s intervention. And the creation of these new conditions, new states, which are new to mankind himself — that’s where the solution lies.

And that’s what we want to discuss. You know, mankind discovers things. We discover principles, we discover insights into how the universe operates. But I would say that the clearest, the most pure expression of this process, is that by that activity, we are enabled to change our behavior as a result of these discoveries of principle, we are enabled to do things which we simply couldn’t do before. So again, this is mankind: By his fundamental nature, mankind is a creative species in this respect. It’s always doing something new, always going to a higher level. We’re uniquely a species which continues to change how it relates to the universe. We’re not defined by any particular relationship to the universe. We don’t have an ecology, the way animals have an ecology. Human ecology is the potential to change our ecology, that’s what makes us different from animals, that’s what makes us human. So to deny that, to suppress that, as Brown is doing, as Obama is doing in a different sense, but in the same way, really, is true Zeus, it’s a Zeusian genocide program. So that’s the challenge we face right now in California.

But again, where do we find the solutions, true human solutions to this water crisis? How do we develop new ways to manage the water system, to deal with the water cycle, using methods which night not even exist yet, or haven’t existed yet, or, if they exist, they only exist in very preliminary phases. How can we come to a new, higher level management of the system that we’ve never been able to develop before? Because if we’re not doing that, we’re not being human, we’re not responding to the crisis as a real human species. We’re just reacting, the way we did in the past.

So this is the issue, the issue that Mr. LaRouche has put on the table, or emphasized regarding this issue for a couple of years now, actually, when discussing the water crisis, discussing the situation. He was saying, forget just these off-the-shelf, old ideas; we’re in an accelerated crisis, we’ve got to go to higher levels. Where are the higher levels. Where are the subsuming principles. What are the areas we don’t yet fully understand, we haven’t yet grasped, we don’t yet fully understand?

And this takes us to the galaxy, to the galactic system, and it takes us to Kepler for how to think about that, how to approach that. So you can ask, how did Kepler discover the Solar System? What’s the importance of referencing Kepler’s work here? He asked how the planets moved, he asked why did the planets move? But what he showed was that nothing in domain of sense-perception could ever account for the planetary motions. He was not the first, as others had done before, Kepler recorded the motions, and he also used other people’s recordings of the motions. He could catalogue the effects. A map can be developed, charting the motions of the planets, charting how they move through the sky.

But the map does not tell you how or why the planets actually move, why they move as they do. You’re cataloguing an expression, you’re mapping a shadow. The effect can be seen, it can be recorded, it can be mapped, it can be charted, but the cause of that effect, the source of that shadow can never be understood in these terms. That’s what Kepler showed us. And he showed, and he even discussed very explicitly, as Megan referred to his last work, his Harmony of the World, in there is a brilliant exposition on not just the laws of planetary motion, but the laws of how human mind comes to understand principles.

He doesn’t just talk about some formula that tells you how the planets move. He goes through a whole exhaustive development of how it is the human mind can even come to know that, from his own standpoint as somebody who, you should put some weight behind his idea, because he did it. So him expressing his own insights, referring to Cusa’s work, referring to this method of thought, how he was able to come to his discoveries.

And he says very explicitly and clearly, it’s an action of the human mind which enables mankind to understand causes. It didn’t come from experience, it didn’t come from data from observation. It was a creative action that he generated in his mind. Something he uniquely made which wasn’t derived from the evidence, it was something he had to generate, unique and anew, and in certain cases, explicitly because the evidence he was presented with otherwise, was contradictory, it was inconsistent, it couldn’t work itself in its own terms. So he was forced to come up with new conceptions, a new conception that he generated which couldn’t have come from anywhere but his own action, his own creative discovery..

So this is a lesson for how we think about, how we relate to the system as a whole. As a human being with a healthy human mind, you observe things, you observe phenomena. You recognize these phenomena as effects, you hypothesize what governs these witnessed effects, and ultimately the demonstration of the validity of your hypotheses, is if they enable you, if they enable mankind to change how he operates in the universe. Do your hypotheses allow mankind to do new things? To create new actions? In Mr. LaRouche’s work on economics, you can measure this in a certain sense even more clearly: Do they enable an increase in the potential relative population density of the human species? Do they enable a measurable increase in the power of mankind to expand its influence on the planet and beyond?

In this context, where do we find these types of truly human solutions to this current water crisis — the crisis in California, the crisis in the Southwest? It is by going to these higher levels.

Now it’s never complete and final knowledge. You never have a complete, final solution to the entire system. You develop these hypotheses, you demonstrate the validity by showing it gives mankind an ability to be more effective, develop a greater power to act in the universe, but sometimes, we witness effects which we could say, violate our existing hypotheses. We see effects, we see phenomena which operate in a way our current hypotheses, our current conceptions, can’t account for. And these are great. These inconsistencies, that’s what we want. These are our ticket to the future.

These are indications not that we failed, oh, we don’t get everything — these are indications that there’s a new principle at play. There’s a new factor in there that we didn’t understand yet, expressing itself, in what we might call an unexpected deviation, an unexpected variation in the shadows, in how the shadows behave. We had some conception of what was casting those shadows, and we see they behave a little bit differently than we would have expected. That’s what we want, those are the types of things that we need to look for, in these types of issues.

Then this brings us back to the water crisis, the theme here: How do we deal with water? How do we deal with the water situation in California? Again, you’re dealing with a phenomenon, you’re dealing with certain phenomena. We experienced aspects of this thing we objectify, we call as a “water cycle.” We see the processes of the motion of water from one location to another; we see the transition of water from one state to another state, from liquid to gas, to ice, to solid, moving through these different states. We see water moving through different processes, through abiotic systems, through biological systems, through human economic activity; so you see all these effects, these phenomena, but no one thinks that the water cycle is a self-determined thing — maybe you find some people who do, but people don’t think that this is some self-defined, self-determined process.

It’s not hard to recognize, when you identify this thing you call a water cycle, you’re looking at the expression of certain principles acting, certain forces at play: the role of the Sun. The water cycle wouldn’t exist if the Sun didn’t exist. The heat effect from the Sun, the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun powers the whole cycle; it evaporates ocean water, it gets the sky filled with atmospheric moisture. You have the rotation of the Earth, is a critical factor in determining how the system behaves, the motion of atmospheric water through the sky, related to the wind patterns and effects associated with the rotation of the Earth. You have the action of life: Plant life in particular plays a major role in putting water back up into the atmosphere, water that’s on land that would have just remained on land, plant life is pumping it back up.

So we know that these — no one thinks the water cycle is some self-defined, existing thing; we already know it as a shadow, we know it’s an expression of certain principles of action, it’s an effect of something. But until now, we’ve defined the cycle as a shadow of these processes in particular, the action of the Sun; actions on the Earth, within the Earth, the ocean systems, what have you, action of life.

Well, what happens when we see evidence for changes, for variations which we can’t attribute to any of these previously known principles? What happens when we see variations which we can’t account for in our current hypothesized understanding of the causes governing the system? And this is really what we’ve been talking about for the past month on these shows, and on larouchepac.com. We’re presenting you with these indications, this ticket, this wonderful deviation, this indication that something else is going on, which we can’t account for in our current understanding, indications of another factor at place, which isn’t currently in our hypothesized framework, which we used to define our understanding of the cause of this shadow we call the water cycle.

These are things we’ve discussed: You have our current understanding of our Solar System moves through our galaxy, through the galactic system: By the old framework, that shouldn’t matter to the water cycle, that shouldn’t matter to climate, that shouldn’t matter to how water behaves on Earth. But we see records that there’s a relationship there, we see variations, deviations in the climate records, which don’t correspond to anything we can define in the prior system, the prior framework of the limitations of the principles at play.

But we do see it corresponds to this galactic relationship. We see indications, variations showing that as the Sun changes its strength, as the Sun gets weaker, as the Sun rises and falls in its amount of activity, and lowers its shielding of the Solar System from the influence of the galaxy around us, as the Sun lets in more galactic effect, so to speak, again, we see deviations, variations in how the water behaves, in how the water cycle operate — where you have droughts, where you have excess water; deviations, variations which don’t correspond to anything in the previous system but are directly related to how the activity of the Sun interacts with this larger galactic effect.

And we see these on time scales of thousands of years; we see these in time scales of hundreds of years, we see these on time scales of decades, of tens of years. We even see indications of short time scales of days, when the Sun will release large outbursts of plasma, of solar activity, these explosive events just above the surface of the Sun that will release large structures of plasma, coronal mass ejections. When these things pass by the Earth, they can temporarily increase the shielding around the Earth, decreasing the amount of influence from the galactic system, and we see deviations, we see variations, in how water is behaving in the atmosphere, associated with the reduction of this galactic effect, this galactic input.

So these are things we’ve discussed, we’ve presented, we’ve written about, but they’re all indications of something which exists outside of the current framework. And until recently most people have been operating under this earlier assumption, that the water cycle is defined by activity in the Solar System: What the Sun does, what the Earth’s doing, maybe you have a role for plant life, various phenomena on the Earth affect it, but that’s it. Influences beyond the Solar System have been excluded under that framework; galactic influences are believed to have no role under that framework.

But now, with the evidence we’re presenting here, we’re clearly seeing otherwise, we’re seeing these deviations, effects which we can’t attribute to the prior framework, and which directly point us to this galactic system. And this is not work that I’m doing, — this is work that’s been done by a relative handful of scientists, who have the guts and the strength to pursue these frontier questions, who’ve been showing this for the recent years, that you do have these effects, you do have these deviations, it does point you to these larger cosmic processes. And what they provided us here, is this whole framework that we’re pulling together that we can present to you, which tells us we can’t ignore these deviations. We see that the shadow which is the water cycle, the effect of these forces as play, which we call the water cycle, is not cast solely by activity from within the Solar System. You have the casting of the effect of activity from the galaxy as well.

So we have to understand it from this higher perspective, we have to include the role of the galaxy. We have to think on the level of the galactic system when we think about things as we thought as simple as how the water cycle behaves. We have to recognize that this cast shadow which we depend upon, which we call the water cycle, is an expression of galactic processes, as well.

Just to be a little more specific: This changes in particular especially how we understand how water behaves in the atmosphere. The Sun is constantly pumping water from the ocean into the atmosphere through evaporation, filling the atmosphere, with water vapor. This is now giving us new insights into how that water behaves when it’s in the atmospheric system, and most importantly, for the situation now, today, this gives us new insights into how we can begin to influence and control, what we should really call the cosmic environment of the atmosphere; how we can begin to influence and control, ourselves, the conditions of the atmosphere which we otherwise attribute to the activity of the galactic system.

And again, this is something we’ve discussed over the past month: We have these so-called ionization systems, these systems that have been developed and successfully utilized to affect and modulate these what I would call “cosmic” conditions or the “cosmic environment” of the atmosphere, to influence how the water behaves up there. We’ve discussed the success of these system, we’ve shown that we can increase precipitation; we’ve shown that we can bring in new flows of atmospheric moisture, over the land, bring it from above the oceans, above the land. We’ve shown that we can begin to tap into this vast potential of the atmospheric water system.

But the way we’re doing so, is again, by controlling the conditions of the atmosphere, which are created by and associated with the effect of this galactic system, that we’re affecting and influencing the cosmic environment of our atmosphere.

So I would say, look at this the way Kepler would. We’ve been discussing some of the effects here, some of the particulars, but how would Kepler see this? As Megan stated very well in the introduction, Kepler demonstrated, mankind is not an animal: Mankind is not bound by his sense-perceptual or biological experience, the way every animal species that we know of is. Mankind is gifted with a unique capability of the human mind, something which exists outside of and beyond the senses. And it’s the ability to generate creative actions by the human mind, unique to the human mind itself, which is what enables mankind to make these changes, to fundamentally change how we relate to the universe.

Foolish people think, if you mention the Solar System, foolish people think of the Solar System as some array of objects individually floating around in some big void of space; that’s their conception of the Solar System. What did Kepler show us? He said, that’s a shadow, those are effects. They’re the result of a cause. And it’s mankind that can uniquely understand that cause, and understand that cause in a way that we can act in that domain, of cause, act in the domain of that which generates the effects, generates the shadows.

It’s not about the size of the space or the scale of the time, the way people normally think of these terms. It’s a different conception: It’s about, where does the generative principle exist? What is it, how can we understand it? And how can mankind generate his own similar effects, and utilize them, and express himself as that type of force in the universe? How can mankind cast his own shadows of creative action, not just react to other shadows?

So I think this is the type of conception that Kepler gives us that we absolutely need today, because, you know, he didn’t solve everything — and I don’t think he would have wanted to solve everything; I think he would have enjoyed the idea of new challenges, looking to the galaxy, looking to the supergalactic structure that we’re encompassed by.

Today, we’ve have to look to this next frontier, we have to look to the galactic system, as a start. Again, not as a collection of objects, a collection of different things, but we have to make an effort to understand what are the principles generating this system, this process, these effects, in the unique way we see it expressed. And how can we not just trying to define on some academic sense, but how can we look to act in that domain? How can we think of mankind as moving toward the potentials of casting shadows of creative action, associated with what we might call a galactic principle? That’s the level that mankind is now looking at, the level that mankind can go to.

So if we want water, if we want water for California, if we want to solve the water crisis in California and other regions, other states, other parts of the world, we have to be human, we have to be like Kepler.

OGDEN: With that said, I’m going to bring a conclusion to our webcast tonight. I would like to thank Ben and Megan, both, for joining me here in the studio. And thank you for tuning in. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, and we’ll see you next week.

Tonight’s webcast includes Lyndon’s response to our weekly, institutional question, and a discussion with the LaRouchePAC Science Team on the future of fresh water on earth. Governor Jerry Brown continues his push for fascist water conservation policies. We start at 8pm Eastern.

Transcript now available—Tonight’s webcast includes Lyndon’s response to our weekly, institutional question, and a discussion with the LaRouchePAC Science Team on the future of fresh water on earth. Governor Jerry Brown continues his push for fascist water conservation policies. We start at 8pm Eastern.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it’s May 1, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I will be hosting tonight’s webcast here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Benjamin Deniston and Megan Beets, both from the LaRouche PAC Scientific Research Team, who will be presenting an up-to-date report on ongoing work that they and their team have been continuing to develop.

As Mr. LaRouche specified during a meeting we had with him this morning, the theme of tonight’s webcast is “What Is the Future of Mankind?” The topics which you will hear tonight presented will be ideas which will challenge you, and will challenge what you think you know about the world around you. They might not be ideas that are necessarily popular, or which you are personally familiar with as of yet; but after going through the process of tonight’s proceedings, you will hopefully gain an apprehension, at least, of a universe beyond what you thought you knew before, and a reality beyond what you have previously accepted as self-evident experience. And in so doing, we intend to create in your imagination an image of the potential for the future which the options are available to us to create if we adopt those necessary actions. And from that standpoint, I’d like to emphasize that what Megan and Ben will present tonight is by no means a subject matter abstracted in any way from the great dangers facing mankind at the present time. But rather, they must be understood as an integral part of the great political and historical drama which the world is now engaged in. It must be seen from the standpoint of living history, a living history in which we — all of us — are actors; actively and willfully creating the future and the form of the options which are available to mankind. New principles, new modes of action which will dramatically change mankind’s view of himself as a species.

Now, just look for a moment, before we get to that, at the crisis that is now confronting us. When you look out and you survey the utter devastation which we now face both in Europe and here in the United States; the drought in California, the riots in Baltimore, the drownings in the Mediterranean, the spreading war and terrorism across the Middle East, the rise of fascism on the borders of Russia — sponsored by Obama and Victoria Nuland — and the looming threat of thermonuclear war. The conclusion cannot be made more clear; we cannot continue to operate within the paradigm of this dying system. What has been accepted heretofore as tradition and popular opinion has absolutely failed; and only a handful of leaders, who have the courage to overturn those traditions and to confront the failings and the falsehoods of popularly accepted opinion, will be successful in creating the future. Civilization, especially in this part of the planet, can only survive if we can succeed in creating an entirely new paradigm; in choosing an alternative system which is now coming into being in China and the other nations associated with the BRICS. As Helga Zepp-LaRouche very clearly and beautifully presented in a short video presentation, which was posted on this website earlier this week, which is called “A New Paradigm for Civilization”; a video which I strongly encourage you to watch and to share as widely as you can.

Now, as many people know, V-E Day is a week from today — May 8 — on which day we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the defeat of fascism during World War II. In Russia, this is observed on May 9. Our allies in that war — especially Russia and China — were critical in securing the victory alongside President Franklin Roosevelt, who was the greatest President of the 20th Century. This was a war in which 27 million Russians died — which was 13% of the entire population of the Soviet Union at that time; and approximately 20 million Chinese, according to certain estimates. And the effect of this war remains vividly imprinted in the living memories of those who are alive today, but whose fathers and brothers and sometimes even sisters and mothers fought and died in that war. President Putin himself is counted among those; President Putin just published a very rare editorial piece in which he remembered his brother — who perished during the siege of Leningrad — and his father, who was nearly killed by a German grenade. So you can imagine the utter horror of the people of these nations, and which these nations feel when they see a resurgence of fascism in places like Ukraine; which is being actively supported and encouraged by Obama and members of his administration, who have subverted and usurped the office of the once-great institution of the Presidency of the United States. The same office which Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington once held.

Now, as we’ve elaborated on previous broadcasts here, the intent of LaRouche PAC at this time is to recreate the institution of the American Presidency in the image of what its founders intended it to be. I’d like to draw our viewers’ attention in that regard, to an article which will be published soon in Executive Intelligence Review magazine, by Bob Ingraham, who is an historian and an active member of the LaRouche movement out in California. He vividly in this article elaborates the mortal struggle between Alexander Hamilton and his circle of allies in New York State, who fought against the traitors from among the Southern slaveholders and their allies on Wall Street, who began their attempts to destroy the constitutional republic which Alexander Hamilton and Washington had created, from the very first day of Washington’s Presidency, if not before. And which they continue to do to this day; those efforts have not ceased. As Mr. LaRouche has repeatedly pointed out, only rarely have we had truly great Presidents who stand in the tradition of Washington and Hamilton, assume the office of the President of the United States. And it’s only been through the efforts of those few that this nation has even survived to the present.

Now earlier today, we discussed with Mr. LaRouche an institutional question which came in for him this morning, and which is among the items that we discussed with him when we had our meeting. The question was simple and to the point, and I think germane to this subject. It read, very briefly as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, in your view, should Martin O’Malley announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President?”

Mr. LaRouche’s response was that it was not necessarily his place to involve himself in the details and tell O’Malley specifically what he should do and when he should do it. But, that if you look at the process that is now underway, O’Malley’s candidacy is extremely significant and unique; especially when you view his rise as counterposed to the accelerating rate of decline of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Mr. LaRouche said, with her failure to be a credible candidate at this point, O’Malley comes up as presently the only viable and credible contender to the Bushes and to the Republican Party. And then, if you factor in to this the accelerating decline of Obama, with the trap which he is setting up for himself essentially with the TPP, where he’s openly attacking leading members of his own party such as Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and others, then it’s clear that Obama can be taken down and a very credible team can be put together around an O’Malley candidacy — which is now beginning to take shape. And I should mention that the so-called “Manhattan Project” — this initiative in New York City which Mr. LaRouche launched in the fall of last year — is playing a very significant role in this process; as can be seen both by the introduction of a Glass-Steagall resolution in the New York State Assembly, which is gaining broad support, as well as the passage of an anti-TPP resolution in the New York City Council, which we just received news of earlier today. This resolution declares the City of New York to be a “TPP-free zone” and urges Congress to oppose President Obama’s attempts to obtain so-called “fast track” authority to negotiate and approve the TPP with only the yea or nay of Congress. So this is clearly a major challenge to Obama, coming from the heart of New York City, and represents a very significant revolt from within the Democratic Party.

Now the point that Mr. LaRouche made earlier this afternoon, was that Obama was clearly crumbling, but he’s not his own man. Obama represents his masters; and their effort will be to try to use him as an instrument to launch a world war, even as he’s collapsing. He is increasingly losing his power, but as a result of this, his predisposition towards rage will incline him toward launching just such a world war while he still has hold of his Presidency. And Mr. LaRouche said that in his decline, Obama is becoming even more rapacious, and even more murderous, and even more of a killer, because of his rage at his own decline. And therefore, in light of the increasingly obvious failure as of now, of the Hillary Clinton candidacy, the most significant factor at this point, is the campaign being run by O’Malley and the O’Malley/Warren team, you could call it, who are clearly on the rise.

And for those who saw it, I think Martin O’Malley’s statements on the riots in Baltimore were absolutely to the point on this. And I’d just to actually read a short excerpt from them. I think if people heard Mr. LaRouche’s comments on this subject during our discussion with the members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee on Monday, only a few hours before the violence broke out in Baltimore, what O’Malley had to say on this I think will resonate. O’Malley’s statement reads as follows:

“As Dr. Martin Luther King once said, ‘a riot is the language of the unheard.’ This week, the people of our city and our entire country, were forced to listen; to listen to the anger of young American men who are growing into adulthood with grim prospects of survival, and even lesser prospects of success. To listen to the fears of young men with little hope of finding a summer job, let alone a job that might one day support a family. To listen to the silent scream within the vacant hearts of young American boys, who feel that America has forgotten them; that America doesn’t care about them. That America wishes not to look at them; that America wishes they would go away, or be locked away. Surely, we are capable of more as a nation. But,” O’Malley continued, “the anger that we have seen in Ferguson, in Cleveland, in Staten Island, in North Charleston, and in the flames of north Baltimore, is not just about policing; it is not just about race. It is about declining wages and the lack of opportunity in our country today. It is about the brutality of an economic system that devalues human labor, human potential, and human lives. It is about the lie that we make of the American dream, when we put the needs of the most powerful wealthy ahead of the well-being of our nation’s many. Extreme poverty is extremely dangerous. This is about the country we are allowing ourselves to become, and the affront that it is to the country that we are meant to be. We are Americans, and we are still capable of remaking our future. And this generation of Americans still has time to be called great. But only our actions can save us.”

So, I think this is actually very appropriate to the theme of tonight’s webcast. What is the future of our nation? What is the future of mankind? And when everything is collapsing, when civilization is crumbling, when Europe and the United States are disintegrating and the lives of our people are getting worse and worse at an accelerating rate, what is the solution? How do we create the future? And the future is always defined not by what you already know, not by what you already experienced; but rather by what you don’t know, by what mankind has never before experienced. So with that said, I’d like to hand the podium over to Megan Beets, who will deliver a short introduction to this evening’s presentation by Ben.

MEGAN BEETS: Thank you, Matthew. Now as Matt just said, the mission at hand, the mission which all of us here in the LaRouche movement have taken up, and the mission which we pose to all of you, is to create a future for civilization. One of the most important people who will determine whether or not that effort to create a future for civilization will succeed or fail is the figure of Johannes Kepler, who died in 1630. So why is Kepler one of the most crucial human beings present — in a certain way — in society today? Kepler proved in practice, through his discovery of the Solar System, that mankind is not a species of animal. Now, Kepler lived 400 years ago, and he lived at a time in Europe which was engulfed in the flames of religious war for generations and in the midst of a dark age. Not unlike what stares us in the face today.

However, Kepler’s legacy draws not from what he was surrounded by in his daily life, but Kepler goes straight to the Italian Renaissance and to the great mind of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who was the founder of modern scientific method. Now Cusa posited the idea that man, being an image of the Creator, has a mind which can generate conceptions which are completely beyond and above the imaging power of sense perception. Concepts which have no existence in the realm of sense perception, and yet, are true hypotheses about the mind of God.

Now Kepler followed his teacher Cusa, and Kepler proved with his scientific work that man indeed has a mental life; has mental processes which are not derivatives of the information gathered via sense perception and observations. That man has a mental experience that goes beyond the furthest reach of sense perception. And this mental experience is the source of concepts about principles shaping the universe which are true. Now that is the essence of science. Kepler presents this in detail very clearly, in one of his last works, called the Harmony of the World; where Kepler begins from the knowledge of the nature of the motion of the planets which is based on a revolutionary conception that he had proven ten years earlier. That the Sun was a physical force; the Sun was not just a passive observer of the motions of the Solar System, as had been believed by all of his predecessors. But the Sun itself is the seat of the physical power which causes the motions of the planets; and the Sun itself is a changing physical process.

Now based upon that, Kepler was able to ask the question what is the unifying principle of the Solar System as a one. What is the single principle which unites the multiplicity of motions of the entire system as the unfolding of one single intention. Another way to say the same thing is, why are all of the motions of the solar system as they are, and not otherwise. Now, Kepler discovered that each of the planets’ motions is not an individual motion. No planet is acting as an individual being, but that each planet’s motion belonged to a set of tuned motions, much like the individual member of a string quartet isn’t acting on his own, but is responding and participating in the unfolding of one unified tuned whole. Now. Kepler discovered this, not by calculation, not by mathematics, but by generating within his mind as an original idea — as if he had created the solar system from the start — of what the principle of the composition of the solar system ought to be. So he conceived of the physical power of the sun, serving the function of tuning and regulating each motion within it, to reflect a single tuned unity, which reflected a system of human polyphonic music. So in other words, Kepler re-cast the solar system as an object of human thought, as a human system. And he was right. And because of Kepler, for the first time man’s mind encompassed the principle of the solar system. Now, animals don’t do this. Animals are bound to earth. Animals are creatures of their senses. They respond to stimuli, they adjust their behavior based on stimuli, they adjust their behavior to adapt to the circumstances of the environment around them. But man is different. Man in his essence is a creature of a higher power.

So Kepler has left us with this legacy. He took the first step of discovery of the solar system, but as I think Ben will open up for us, what we know today is that the earth and the solar system are encompassed, subsumed, within an even larger system, and we know that the earth itself is part of this larger galactic system which has effects directly for everyone living on earth. And so the challenge and the mission before us, which I’m going to ask Ben to come to the podium to elaborate, is how do we begin to tackle that — mastering that principle of the galactic system and the legacy of Kepler.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Megan. Some of this comes directly out of our discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, and his emphasis on including this as a featured part of our intervention in this point of the discussion. And I think as you just posed it very clearly, it needs to be clear to people that Kepler provides a reference point for the creation of the future, for where we need to go, as much as what he did to define this revolution of the past, so to speak. And this does not mean that he gives us, you know, some practical solutions or something, you know. The average person will say, okay, does he tell us, you know, where to get the water now, or something silly like that, you know. It’s not — he doesn’t give us like your playbook you can go run to. He gives us something more important than that. He gives us an understanding of how mankind is able to develop new solutions to new problems — a better understanding of, as Megan was discussing, how it is that mankind uniquely relates to the universe, and how mankind can change that relation. You know, these are the big question that we really are facing right now as a species.

In that context, an expression of that, we have this water crisis. We have a major crisis developing in California immediately, other locations in the Southwest are, you know, maybe one or two steps behind California. Other places around the world are also facing similar water crises. So let’s take this in this context. The water crisis in California — first of all, there’s clear levels to the crisis, it’s not just one thing. On the first level, we have a drought. We have an immediate drought right now. It hasn’t rained much, there hasn’t been a lot of precipitation for the past years. So the amount of water coming into the state is lower. That’s one aspect, but that’s not the entire picture.

You go to a deeper level, there’s been no development in the state for water projects, these types of things, for nearly fifty years. For nearly fifty years, there’s been no major investment in developing the water resources that we knew were needed. Desalination was put on the table — it wasn’t done. NAWAPA was put on the table — it wasn’t done. And so for the past almost fifty years, we haven’t even been operating at breakeven, we’ve been actually drawing down the system in California. We’ve been consistently depleting the aquifers in the Central Valley, for example, for decades. You know, this current drought is not a new, out-of-the-blue thing, we’ve been — we’ve known we’ve been operating beyond the capacity of the water system of the state as it existed, for decades now. We refused to take action. And now we have a drought hitting on top of that, so that’s creating a certain culmination in the crisis.

But there’s another level, there’s another aspect on the water crisis in California right now, which is the response of the Governor. He is another layer to the crisis. Governor Brown is a crisis in California. The drought, and you have the Brown crisis — that’s an additional aspect. You know, his response is to say, we’re just going to impose a policy of — essentially, population reduction. You know, whether he is fully recognizing this or not, he is completely buying into the policy of the British Empire, the policy of Prince Philip, the World Wildlife Fund. He is fully on board with that entire program: genocide, population reduction. That’s the policy response that he is putting on the table in reaction to this current crisis in California.

So, how do we handle this crisis now, what do we actually do, to address the imminent water crisis in California. Well, the first thing is obvious, we’ve said it, we’re going to continue to say it: Get rid of Jerry Brown. If you have — the first step, you take out the trash, get rid of the problem, get rid of the active factor worsening the situation, now, which is Jerry Brown.

But, that aside, that done, as we want to really elaborate here today, we also need the positive solutions. We need to act human, we need to act creatively. We need to create new solutions, create in effect a new future condition which doesn’t yet exist. Something which Jerry Brown either doesn’t understand, or he doesn’t want. But either way, he is right now acting to suppress the people of California, to deny them their natural human right for creative progress. He is acting as a modern lackey of Zeus. That is what he is doing.

So the only true real solutions, aside from taking out the garbage, getting rid of Jerry Brown, getting rid of his policy, the real solutions are, you know, as Megan introduced this aspect of the discussion here, are for mankind to create the new conditions which don’t yet exist. The action of the creation of new states, new conditions in the universe which would never have existed without mankind’s creation, now mankind’s intervention. And the creation of these new conditions, new states, which are new to mankind himself — that’s where the solution lies.

And that’s what we want to discuss. You know, mankind discovers things. We discover principles, we discover insights into how the universe operates. But I would say that the clearest, the most pure expression of this process, is that by that activity, we are enabled to change our behavior as a result of these discoveries of principle, we are enabled to do things which we simply couldn’t do before. So again, this is mankind: By his fundamental nature, mankind is a creative species in this respect. It’s always doing something new, always going to a higher level. We’re uniquely a species which continues to change how it relates to the universe. We’re not defined by any particular relationship to the universe. We don’t have an ecology, the way animals have an ecology. Human ecology is the potential to change our ecology, that’s what makes us different from animals, that’s what makes us human. So to deny that, to suppress that, as Brown is doing, as Obama is doing in a different sense, but in the same way, really, is true Zeus, it’s a Zeusian genocide program. So that’s the challenge we face right now in California.

But again, where do we find the solutions, true human solutions to this water crisis? How do we develop new ways to manage the water system, to deal with the water cycle, using methods which night not even exist yet, or haven’t existed yet, or, if they exist, they only exist in very preliminary phases. How can we come to a new, higher level management of the system that we’ve never been able to develop before? Because if we’re not doing that, we’re not being human, we’re not responding to the crisis as a real human species. We’re just reacting, the way we did in the past.

So this is the issue, the issue that Mr. LaRouche has put on the table, or emphasized regarding this issue for a couple of years now, actually, when discussing the water crisis, discussing the situation. He was saying, forget just these off-the-shelf, old ideas; we’re in an accelerated crisis, we’ve got to go to higher levels. Where are the higher levels. Where are the subsuming principles. What are the areas we don’t yet fully understand, we haven’t yet grasped, we don’t yet fully understand?

And this takes us to the galaxy, to the galactic system, and it takes us to Kepler for how to think about that, how to approach that. So you can ask, how did Kepler discover the Solar System? What’s the importance of referencing Kepler’s work here? He asked how the planets moved, he asked why did the planets move? But what he showed was that nothing in domain of sense-perception could ever account for the planetary motions. He was not the first, as others had done before, Kepler recorded the motions, and he also used other people’s recordings of the motions. He could catalogue the effects. A map can be developed, charting the motions of the planets, charting how they move through the sky.

But the map does not tell you how or why the planets actually move, why they move as they do. You’re cataloguing an expression, you’re mapping a shadow. The effect can be seen, it can be recorded, it can be mapped, it can be charted, but the cause of that effect, the source of that shadow can never be understood in these terms. That’s what Kepler showed us. And he showed, and he even discussed very explicitly, as Megan referred to his last work, his Harmony of the World, in there is a brilliant exposition on not just the laws of planetary motion, but the laws of how human mind comes to understand principles.

He doesn’t just talk about some formula that tells you how the planets move. He goes through a whole exhaustive development of how it is the human mind can even come to know that, from his own standpoint as somebody who, you should put some weight behind his idea, because he did it. So him expressing his own insights, referring to Cusa’s work, referring to this method of thought, how he was able to come to his discoveries.

And he says very explicitly and clearly, it’s an action of the human mind which enables mankind to understand causes. It didn’t come from experience, it didn’t come from data from observation. It was a creative action that he generated in his mind. Something he uniquely made which wasn’t derived from the evidence, it was something he had to generate, unique and anew, and in certain cases, explicitly because the evidence he was presented with otherwise, was contradictory, it was inconsistent, it couldn’t work itself in its own terms. So he was forced to come up with new conceptions, a new conception that he generated which couldn’t have come from anywhere but his own action, his own creative discovery..

So this is a lesson for how we think about, how we relate to the system as a whole. As a human being with a healthy human mind, you observe things, you observe phenomena. You recognize these phenomena as effects, you hypothesize what governs these witnessed effects, and ultimately the demonstration of the validity of your hypotheses, is if they enable you, if they enable mankind to change how he operates in the universe. Do your hypotheses allow mankind to do new things? To create new actions? In Mr. LaRouche’s work on economics, you can measure this in a certain sense even more clearly: Do they enable an increase in the potential relative population density of the human species? Do they enable a measurable increase in the power of mankind to expand its influence on the planet and beyond?

In this context, where do we find these types of truly human solutions to this current water crisis — the crisis in California, the crisis in the Southwest? It is by going to these higher levels.

Now it’s never complete and final knowledge. You never have a complete, final solution to the entire system. You develop these hypotheses, you demonstrate the validity by showing it gives mankind an ability to be more effective, develop a greater power to act in the universe, but sometimes, we witness effects which we could say, violate our existing hypotheses. We see effects, we see phenomena which operate in a way our current hypotheses, our current conceptions, can’t account for. And these are great. These inconsistencies, that’s what we want. These are our ticket to the future.

These are indications not that we failed, oh, we don’t get everything — these are indications that there’s a new principle at play. There’s a new factor in there that we didn’t understand yet, expressing itself, in what we might call an unexpected deviation, an unexpected variation in the shadows, in how the shadows behave. We had some conception of what was casting those shadows, and we see they behave a little bit differently than we would have expected. That’s what we want, those are the types of things that we need to look for, in these types of issues.

Then this brings us back to the water crisis, the theme here: How do we deal with water? How do we deal with the water situation in California? Again, you’re dealing with a phenomenon, you’re dealing with certain phenomena. We experienced aspects of this thing we objectify, we call as a “water cycle.” We see the processes of the motion of water from one location to another; we see the transition of water from one state to another state, from liquid to gas, to ice, to solid, moving through these different states. We see water moving through different processes, through abiotic systems, through biological systems, through human economic activity; so you see all these effects, these phenomena, but no one thinks that the water cycle is a self-determined thing — maybe you find some people who do, but people don’t think that this is some self-defined, self-determined process.

It’s not hard to recognize, when you identify this thing you call a water cycle, you’re looking at the expression of certain principles acting, certain forces at play: the role of the Sun. The water cycle wouldn’t exist if the Sun didn’t exist. The heat effect from the Sun, the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun powers the whole cycle; it evaporates ocean water, it gets the sky filled with atmospheric moisture. You have the rotation of the Earth, is a critical factor in determining how the system behaves, the motion of atmospheric water through the sky, related to the wind patterns and effects associated with the rotation of the Earth. You have the action of life: Plant life in particular plays a major role in putting water back up into the atmosphere, water that’s on land that would have just remained on land, plant life is pumping it back up.

So we know that these — no one thinks the water cycle is some self-defined, existing thing; we already know it as a shadow, we know it’s an expression of certain principles of action, it’s an effect of something. But until now, we’ve defined the cycle as a shadow of these processes in particular, the action of the Sun; actions on the Earth, within the Earth, the ocean systems, what have you, action of life.

Well, what happens when we see evidence for changes, for variations which we can’t attribute to any of these previously known principles? What happens when we see variations which we can’t account for in our current hypothesized understanding of the causes governing the system? And this is really what we’ve been talking about for the past month on these shows, and on larouchepac.com. We’re presenting you with these indications, this ticket, this wonderful deviation, this indication that something else is going on, which we can’t account for in our current understanding, indications of another factor at place, which isn’t currently in our hypothesized framework, which we used to define our understanding of the cause of this shadow we call the water cycle.

These are things we’ve discussed: You have our current understanding of our Solar System moves through our galaxy, through the galactic system: By the old framework, that shouldn’t matter to the water cycle, that shouldn’t matter to climate, that shouldn’t matter to how water behaves on Earth. But we see records that there’s a relationship there, we see variations, deviations in the climate records, which don’t correspond to anything we can define in the prior system, the prior framework of the limitations of the principles at play.

But we do see it corresponds to this galactic relationship. We see indications, variations showing that as the Sun changes its strength, as the Sun gets weaker, as the Sun rises and falls in its amount of activity, and lowers its shielding of the Solar System from the influence of the galaxy around us, as the Sun lets in more galactic effect, so to speak, again, we see deviations, variations in how the water behaves, in how the water cycle operate — where you have droughts, where you have excess water; deviations, variations which don’t correspond to anything in the previous system but are directly related to how the activity of the Sun interacts with this larger galactic effect.

And we see these on time scales of thousands of years; we see these in time scales of hundreds of years, we see these on time scales of decades, of tens of years. We even see indications of short time scales of days, when the Sun will release large outbursts of plasma, of solar activity, these explosive events just above the surface of the Sun that will release large structures of plasma, coronal mass ejections. When these things pass by the Earth, they can temporarily increase the shielding around the Earth, decreasing the amount of influence from the galactic system, and we see deviations, we see variations, in how water is behaving in the atmosphere, associated with the reduction of this galactic effect, this galactic input.

So these are things we’ve discussed, we’ve presented, we’ve written about, but they’re all indications of something which exists outside of the current framework. And until recently most people have been operating under this earlier assumption, that the water cycle is defined by activity in the Solar System: What the Sun does, what the Earth’s doing, maybe you have a role for plant life, various phenomena on the Earth affect it, but that’s it. Influences beyond the Solar System have been excluded under that framework; galactic influences are believed to have no role under that framework.

But now, with the evidence we’re presenting here, we’re clearly seeing otherwise, we’re seeing these deviations, effects which we can’t attribute to the prior framework, and which directly point us to this galactic system. And this is not work that I’m doing, — this is work that’s been done by a relative handful of scientists, who have the guts and the strength to pursue these frontier questions, who’ve been showing this for the recent years, that you do have these effects, you do have these deviations, it does point you to these larger cosmic processes. And what they provided us here, is this whole framework that we’re pulling together that we can present to you, which tells us we can’t ignore these deviations. We see that the shadow which is the water cycle, the effect of these forces as play, which we call the water cycle, is not cast solely by activity from within the Solar System. You have the casting of the effect of activity from the galaxy as well.

So we have to understand it from this higher perspective, we have to include the role of the galaxy. We have to think on the level of the galactic system when we think about things as we thought as simple as how the water cycle behaves. We have to recognize that this cast shadow which we depend upon, which we call the water cycle, is an expression of galactic processes, as well.

Just to be a little more specific: This changes in particular especially how we understand how water behaves in the atmosphere. The Sun is constantly pumping water from the ocean into the atmosphere through evaporation, filling the atmosphere, with water vapor. This is now giving us new insights into how that water behaves when it’s in the atmospheric system, and most importantly, for the situation now, today, this gives us new insights into how we can begin to influence and control, what we should really call the cosmic environment of the atmosphere; how we can begin to influence and control, ourselves, the conditions of the atmosphere which we otherwise attribute to the activity of the galactic system.

And again, this is something we’ve discussed over the past month: We have these so-called ionization systems, these systems that have been developed and successfully utilized to affect and modulate these what I would call “cosmic” conditions or the “cosmic environment” of the atmosphere, to influence how the water behaves up there. We’ve discussed the success of these system, we’ve shown that we can increase precipitation; we’ve shown that we can bring in new flows of atmospheric moisture, over the land, bring it from above the oceans, above the land. We’ve shown that we can begin to tap into this vast potential of the atmospheric water system.

But the way we’re doing so, is again, by controlling the conditions of the atmosphere, which are created by and associated with the effect of this galactic system, that we’re affecting and influencing the cosmic environment of our atmosphere.

So I would say, look at this the way Kepler would. We’ve been discussing some of the effects here, some of the particulars, but how would Kepler see this? As Megan stated very well in the introduction, Kepler demonstrated, mankind is not an animal: Mankind is not bound by his sense-perceptual or biological experience, the way every animal species that we know of is. Mankind is gifted with a unique capability of the human mind, something which exists outside of and beyond the senses. And it’s the ability to generate creative actions by the human mind, unique to the human mind itself, which is what enables mankind to make these changes, to fundamentally change how we relate to the universe.

Foolish people think, if you mention the Solar System, foolish people think of the Solar System as some array of objects individually floating around in some big void of space; that’s their conception of the Solar System. What did Kepler show us? He said, that’s a shadow, those are effects. They’re the result of a cause. And it’s mankind that can uniquely understand that cause, and understand that cause in a way that we can act in that domain, of cause, act in the domain of that which generates the effects, generates the shadows.

It’s not about the size of the space or the scale of the time, the way people normally think of these terms. It’s a different conception: It’s about, where does the generative principle exist? What is it, how can we understand it? And how can mankind generate his own similar effects, and utilize them, and express himself as that type of force in the universe? How can mankind cast his own shadows of creative action, not just react to other shadows?

So I think this is the type of conception that Kepler gives us that we absolutely need today, because, you know, he didn’t solve everything — and I don’t think he would have wanted to solve everything; I think he would have enjoyed the idea of new challenges, looking to the galaxy, looking to the supergalactic structure that we’re encompassed by.

Today, we’ve have to look to this next frontier, we have to look to the galactic system, as a start. Again, not as a collection of objects, a collection of different things, but we have to make an effort to understand what are the principles generating this system, this process, these effects, in the unique way we see it expressed. And how can we not just trying to define on some academic sense, but how can we look to act in that domain? How can we think of mankind as moving toward the potentials of casting shadows of creative action, associated with what we might call a galactic principle? That’s the level that mankind is now looking at, the level that mankind can go to.

So if we want water, if we want water for California, if we want to solve the water crisis in California and other regions, other states, other parts of the world, we have to be human, we have to be like Kepler.

OGDEN: With that said, I’m going to bring a conclusion to our webcast tonight. I would like to thank Ben and Megan, both, for joining me here in the studio. And thank you for tuning in. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, and we’ll see you next week.

Tonight’s webcast includes Lyndon’s response to our weekly, institutional question, and a discussion with the LaRouchePAC Science Team on the future of fresh water on earth. Governor Jerry Brown continues his push for fascist water conservation policies. We start at 8pm Eastern.

Standing on the steps of World War III, the United States has the opportunity to, not only save the state of California from its current path of destruction, but the entire world by joining the BRICS group of nations. California’s BROWN or green future, and the hair-trigger-like potential for WWIII will be explored in tonight’s webcast.

Standing on the steps of World War III, the United States has the opportunity to, not only save the state of California from its current path of destruction, but the entire world by joining the BRICS group of nations. California’s BROWN or green future, and the hair-trigger-like potential for WWIII will be explored in tonight’s webcast.

The emergency water crisis in California and the west requires new perspectives and new solutions — conservation and restrictions are a path to the death of the state. California needs new supplies of water to survive, but, more importantly, to make this happen the United States needs a to break from the past two generations of degeneration and join in the new global paradigm being led by China and the BRICS. While the United States has let the west wither and dry, China is securing their future with the largest water projects ever constructed by mankind. While Obama has been destroying the space program of the United States, China has returned to the Moon and is preparing the way for the development of the Solar System. A return to growth and progress is the only path to survival — not only for California, for the entire nation — and it takes mankind into new levels of understanding the global water system as a product solar and galactic processes.

If California Wants Water They Must Think Like China, Look Upon Earth From The Solar System

The emergency water crisis in California and the west requires new perspectives and new solutions — conservation and restrictions are a path to the death of the state. California needs new supplies of water to survive, but, more importantly, to make this happen the United States needs a to break from the past two generations of degeneration and join in the new global paradigm being led by China and the BRICS. While the United States has let the west wither and dry, China is securing their future with the largest water projects ever constructed by mankind. While Obama has been destroying the space program of the United States, China has returned to the Moon and is preparing the way for the development of the Solar System. A return to growth and progress is the only path to survival — not only for California, for the entire nation — and it takes mankind into new levels of understanding the global water system as a product solar and galactic processes.