Author: adam

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.

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening.  It’s April 3, 2015.  My name is Matthew Ogden, and I’d like to welcome all of you to our weekly webcast with larouchepac.com.  This is a very unique and important broadcast that we’re hosting here tonight.  I’m joined in the studio tonight by our featured guest this evening, Benjamin Deniston, from the LaRouche PAC Basement Team.  We’re also joined by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review.

Just by means of introduction, Ben will be presenting a summary presentation tonight, based off of research that is included in a new paper that has been published this week by Benjamin Deniston, called This is included as the feature item in this week’s Executive Intelligence Review magazine, which is titled “The Mission of the Presidency.”  And those of you who are viewers of this website, regularly, will maybe have seen the presentation that Ben Deniston did this past Wednesday, on the Basement Team’s “New Paradigm for Mankind” show.  So what Benjamin Deniston will go through tonight is supplemented by this paper which is available on larouchepac.com also; and we highly encourage to study this and to read this.  By all means, circulate what is about to occur tonight as widely as you possibly can.  So, without further ado, I would like to introduce Benjamin Deniston.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  Thanks, Matthew.  People  know that California is in a major water crisis.  This is not news.  It was just announced this past week though, that for the first time in the state’s history, an acting governor has instituted mandatory restrictions on water use as an emergency measure.

Now, this is, I would say, really tragedy; it’s more of the same.  It’s more of the same failed policies that have already brought California to its current point of crisis and potential threat.  And now it’s time to get serious about the water crisis in California and elsewhere more generally.  The fact of the matter is, right now at this point, in the conditions in the United States — but also more broadly — I mean, the focus on the Western regions of the United States, we can no longer rely on managing local or regional water supplies.

The situation in California expresses more clearly than anything else, that we’ve gone past that; we’ve gone beyond the point where we can just manage existing local or regional water cycles.  There are no solutions in the current bickering that’s going on about who’s going to get what limited water there is. In California you have fights between the north and the south — who gets the water?  Fights between the farmers and the cities — who gets the water?  It’s all insane at this point.  And the additional plan in this crisis now, is simply cut use and impose mandatory restrictions without providing any actual solutions, and I mean solutions by increasing the water supply, the water cycle to California and other regions, without that, what’s being proposed right now is a plan that’s going to result in depopulation and the death of the state of California.

There is no guarantee that this drought that’s going on now is going to stop.  And I’m going to get into this, but by the historical records, it’s actually more likely that this type of process is going to continue.  And the Brown plan for the state of California is for a brown state with no life.

So, the point is, we need solutions; we need a new perspective and a new approach to this crisis.  And we need to approach the issue of water in California and water more generally at a higher level.

Now, I’m going to reference what China is doing, because this is the right perspective, this is the right direction, what we’re seeing coming out of China right now,  the perspective being developed and pursued by the BRICS nations.  And Mr. LaRouche has emphasized very strongly that this means — most emphatically — China’s space program; their lunar program.  The mission to elevate mankind to a Solar System perspective and beyond; to understand the world’s water system from this higher standpoint.  From some discussions with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, based on the work I presented in this paper, that Matthew just referenced, this means today most emphatically going to the highest level; which is a galactic perspective, with galactic metrics, and a galactic clock — as Mr. LaRouche was saying earlier today.  So that’s the subject that we’re going to get into here.

So first of all, just to lay the proper groundwork for this discussion, this is not a new crisis; this is not a surprise. The North American Water and Power Alliance [nawapa], a project designed to bring a small fraction of the abundant freshwater of the northwest — Alaska, British Columbia, the Yukon Territory — down into the Southwest was a program that was designed in the 1950s and 1960s for exactly this reason.  It was known that the natural water conditions of the Southwest were not going to be adequate to sustain the population and sustain growth in the Western regions of the United States.  It was known then — over 50 years ago — that the future of the southwest depended on bringing new water supplies to that region.

Figure 1: LaRouche’s 1982 Paper

Mr. LaRouche has been on this issue for decades.  We see in the first graphic, the first indication here, you can see as early as in 1982, Mr. LaRouche drafted a document entitled “Won’t You Please Let Your Grandchildren Have a Drink of Fresh Water?”  Now this was a document that Mr. LaRouche wrote that featured prominently the NAWAPA project; and again, this was 1982.  So do the math, now, over 30 years ago.  The grandchildren that Mr. LaRouche was speaking of, over three decades ago, warning of the crisis that’s now hitting, have been born.  Where is their water?

The point is, nothing has been done, despite the fact that these crises have been known; despite the fact that it was so understood that the West was going to need these new water supplies — this entire NAWAPA system was designed and proposed decades ago.  So the crisis we’re facing here, now today in California maybe being the most extreme current expression, but it’s not just limited to California.  This crisis is here today because of this failure to act, over the past two generations.

Figure 2: A Century of Water Diversion

Now contrast this with what’s happened in China,  what’s going on in China.  As we see in the second graphic, here we see a comparison of what China has done in the recent period in terms of water diversion projects, with what the United States has done over the past century. Now as illustrated in the timeline depicted beneath the United States, you can see clearly that from the time of Franklin Roosevelt, in the early 1930s, up through the time of John F Kennedy, you had a remarkable growth and expansion of water development projects in the United States.  For the West, this included the management of the Colorado River, the Sacramento River, and the San Joaquin River.  This development created a series of systems which had the capacity to deliver about 20 cubic kilometers per year of freshwater throughout California and other regions in the Southwest, from the five projects depicted here.

But you can see clearly that since the 1970s, after this period of progress from Roosevelt to Kennedy, the United States has done nothing.  The United States failed to act on NAWAPA, failed to follow LaRouche’s warnings and advice, and failed to follow the warnings of others; declaring and defining the fact that the survival of the Southwest depended upon these types of projects — bringing new water to the region.

Then look at China.  In less than two decades, China has surpassed what the United States had done.  What we see here is a depiction of their South Water North project, which already — not even being fully completed — already has a greater capacity of the combined five projects of the Southwest United States. Between their eastern and central routes, a total of about 27 cubic kilometers of freshwater per year is being delivered; compared with the 20 of the entire Southwest system.  And they currently have designs and studies ongoing to develop a Western route, which, once that’s developed and implemented, the total of China’s entire South Water North project will become over twice what the United States has done in their Southwest region.  So again, they’ve already surpassed us, but in about 15 years, they’ve done more than what the United States did in 40 years.

Now, for further comparison, a keystone of China’s water development project is their Three Gorges Dam.  Now again, this surpasses what the United States had done earlier.  The Three Gorges Dam has a greater storage capacity than either the Hoover Dam or the Grand Coulee; two of the kind of highlight projects of this period of growth under Franklin Roosevelt.  And the Three Gorges has a greater power generation capability than both of those U.S. dams combined.  And in fact, the Three Gorges Dam is currently the single largest power-generation facility in the entire world; stationed on the Yangtze River as part of this whole Chinese water management program.  So what we see here in this comparison it’s clearly illustrated, China is showing us that these things can be done.  That while the United States has degenerated, China has progressed, and progressed more quickly.

So now, California is suffering and dying from the effects of this degeneration of the United States.  And we could probably most aptly call this the “Brown degeneration.”  And quite frankly, this situation is still probably worse than most people will let themselves believe.  Now, I want to really emphasize some recent studies that have been done, looking at the history of the climate in the Western United States and in California.

And what’s been uncovered in these studies is indications showing that the climate in California over the past 100 years to 150 years, is actually an anomaly compared to the records going back a few thousand years.  That the past century, century and a half, has actually been wetter, with a greater supply of water than the region would normally expect on average.  It’s actually been more stable than this longer period of thousands of years. Where normally you would expect dramatic fluctuations, things even referred to as mega-droughts, lasting decades or longer; or on the flip side, even mega-floods which dump huge amounts of water, potentially flooding the entire Central Valley of California — which has happened before.  So, the climate in the West has been characterized over a longer period, according to these studies, by greater variation and overall averaging of drier conditions.

So, if you recognize that, and let that sink in, you know quite frankly, it might not even be accurate to call the current situation in California a drought.  It might be more of, moving out of an anomalously wet period and into what naturally is a drier climate in California and the West.  So that’s the reality that we’re facing; and that’s the reality we have to overcome, despite the insane ideas of Governor Brown and others, who are just going to pray for rain, tell people to stop showering and stop watering their lawns, and hope the situation gets better, while the state dies off.

Now, if we had built NAWAPA in the 1960s, we’d obviously be in a better position to deal with all this.  But that was over 50 years ago; and now we’ve gone beyond that, because of this failure to act.  It is impossible right now to just throw old solutions at a currently worse situation; we have to go further. And not just in a larger scale, but what I want to get across here tonight, is to a higher cognitive understanding of what our global water system actually is; and how we can begin to manage it better from this higher standpoint.  NAWAPA was going to a larger scale; and it’s likely that we might still need something like that in the longer term, to deal with certain aspects of the conditions.  But that has to be subsumed by going to a higher level, not just a larger scale.

Figure 3: Global Water Cycle

And I want to pull up the next graphic here, the third graphic, to get at this.  This is a very simplified illustration of the global water cycle. Contrary to the belief of many foolish greenies and environmentalists, water is not something you use up, it’s an inherent cycle.  It’s a cyclical system that mankind taps into, improves, and develops; and utilizes his control over this cycle to improve the biosphere, improve the land.  This is what mankind has historically always done, and what mankind must continue to do.  Now the basic characteristics of this cycle are evaporation of ocean water; putting that water into the atmosphere; and then the precipitation of atmospheric moisture over land, where it can participate in terrestrial cycles and economic activity and biological activity and plant life.  It can do something productive, something useful for the terrestrial biosphere.  And then it cycles back into the ocean again; it doesn’t disappear, it’s not used up.  It’s a cyclical system.

Now up to this point, the vast majority of water management is limited to a single category of activity, a single type of activity, which is managing the water which has already fallen on land.  Now whether this groundwater, or snowpack melting to create river flows, this is all precipitated water that’s fallen out of the atmosphere onto land.  And these can be local irrigation projects, larger regional projects like the United States built in the ’30s, ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s which we were just looking at; or they can be even larger projects, continental projects like NAWAPA.  But all of those together are still a single category of activity, a single type of activity.  Mankind relating to this cycle at a particular level; which is managing this precipitated water, surface water, groundwater.

Given the current crisis, we have to go further.  Again, not just to a larger scale, but to a higher level.  We can’t just rely on the natural results of these water cycles; we have to look for new ways to control the cycles themselves.  If needed, expand the cycles themselves.  And if that’s not enough, create our own cycles anew.

Now, the beginning of this new stage is, probably the most important step, is recognizing that this is not an Earth-based process.  That the water cycle on Earth is not a reflection of the Earth in and of itself.  All kinds of terrestrial factors play a role.  Ocean cycles, volcanic activity; these are all factors affecting the global water cycle.  But ultimately, the whole thing is driven by cosmic factors.  We have to look at this from outside the Earth.  People seem to forget the Sun powers the entire global water cycle.  All the evaporation, which is the basis of all water on land as far as we know, is provided by the activity of the Sun; that drives the entire process.

Figure 4: Solar Climate Variations

So this raises one immediate question:  What happens when the Sun changes?  So, we can go to the next graphic, we can get one indication of the type of activity that we have records of. Now, this is a selection of sites, where we have records showing, particularly, climate variations, and for the most part variations in water availability of the water cycle, in different parts of the world.  And these are variations that correspond directly with changes in solar activity.

And in these studies, in particular, you are looking at scales of a few hundred years, in terms of the lengths of these cycles.  That when the Sun goes into periods of weakening, of weaker activity — less sunspots, less magnetic activity, less flaring activity — when the Sun gets weaker, generally, which it does periodically, which we know of already, you tend to get these types of fluctuations, changes in the climate patterns, in the water availability.  In particular, what we saw there in the mid-latitude regions, including California, where we have all these yellow, orangish-yellow circles indicating, you tend to get drier periods when the Sun gets weaker.  Up in the north, you get indications where it gets colder, you get colder climate conditions in these weaker periods of solar activity.  More in the direct line of the tropics, in some regions you tend to actually get wetter activity.

So, the climate changes.  And this might be a surprise to the IPCC — we might want to send them a letter, so they realize that the climate changes without mankind’s activity —  that this whole British genocide lobby, this idea that man is the main driving force in all these climate changes is completely ridiculous.  These cosmic changes shift precipitation patterns, they change regional water cycles, with or without mankind’s activity.

So immediately. we can see that we can’t make the mistake California has made, of just assuming that the water cycle is going to be a fixed, stable, unchanging system; that relying on the water where it precipitates onto the ground, and managing the flows provided by that precipitation, is not a viable strategy into the future for mankind’s water needs.  We have to go to a higher level.

Figure 5: Motion of Solar System Through the Milky Way

And to really understand this, we have to go beyond solar activity, because solar activity is not the other factor.  We have to go to understand the global water cycle from the standpoint of our galaxy as a whole, the galactic system as a whole.  And if we go to the next image, we can see one indication of this. This is a depiction of our understanding of the motion of our Solar System through the Milky Way galaxy, through our galactic system.  And our understanding of how our Solar System periodically moves above, and then below, the plane of the galaxy, the main disk of the galactic system.

And even in just one recent study, it’s been shown that corresponding to this motion of our Solar System through the galaxy, our climate changes.  That as our Solar system has passed through the mid-plane region of the galaxy, we tend to get colder periods.  When the Solar System is moving either above or below the galactic plane, kind of above and below the galaxy, farther away from the denser activity in the middle, we tend to get warmer periods.  This is one recent study.  Other studies have shown that as our Solar System moves through the spiral arms, another structure in our galaxy that is orbiting around the galactic center, when we move into different regions of denser activity in the galactic system, that corresponds to periods of dramatic cooling, you know, even some things referred to as “global icehouse events,” where you get glaciation that will in some cases cover the entire planet, and if not that far, nearly.

So what does this mean?  If we want to understand this water cycle that we experience, if we want to understand the climate, then we have to start at this highest level, this galactic level, which affects and controls, and influences and manages the climate on Earth.

Now, as soon as we say this, you’re going to get some jerks out there who will complain.  And they’ll say, “What are you talking about?  Why are you even raising a 32- million-year cycle?” — which is what this last galactic cycle was, that we’re looking at.  “Why are you saying that we should be worried about a 32-million-year cycle, when we have a current crisis and people are saying California’s out of water in one year?  You know, why are you bothering us with this wild astrophysical stuff?”  And it’s somewhat helpful when you hear people say that, because you can know who the idiots are, and not to listen to them.

This galactic perspective, this higher understanding of what our climate system is, all the factors that influence it, why it works, how it works, is the basis for the future of water on Earth under mankind’s control.  That despite the idiots out there, and I include the IPCC and their British associates in that category, you’re living in a cosmic system right now, a galactic system.  Your water cycle, which you depend upon, is an expression of a solar and galactic interaction.

So this is where we have to start from.  From now on, as Mr. LaRouche was saying in the discussion with him earlier today, from now on everything which matters starts from this galactic perspective.  Mankind acting from the standpoint of his developing insights into the galactic system as a whole, and then situating the Solar System and situating the Earth, including its water cycle, from that standpoint.

So now, what does this actually mean for the current crisis? There isn’t a lack of water for California or for any part of the world.  There’s a lack of water management and water development. The oceans are filled with water.  The atmosphere is filled with water.  The Sun is pumping ten times more fresh water into the atmosphere, than the amount which flows through every single river on land.  So if we can pursue new ways of managing this, then this will give us an entire new handle on mankind’s management of water cycles, not just relying upon the water that’s already precipitated on land, but tapping into the systems of evaporation, flows of atmospheric moisture, and precipitation where that moisture in the atmosphere condenses and falls.

Figure 6: Sites of Successful Climate Alteration

And some of this is already being done, this is not just idle speculation.  If we can see the last graphic here.  What we see indicated on this map, are locations where there have been successful demonstrations of the ability to increase rainfall, and affect and influence atmospheric moisture flows by acting on similar factors as these cosmic or galactic factors.  This is not cloud-seeding, which is a form of weather-modification that probably more people are familiar with, where you dump particulates into the atmosphere to help try and induce clouds to rain, that are already there.

These are systems that act upon the same — these are ionization systems which affect the same electrical and ionization properties of the atmosphere, which the galactic system, these galactic effects, act upon.  That in effect, these types of systems, pursuing this understanding of these electrical ionization properties, and the cosmic inputs into the atmospheric system, and the role those play in guiding and governing the water cycle in these climate systems, that this is the future of mankind’s ability to influence and control the water system from a completely higher level.  That this is the frontier, a greater understanding of the global system as a cosmic system, driven by solar and galactic activity, but then utilizing this new insight, this new understanding which we need to develop, to then improve the conditions on the planet.

And this is the whole point:  This is what mankind is, this is what mankind does as a creative force.  And the survival of mankind now depends upon dumping people like Governor Brown, and everything he represents:  that mankind’s survival in California, in the United States, depends upon him acting in his true nature, which is to discover new, higher-order insights, into what principles organize the universe, and then utilize that understanding to better improve the system in a way that only mankind can do.  That we have to use to this galactic perspective on climate, on the water cycle, to better figure out how to manage and improve that water cycle in a completely new way.

And this has to start now.  And this includes measures like nuclear desalination, the conversion of ocean water into freshwater for mankind’s use, using nuclear power, which is effectively the creation completely new water cycles, powered and sustained by mankind, securing mankind’s water supply and making us less vulnerable to these natural fluctuations in the water system.  And to do that, to pursue nuclear desalination, means a dramatic increase in the energy-flux density of the economy as a whole.

But beyond this, we have to look at this immediate challenge, of pursuing the control and management of these atmospheric moisture systems.  As I referenced in the map I showed earlier and is available in more detail in my article and in additional things that I have published on this subject, initial indications of our ability to control and affect and manage these atmospheric moisture flows, have been demonstrated, they’ve been demonstrated multiple times, that there is something there that we’re tapping into, that gives us a high potential.

So what’s needed now is a crash program, to better understand the climate system and the water system as a whole, as a subsumed factor of this solar and galactic interaction, and determine how that understanding can be used to manage these atmospheric moisture flows, giving us a completely new flank on managing the water needs of the entire planet, California included.

So anybody who’s going to get in the way of that perspective, that approach, that direction of work is a threat to the future survival of mankind, just as much as a Brown policy is a policy of death for California and any region which adopts such a similar policy.

And I think, just to conclude, broader points subsuming a lot of this, the greater reality that sustainability, the way most environmentalists or people in the United States who have been brainwashed with this idea, sustainability does exist in the terms in which they think.  Sustainability is not a principle of the universe:  Look at the history of life.  Life itself is not a sustainable process.  It’s been a progressive and transformative process.  Developing a stage of life to its fullest extent only to be superseded by a new, higher stage, not sustaining it at any one level, not managing any one cycle at any one stage, but always moving to a qualitative shift to a higher level.

That is what’s natural, that is what the universe does, that’s not just what life does.  And that’s what mankind does in a completely different, and completely more powerful way.  And that’s what mankind’s mission is, and that’s what makes mankind unique, the ability to create sustainability in the process of continual creation.  And that’s the challenge that I think people, that mankind is facing now, that sustaining the human species is only achievable by constantly going to a completely new level of understanding which we have not yet attained before, and that’s the only way we can secure the continued existence and progress of mankind, and that’s what we’re being faced with, right now, with this water crisis.  And facing this water crisis from a new, higher level, not trying to throw old, tire solutions at a problem that’s already surpassed their viability, but going to new levels which we might not have even figured out yet, but which we know, moving in that direction, can open up entire new avenues for mankind.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much, Ben.  And I just want to emphasize again, Ben’s paper is available both on LaRouche PAC and in the recent issue of EIR, “New Perspectives on the Western Water Crisis: Memo for the Next President.”

Now, Jeff Steinberg is also joining us in the studio tonight, to address an additional facet of the discussion that we had with Mr. LaRouche earlier this afternoon, one which pertains to the survival of mankind.  And to introduce Jeff, I’ll just quick read our institutional question for this evening, which reads as follows:

And Jeff why don’t you deliver what Mr. LaRouche’s response was to this question?

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  The problem is not with the deal, the problem is what President Obama has systematically refused to deal with, since the day he came into office as President.  He’s refused to deal with the fact that the Saudis represent a grave threat to the entire situation, not only in the Middle East, but around the world:  That you’ve got a British-Saudi apparatus, that is behind the drive for war, the provocations of terrorism that have been going on;  and the fact of the matter is, that the President of the United States is in possession of clear evidence, of the direct role of the Saudi government, the Saudi royal family — we can get down to specific names, former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan;  even the current King, Salman — these people were involved in the creation of al-Qaeda and by extension the creation of the Islamic State;  there was a Saudi apparatus in place in the United States, that provided indispensable logistical and financial support for the 9/11 attacks that took place in 2001.  The evidence has been there since the end of 2002, clear, unambiguous evidence, about the role of high-ranking Saudi officials, in carrying out the most despicable and largest-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history.

And yet, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney suppressed that evidence and prevented it from being released to the public.  When President Obama was campaigning for office, when he met with representatives of the 9/11 families, in February of 2009 during one of his first weeks in office, when he met with those same families again, in September of 2011, at the Ground Zero memorial, he made the promise, again, that he would declassify, the 28 page chapter from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, that sheds light on the entirety of the Saudi role in that attack.  And he has systematically refused to do that.

So now, let’s go back and look at the P5+1 agreement, that was announced earlier this week in Lausanne, Switzerland:  The Saudis are lined up adamantly against it.  The Israeli government, that’s recently been elected, a new and even more dangerous and virulent government, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, they are adamantly opposed to the deal.  So how can you legitimately make a deal, knowing that you’ve done nothing to curb major forces, that are prepared to create a war in order to stop the deal from going through?

You can sign all the papers you want, you can reach all of the deals you want, with the Iranians, but if you’re unwilling to deal with the Saudi problem — and really, we’re talking about an Anglo-Saudi problem:  We’re talking about an alliance between the British Monarchy and the Saudi Monarchy, that has generated every significant terrorist phenomenon that we’ve had to deal with over the past quarter-century or longer.

So if you’re unwilling to take on the real tough nut, the real source of instability, the real threat of general war today, then how can you even look at something like a P5+1 agreement, without coming to the conclusion that the whole thing is a set-up! And it’s virtually an invitation, to the Saudis, to their British patrons in the royal monarchy apparatus, to the Israelis, to launch the kinds of provocations that are certain to lead to, minimally, a full-blown regional war, and in all likelihood, because of the other aspects of President Obama’s policy, particularly the provocations towards Russia, it increases the likelihood that the kind of war that will come out of this, is going to be a general war, and a war in which thermonuclear weapons are going to be used.

And quite frankly, we’re on a countdown as of Thursday of this week, April 2nd, when the deal was announced;  before the applause even ended, I can assure you that in Riyadh, that in certain quarters in London, and in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, they’re looking at June 30th, as an outer-limit deadline for some kind of nasty provocation to blow this agreement up.   The policy of the British Monarchy, the policy of the Saudi Monarchy, is to conduct warfare, population warfare, within the heart of Eurasia, and to use that warfare, both to destabilize and destroy the new, emerging paradigm of the BRICS countries, that basically threatens to completely overturn the power of the British Monarchy, of Wall Street, of the Saudis, and of the entire apparatus that has basically wrecked mankind’s potential for a future, for the last decades.

So the problem we’re dealing with, around what is now being celebrated as a P5+1 breakthrough, is that President Obama is unwilling to take the necessary steps to actually secure a viable peace agreement. And by refusing to do that, he’s creating the preconditions for a very nasty war.

The British policy is to promote a Hundred Years’ conflict within the entire Islamic world, to create war between Sunnis and Shi’ites, starting in the Persian Gulf/Middle East region, but extending out around the entire globe.  You have a situation which should be transparently clear from this standpoint, as the negotiations were going into their final days in Lausanne, Switzerland, what did the Saudis do, with British and Obama backing?  They launched a war inside Yemen.  They began a massive population bombing campaigning, in Yemen, under the preposterous argument that the Iranians were the secret power, behind the Yemeni Houthis. So, you’ve already got a war underway in the region.  And if you put the Saudis together, unchecked, with Netanyahu, unchecked, you’ve got a virtual guarantee that this region is going to go through absolute Hell, in a very short period of time.

So we come down to something that Mr. LaRouche has been saying repeatedly, going all the way back to April of 2009:  The world is not safe so long as Barack Obama remains in the office of President of the United States.  And now we’ve got a ticking clock and that clock runs through June 30th which is ostensible deadline for completing the final agreements between the P5+1 countries and Iran.  By leaving the Saudis alone, by basically giving them an open key to blow things up, and you’ve effectively got a Saudi-Israeli partnership to destroy this arrangement under way right now, you’ve actually created a ticking timebomb, a clock counting down for general war.

And for good measure, you also have the Obama Administration escalating the direct provocations, the direct challenges, against Russia, through the escalation in Ukraine.  You’ve got a situation, where on April 20th, just three weeks from now, or less, American trainers will be arriving in Ukraine, to begin the process of training Ukrainian National Guard units, military training. Those National Guard units are, in fact, Right Sector and oligarchical private militias, literally Banderist neo-Nazis, who’ve been basically brought into the official governing structures of Ukraine:  These are the Maidan terrorists, who carried out the regime change operation in February of last year. These are the Nazi legions of Victoria Nuland, of the Obama State Department, who are behind another whole set of provocations directed against Russia.

So you put this picture together:  The Russians have made it very clear that any further NATO incursions into the countries bordering on Russia, that means Ukraine, and particularly, it also means the Baltic states, where the United States is flooding those countries with forward-based military hardware and small contingents of American troops.  The Russians are very clear on the fact, that all of these efforts are directed at a color revolution regime change operation — not in Kiev, they’ve already done that; that’s already been Victoria Nuland’s operation — but the real target is Moscow.

And in fact, if you put the map of the Persian Gulf together, the war zone that’s been carved out now by the Saudis and by the Israelis, with the pretext being the June 30th deadline for the completion of the P5+1 talks, then you’re talking about two critical chokepoint areas, areas that are intended to be block points, against the vision of Eurasian integration, the World Land-Bridge, the New Silk Road policies that have been moving forward at breakneck speed, under the initiative of the Chinese, under the initiative of other members of the BRICS countries.

Europe has broken from Obama!  They see Obama as a lunatic, for refusing, adamantly, to get involved in the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB); even the British, who have a certain sense, of long-life survival, were the first of the European countries to join the AIIB, the Chinese-initiated development bank, that’s one of a nest of new financial institutions, to invest in the infrastructure across the entire Eurasian region.

So, Obama, the British, the Saudis, the Israelis, are not only looking for an opportunity to blow up the situation in the Middle East and block the completion of this P5+1 deal, with full green-light go ahead from Obama, they’re looking to disrupt and blow up the entire heartland of Eurasia, to create a prolonged population war.  Some of them are crazy enough to even think that they could attempt a limited nuclear war, in the heart of Eurasia, to stop the world from going over to a whole new paradigm of development — not just cooperation among individual sovereign nation-states, but an entirely new system of relations, among nested groups of nation-states working as single entities, for policies that represent the betterment of mankind as a whole.

Now, Mr. LaRouche for many year, and I’d like to just briefly go back, because I was extremely impressed by the point that Ben was making in his presentation, at the start of this webcast — Mr. LaRouche has emphasized for years, that the United States has gone persistently and steadily downhill, since the assassination of President Kennedy.  And I was very struck yesterday, because in the context of Jerry Brown’s announcement about banning certain water use in the state of California, it’s like there’s going to be police, running around taking people’s water bottles away, or something like that!  Absolutely childish, preposterous nonsense!

Well, Jerry Brown’s father was a governor of California, during the period that overlapped the Kennedy Presidency.  And he launched some of the major water projects in the history of the United States, certainly in the history of California.  And during that period, they knew that there was a looming, future water crisis, that the actions that they had taken were useful, were productive, but insufficient.

And when Kennedy was killed, as Ben emphasized, all of those ideas were dropped, every project moving forward was dismantled.  What would have been a beneficial NAWAPA project 50 years ago, never happened!  It’s impossible to conceive of simply pushing the clock back 50 years ago, and trying to correct the mistakes.  You’re dealing with Jerry Brown as governor of California, who’s a real nutcase!  Who was notorious, as “Governor Moonbeam” for having all kinds of crazy ideas!  His father was part of the Kennedy generation that was actually a reflection of the FDR perspective, a real Hamiltonian, American System view, of developing the country. And now, we’ve got people like Jerry Brown, we’ve got President Obama, who is an absolute, irrational fanatic, insisting that man’s activity, man-made events are the causes of climate change.

Ben has just decimated that argument, and made it clear, that you’re dealing with a galactic clock, not something that you can wear on your wrist and somehow or other judge local phenomena.  So we’re dealing with a very, very profound, and deep cultural problem, which is that we’ve got a bunch of political leaders who know absolutely nothing, who are absolutely biased, and prejudiced, against science.

And so, these people are killing us:  President Obama, by failing to act on the Saudi problem, has created the conditions, where instead of looking at this P5+1 deal as something that you could say, “Well, we can judge it on its own merits,” has created a timeframe in which we can anticipate, that this whole region will be blown up, and can be the trigger for general war.

So we’ve got a big problem!  And if you want to solve that problem, and solve it in time to actually prevent the worst immediate disaster from happening, then let’s all get on the horn and make sure that this President is removed from office!  We’ve now got a much more narrow timeframe to make this happen, and if you’re interested in survival, if you’re interested in avoiding an eruption of potential thermonuclear war, in the period between now and the Fourth of July, then you better get serious about the fact that this guy’s got to go.

He’s committed the crimes, it’s time to remove him from office.  And now we’ve got a much more narrow window, in which to carry that out.

OGDEN:  Thank you, very much, Jeff.  Now, I just want to ask Ben to come back to the podium to make some concluding remarks for our broadcast here tonight.

DENISTON:  Just briefly, I wanted to bring it back to some reflections of our discussions with Mr. LaRouche earlier today. I think it’s important to emphasize that the invariants in this whole process, and this is something that Mr. LaRouche has been emphasizing increasingly in the context of these BRICS developments, the invariant is this need to come to a higher realization of mankind’s role on this planet and beyond.  And I think just coming back to this water issue, in the context of how Jeff just reintroduced it, this needs to become the pinnacle of the type of shift that Mr. LaRouche has been pointing to, this shift to the perspective of Kepler, in terms of mankind’s power as a force, not just on Earth, but in the Solar System, and as we’re discussing here today, the need for mankind to be a force even beyond that, on the galactic level.

That this is something unique that only mankind can do: Mankind is the only species that can conceptualize this galactic system, not as an image, not as a visible object, visible concept, but as a phenomenon generated by a principle, that mankind can conceptualize and understand and discover that, as a principle.  And man can understand the Solar System as a subsumed process of that larger system, and the Earth, subsumed by that principle.  And our global water system as an expression of this entire nested system.  And it’s mankind doing this, it’s not to just try to simulate or re-do what nature does, but this allows mankind to create new states, create new actions, types of actions, developments in the universe which would never exist without mankind’s intervention.

So it is, I think just pulling this thing fully around, and looking at this from the standpoint of the dramatic developments occurring with the BRICS process, I think Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis has been clear:  This is the chance to realize, in a more fundamental, scientific way, mankind’s true role as a creative force on this level.

OGDEN:  Okay, thank you very much, Ben; thank you, Jeff. With that we’re going to bring a conclusion to tonight’s broadcast.  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Thanks for joining us.  Good night.

Lyndon LaRouche will be in the studio today. Join us at 1pm Eastern for the political discussion you need to hear.

Transcript now available. Lyndon LaRouche will be in the studio today. Join us at 1pm Eastern for the political discussion you need to hear.

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

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

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

And that is where we stand today.

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

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

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

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

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

OGDEN: A few centuries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAROUCHE: Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAROUCHE: As opposed to a hole. [laughter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript now available. Lyndon LaRouche will be in the studio today. Join us at 1pm Eastern for the political discussion you need to hear.

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

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

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

And that is where we stand today.

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

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

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

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

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

OGDEN: A few centuries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAROUCHE: Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAROUCHE: As opposed to a hole. [laughter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our webcast has now concluded, as always, thanks for joining us. Be sure to tune in next Friday at 8PM Eastern.

Tonight’s webcast was pre-recorded. It is now available!

Transcript now available. Join host Matthew Ogden, Jeffrey Steinberg and Megan Beets as they discuss the latest developments with the Chinese-led AIIB, the Obama Administration’s disastrous opposition to it and Mr. LaRouche thoughts on the situation.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, my name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome all of you to our LaRouche PAC webcast for March 27th, 2015. We’re holding this broadcast tonight on the eve of the upcoming Schiller Institute conference tomorrow, in New York City, which will be live covered on LaRouche PAC, so we ask you to tune in again at 2 p.m. Eastern Time tomorrow. So our webcast here tonight is intended to be sort of a prelude to that event which is coming tomorrow in New York City.

Now, I’m joined in the studio here tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review and Megan Beets of the LaRouche PAC Basement Scientific Team. And the three of us did have a chance to confer with Mr. LaRouche earlier this afternoon, so the discussion that you hear tonight will be informed by that discussion.

I’d like to start our broadcast tonight by posing the institutional question for this week to Jeff, who will deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response. The question reads as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, or the AIIB, is to have an initial capitalization of $50 billion, which may be doubled in the future. It will finance development projects such as roads and railways in the developing countries of Asia. China is to be the biggest shareholder with many other Asian countries joining, while non-Asian members have also been invited to be founding members, but will be restricted to 25% of the shares. Several European countries, including Germany and Italy, have decided to apply. The Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said that he supports a Chinese-led Asian regional bank, as long as it is transparent and not run by a single country. However, here in Washington, the AIIB, which is expected to be fully established by the end of 2015 has raised concerns that it would compete with the dominant, established international lenders, such as the World Bank.

“What is your view of the Obama Administration’s opposition to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Well, first of all, since the question was first presented yesterday, there’s been quite a lot of movement. March 31st is the deadline that’s been established by the AIIB for initial charter members, and over the last several days, on Thursday alone, South Korea and Turkey both made official announcements of their intent to be founding charter members of the AIIB. Even the head of the Asian Development Bank, a Japanese banker, indicated that he’s enthusiastic about the AIIB, and the prospect of collaboration.

So, in effect, the Obama Administration’s opposition is nothing short of a clinical evidence of insanity, and in fact, criminal insanity on the part of this President and if this administration. Now, Mr. LaRouche was very explicit: He said, in a certain sense, the question itself is a diversion from the much more fundamental issue, which is that the very survival of the United States as we know it is not a very likely proposition if the Obama Presidency is not brought to screeching halt, very, very soon. The President is guilty of a laundry list of impeachable crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors against the American republic, so there is no shortage of bases for his removal from office. If that action is not taken, then the future prospects of the institution of the U.S. Presidency are, in fact, very poor, indeed.

Now, from the discussion with Mr. LaRouche, he had a number of very sharp and very precise things to say, and so I’d actually like to read the contemporaneous notes. This is not a verbatim transcript but fairly close to it, of what Mr. LaRouche has to say in answer to this question. He began, he said:

“To restore the mission of the U.S. Presidency—without which the United States cannot survive—President Obama must be forced out of office, and all vestiges of the Bush family must be removed. After the experience of eight years of Bush-Cheney, following the earlier 12 years of George H.W. Bush, occupying the posts of Vice President and President, it is an abomination beyond belief that yet another Bush name has reappeared, as a potential Republican Party Presidential candidate.

“Until such time as Obama is removed from office, and the other legacies of the Bush name are removed, the U.S. Presidency will be crippled. Only after such a cleansing can the mission of the Presidency be restored. The Bush family disease did not start with George W. Bush or even with George H.W. Bush. It began with Prescott Bush and his Nazi collusion before and during World War II. That Nazi collusion persists to this day, within the Obama Presidency, in the form of former Dick Cheney national security aide Victoria Nuland, who is the Obama Administration’s liaison to the Ukrainian neo-Nazis of today, as well as the criminal oligarchs.

“The Bush problem was persistent in the Reagan Administration, from the moment that Bush was chosen as Vice President. His influence, in fact, became all-the-more dominant over time, following the attempted assassination of President Reagan, early in his first year in office.

“It is this Bush disease, and the shadow of this disease that hangs all over the Obama White House, that is on the edge of causing a war against Russia and in the Persian Gulf.

“The deeper truth that cannot be ignored is that the entire trans-Atlantic financial system is hopelessly bankrupt. The U.S. and Western Europe are bankrupt, and the surrounding areas are mush, as the result of that reality.

“The United States is facing an existential decision: Either a qualified U.S. President is elected, after the early ouster of President Obama from office by Constitutional means, or the only hope for U.S. survival is to cut some kind of a deal with Russia and China, both to avoid war, and to enter into the Eurasian BRICS process.

“All of Hillary Clinton’s problems stem from the fact that she made a bad choice, accepting Obama’s poison pill offer to join the administration as Secretary of State. Had she stayed in the U.S. Senate, with the backing of 16 million Democratic voters who had cast votes for her in the primary elections, she would have retained her independence, deepened her experience, and avoided the trap that she was drawn into by associating with the Obama Administration.

“Fortunately, we now have a pre-candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination—former Maryland Governor and former Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley—who is doing the right thing, putting policy above personality, and setting the basis for the United States to enter the new global paradigm, being set in place by the BRICS, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the growing array of nations entering into that new ‘win-win’ arrangement. This is the rejection of geopolitics and the rejection of war. This is the proper basis for creating a new U.S. government and putting the United States back on the course of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, to name the two leading figures.

“To restore a genuine American Presidency, the Obama-Bush League must be removed, before they start yet another insane war. The recent actions of Bibi Netanyahu have opened the gates for the Republican yahoos to start a new war in the Persian Gulf.

“So, the time has come to get rid of Obama. He should be forced to resign tomorrow. The cheerful effect, of such an action, would both guarantee war prevention, and set the basis for restoring the historic mission of the U.S. Presidency, as envisioned by Franklin and Hamilton, and enshrined in our Federal Constitution.”

So that was Mr. LaRouche’s comment in answer to the question. So, of course the United States should be dropping its opposition to the AIIB. Yesterday, two of the major voices of the Chinese government, the China television [cctv] and Xinhua, the state news agency, both published editorials from their editors, reiterating President Xi Jinping’s invitation to President Obama for the United States to fully participate in the new BRICS process and to directly join the AIIB. The statements that were issued yesterday made the point very clear: These are not geopolitical games. This is a full, alternative system aimed at developing a system of cooperation, among sovereign nation-states for the development of Eurasia and every other part of this planet.

But it would be a fool’s errand to simply go off and say, “yes, of course the United States should join,” without facing the harsh reality that so long as Obama is in office, not only will the United States remain outside of the AIIB and the other BRICS developments, but the United States will be increasingly isolated and cast aside, and furthermore, in response to that, the Obama Presidency will become one of the key instruments for pushing major war confrontation, as we’re seeing both on the Ukrainian front against Russia, and now, with growing intensity, literally hour by hour, in the Persian Gulf.

OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. As you just heard, the major emphasis that Mr. LaRouche had in our discussion with him, and has had over the course of this entire week, beginning with our Monday discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, is the theme of what the mission of the United States Presidency must be. And what the proper standard must be, to qualify an individual to become a qualified candidate for the office of the United States Presidency at this moment in history.

And, as Jeff said, as of now, there is only one individual, among the otherwise sordid array of prospective candidates for President in various stages of declaration or non-declaration of their official or non-official candidacies. There’s only one individual who has distinguished himself as rising to that standard, that is, Martin O’Malley.

As Jeff highlighted, Martin O’Malley is running a campaign right now, based not on ego, not based on personality, but based on defining a necessary program, for saving the United States, starting with the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, and shutting down, explicitly, the criminal activities of Wall Street. As O’Malley said in an op-editorial that was published on the eve of his recent campaign trip to Iowa in the Des Moines Register, “It’s time to put the national interest before the interests of Wall Street.” Which is precisely the point.

He also showed that he’s ready for the right which this entails, by starting his stump speeches in Iowa by saying that there are many defining moments in the history of the United States, which seem at which point the continued existence of the country itself hangs by a very slender thread, and he cited, one such moment during the War of 1812, when the invading British armies which had just burned Washington, D.C., were preparing to invade the city of Baltimore. And he said that, these invading British armies were met by the people of his city, the city of Baltimore, who said, when they saw the British coming, “instead of digging graves, let us dig trenches,” and prepared to fight.

So that’s precisely the spirit that is going to be required from a candidate for President, if we’re going to win the war today, to save the people of the United States from the criminal policies of Wall Street.

Now, what’s key to recognize here, and I think, to premise my question, is that O’Malley’s campaign for Glass-Steagall did not come out of nowhere. This is not just one among a laundry list of single issues. This is a central question that he’s taking up and it’s not just an isolated phenomenon disconnected from a process of history; but rather, what O’Malley has done here, reflects precisely the program that Lyndon LaRouche has defined as the necessary first step for a program to save the United States and a platform for a new Presidency, which really goes all the way back to when Mr. LaRouche launched what became the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, with the campaigns for the United States Congress, first with Rachel Brown all the way back in 2010 against Barney Frank in Massachusetts, which was based on Glass-Steagall; she debated Barney Frank on live statewide television on precisely this issue, and really showed what a disgrace he was. And this was long before Glass-Steagall became a household word.

This continued through Kesha Rogers’ campaigns for both U.S. Congress and for United States Senate down in Texas; along with all of the other members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, all of whom has been candidate for Federal office, which was created by Mr. LaRouche. The LPAC Policy Committee specifically, as a unified, national leadership cadre organization, which was intended to set precisely this standard, for what the platform for a new Presidency must be, and what qualifies an individual to run as a candidate for that office. And the Policy Committee continues to serve that function.

Now, as you can see, in a very real way, LaRouche PAC is an integral part of what has happened in this process, which is being reflected in what Martin O’Malley is doing with his campaign, and we continue to play that. And I think this is the point that I want to emphasize, and I’ll ask Jeff to elaborate on: Any successful Presidency of the United States is not based merely on a single individual. It represents a top-down national institution which is comprised of an array of highly qualified persons, both with and without official positions. And Lyndon LaRouche himself is exemplary of precisely the type of person, which plays an integral part in shaping the policy, of the institution of the United States Presidency, despite never having served in any official position in that regard, at least publicly.

Ever since Mr. LaRouche’s first campaign, as a U.S. Presidential candidate back in 1976, he has played a critical role, in this institution in a very real way. And I think perhaps the clearest example of this is the SDI, or the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was adopted by President Ronald Reagan as the official policy of the United States, which was announced for all the world to hear on March 23, 1983, on a national television broadcast. And we just observed the 32 anniversary of that speech this past Monday.

But the true story of the shaping and the adoption of this policy of the SDI by President Reagan at that time, and really, the subsequent history of the entirety of the past 30-plus years since that time, cannot be understood, without understanding the role that Lyndon LaRouche has played in his capacity as a member of this extended network, of Americans, known as the institution of the U.S. Presidency; which is a role that he continues to play up to the present moment, which we’re seeing at this time.

So this role, of defining the mission of the United States Presidency and setting the standard which must be met by any qualified candidate for that office, is the mission of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, and by extension is the mission of each of you, who are watching this broadcast tonight, in your capacity as LPAC activists and members.

So I think it’s in our viewers’ interest to understand precisely how this works. So, I’d like to ask you, Jeff, to elaborate a little bit on Mr. LaRouche’s role, so that we can understand this, as an institution, and, the existence of this as a unique institution in the United States of America. And I know this is something you’ve had a unique perspective on, Jeff, from your experience, working very closely with Mr. LaRouche, in this capacity over this entire period, from his first campaign for President, all the way up to the present day.

STEINBERG: Thanks Matt. I can tell you, you don’t go to the post office to pick up a membership application. It’s not that kind of thing. And Mr. LaRouche was basically approached by a number of leading government figures, mostly from the Second World War generation, some of whom were military veterans, others of whom were particularly veterans of the OSS.

It began really in 1976, with Mr. LaRouche’s Presidential campaign, where he stood out from everyone else, by being willing to say the unpopular, but devastatingly truthful things that needed to be said, if you’re actually committed to the survival and prosperity of the United States, and by extension, the rest of the world. During the 1976 Presidential campaign, Mr. LaRouche made it a point, that if the Jimmy Carter/Trilateral Commission administration were to be elected, that the United States would be immediately thrust into a situation of provoking a thermonuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union and it would jeopardize the survival of mankind. This came down to the Election Eve of the November 1976 elections, when Mr. LaRouche delivered a half-hour, prime-time nationwide TV address and spelled out in very precise terms, the dangers represented by the Trilateral Commission government that would basically come into power, if people actually foolishly went ahead and voted for Jimmy Carter for President.

He said what had to be said, with no expectation whatsoever, other than that his words would be part of an effort to prevent the United States from being drawn into a war that could be the last war of mankind. And in response to that, there was a series of approaches to Mr. LaRouche, by people with long backgrounds in government service, in some cases in private sector service, but with affiliations with this institution of the Presidency. And LaRouche was basically tapped, and told, what you did was outstanding, and we want to work together.

There was no official contract, there was no security clearances; but it was made very clear that he was considered to be part of an institution that was, in effect, the guardians of the republic. Very soon after that, after studying some published documentation, of breakthroughs that Soviet scientists had made in the area of particle beams that had applications for defensive weapons systems, LaRouche commissioned, and we published a pamphlet called Sputnik of the Seventies: The Science behind the Soviets’ Beam Weapon, that discussed the widening gap between the Soviet Union’s advances in developing the potential for defensive weapons system that could kill income ballistic missiles, and on the basis of that, Mr. LaRouche continued his Presidential campaigns, going into 1980 with that as a major theme.

And the SDI issue, what then referred to as the missile defense cooperation between the United States and United States and the Soviet Union, not only became a core issue of the 1980 Presidential campaign, by which time Mr. LaRouche was running as a Democratic candidate, but it became a basis for a dialogue between Mr. LaRouche and President Ronald Reagan, when Reagan was elected as President.

Now, as I said earlier, as Mr. LaRouche actually said, the flaw in the Reagan Presidency was the fact that, for no particularly good reason, Ronald Reagan chose George H.W. Bush as his Vice Presidential running mate. And as the result of that, we came to know intimately, when President Reagan fully agreed with LaRouche’s proposal for joint Strategic Defense Initiative with the Soviet Union, to bring an end to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and to replace it with an alternative policy of scientific collaboration for Mutually Assured Survival. So that program was endorsed by President Reagan, as Matt just said, on March 23rd, 1983, President Regan gave a nationwide television address, in which he announced that initiative, and made very clear that he was inviting the Soviet Union to fully participate.

Now, by the time that President Reagan gave that speech, Mr. LaRouche had been engaged in a back-channel negotiation with representatives of the Soviet government, on behalf of the Reagan White House and National Security Council. And so, there had been a two-year process of discussion, back and forth, between American and Soviet officials at a very high level, at the level of the American Presidency and the top levels of the Soviet leadership. So there was no confusion that what Reagan was proposing was a process of joint development, in effect, an end of the Cold War and an end of the scourge of the danger of thermonuclear holocaust.

There was a very intensive countermove against Reagan, against LaRouche, and against the SDI policy, which unfortunately at that time, did succeed. The British pulled out all of the stops. They used assets in the United States; they used assets that they had in the new Soviet leadership under Yuri Andropov.

The policy was killed, but Mr. LaRouche’s relationship with the institution of the Presidency was never broken, even after there were criminal assaults, raids, illegal prosecutions, jailings and all of the rest.

When Bill Clinton was elected as President of the United States in 1992, bringing a sudden end to the George H.W. Bush Presidency, that effectively opened the jail doors for Mr. LaRouche’s freedom and the beginning of a participation, once again, in a direct dialogue, with representatives of the Presidency of the United States. In that case, again, one of the crucial topics of cooperation was the now U.S.-Russia relationship, and the prospects of building an alternative framework of cooperation, from the two nations that still possessed the greatest offensive arsenals of nuclear weapons on the planet, more than enough to wipe out all of humanity.

So the issue of the Presidency, as Matt said, goes far beyond the simple residence of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and the man or woman sitting in the Oval Office. It’s an Executive branch function, with many auxiliary people, who are in the private sector or who are in and out of government, depending on different administrations and different policy requirements, but Mr. LaRouche has been a fixture within that institution. And very often, as we’ve seen for the last 14 years, and this is something that people should try to grasp the implications of, you’ve had a friction between the outlook and intensions of the institution of the Presidency, and the policies coming out of the White House, out of the President himself. You had strong institutional opposition, to the war that was launched in Iraq, following the 9/11 attacks, the 2003 March invasion, of Iraq, based on fabricated intelligence, coming from a neo-conservative apparatus that was not generally representative of the intelligence community.

Under President Obama, you’ve had a similar situation: Where the Presidency has repeatedly stomped on the principles of the Constitution and where the larger institution, of the Executive branch, of the Presidency, has actually at times been in a direct, head-on conflict with the occupant of the Oval Office.

So, this is one of the resilient institutions, and you really have to go back, to fully appreciate and understand this, to the ideas that were put together by our Founding Fathers, and I think you’ve got a particularly, as Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our discussions earlier today, you’ve got a particularly consider the genius of Benjamin Franklin, and of Franklin’s key protégé Alexander Hamilton. And you’ve got to dig a little bit further back in history, to understand that Franklin himself, was a product, of a Leibnizian system in Europe, a scientific revolution and a political revolution, that was carried out, in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, by a critical political figured named Gottfried Leibniz.

Franklin was a student of Leibniz, although Leibniz died before Franklin’s political career really got seriously off the ground. But he went to Europe; he sought out people who were students of Leibniz; he read and obtained copies of key writings of Leibniz back in the 1750s. And, some of the core concepts on which the American Republic was founded, the notion of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as distinct from John Locke’s perverse idea of “life, liberty, and property,” all were an outgrowth of the Leibnizian revolution in natural law, of the period that immediately preceded the American Revolution.

So, it’s critical, in looking at where the United States stands right at this moment, to know that we’re a nation of institutions, and that we’ve gone through a horrible period of the last 14 years—since the end of the Clinton Presidency—we have been on a downward trajectory to Hell, as the result of the policies that came out of the Bush-Cheney administration, and subsequently out of the current Obama administration.

But, that does not mean that there’s been a complete collapse and disintegration of the institutions. You have the opportunity, now—and this is, I think, really the basis for understanding what the initiatives coming out of Martin O’Malley represent. He’s not a “Lone Ranger,” he’s not just “an individual,” a “gifted person,” who’s come up with these ideas, or has even simply absorbed these ideas from the interventions of the last decade by the LaRouche Political Action Committee and by Mr. LaRouche. There is a grouping within the Democratic Party that sees the danger. If you look at the Republican list of candidates, these are truly the “Seven Dwarfs.” Donald Trump could do the world a favor, by just simply buying toupees for himself and the other six wannabe Republican candidates, and send them off, because none of them, remotely, have the qualifications to be President of the United States.

But, O’Malley is working with a grouping within the Democratic Party who themselves have certain important institutional ties. Some of this goes back to the former Presidency of Bill Clinton. Some of it involves other individuals who had critical cabinet positions during the Clinton administration. You’ve got [New York] Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who was [Housing and Urban Development] HUD Secretary under Clinton. You’ve got Robert Reich, who was Labor Secretary under Clinton. You’ve got Eliot Spitzer, who was a leading official of the New York State government; he was a State Attorney General and Governor. So, you’ve got people who themselves are part of both a political party and a larger national institutional framework, who are moving, in response to the fact that we are facing the gravest crisis perhaps in the entire history of our nation.

Under those kinds of circumstances, there is no basis for holding back. Back in 1976, Lyndon LaRouche was the prominent voice that refused to hold back, and told the “truth to power,” by warning that the world was on the brink of thermonuclear destruction if the Carter administration was allowed to come in unchecked. As the result of that, and actions of others, that administration was put in check, and after four years, it was replaced by the Reagan Presidency, which, even with the Bush flaw, represented a significant turnaround, and made possible LaRouche’s deeper engagement, around the SDI.

So, it’s a bit of a background history that must be understood and absorbed. Without that, you are really clueless about what’s been the actual dynamic of American policymaking for the last quarter century.

MEGAN BEETS: So, as you just mentioned, toward the end of your remarks, Jeff, when we discuss the unique leadership role of the institution of the U.S. Presidency, in carrying out the mission of the United States, we’re obviously hitting upon something which goes much deeper than solving an immediate crisis, or addressing the short-term survival of the American people. The more profound issue at hand, is the principle of the United States Constitution itself, which recognized a mission, not only for the United States, but for all of mankind, into the future. And, that was based explicitly upon a principle of natural law, which, as you mentioned, was the genius of the insight of Hamilton, and especially, Benjamin Franklin.

Now, a few weeks ago in this broadcast, we took up the issue of the genius of insight of somebody else: Joan of Arc, and the crucial role that her intervention played in securing that principle of natural law, as an active factor in society. The way that Mr. LaRouche expressed that a few days ago, is, he said, “The Joan of Arc case is an example of exactly how the history of mankind produces a kind of mankind, which is never simply a copy of the predecessor, or the predecessor species. Mankind develops to a higher level.”

This is absolutely true of Joan. She was not a product of her time. She lived during one of the deepest dark ages in man’s history, and she was born into a completely collapsed society. And yet, she showed the spark of inspiration of a future, which was “impossible,” or seemingly impossible, under the current circumstances, but which was absolutely necessary, and by her actions, she set that future into motion.

Now, as we discussed, the goodness of her mission, and the evil of what was done to her, sparked people like Nicholas of Cusa, the father of the 15th Century Renaissance, to fight to establish, in mankind, a completely new type of organization of society, a completely new type of government, which was based on a conception of the immortal nature of man, as against the image of man that came from the system of oligarchy.

Cusa authored a document two years after the murder of Joan of Arc, which was called Concordantia Catholica, where he states:

“Therefore, since all are by nature free, every governance—whether it consists in a written law, or in living law in the person of a prince … can only come from the agreement and consent of the subjects. For, if men are by nature equal in power and equally free, the true, properly ordered authority of one common ruler, who is their equal in power, can only be constituted by the election and consent of the others, and law is also established by consent.”

So, I think people should hear in that an echo of our later founding documents, very clearly.

This principle expressed by Cusa—natural law—this reappeared in the government of France’s King Louis XI, who was the son of the King Charles VII, whom Joan of Arc led to victory. During the reign of Louis XI, which was from 1461 to 1483, Louis implemented revolutionary reforms in France, based upon the mission of shifting the system away from the arbitrary power of feudal lords, and toward that of the development of the common good.

Exemplary of this were some of his economic reforms. For example, he implemented a tax policy, where he taxed the population inversely to their productivity, thus bankrupting much of the feudal oligarchy, taking away their power to run private wars, and uplifting the power and the skills and the education-level of the population.

Toward the end of his reign, Louis wrote a treatise called The Rosebush of War, which was written to teach his son, the future king, about the true nature of government. In this treatise, Louis wrote, “None should fear death, having defended the common good, for therein is merit.”

From that first establishment of the modern nation-state government, under Louis XI, and the later echo of that in England, under Henry VII, following on this, we have the emergence of the same principle, in a much more developed expression, about a century later, in the person of Gottfried Leibniz, who you just brought up.

Leibniz not only defended modern science, in the form of defending the follower of Cusa, Johannes Kepler, against the fraud of Isaac Newton, but he also vehemently asserted the principle of “life, liberty, and happiness,” against Locke’s “life, liberty, and property,” which clearly expresses the same idea of man that was fought for by Joan and Cusa. And it was exactly this principle which was chosen by Benjamin Franklin to be inserted into our Declaration of Independence.

So, with that background, I think it’s clear that our republic is the outcome of an historic struggle to bring about a form of government which is based on enabling man to fulfill a higher mission. So, Jeff, I’d like to give you a chance to elaborate on that more in depth, specifically with reference to what you brought up about Franklin and Hamilton, but also to address the role of the U.S. Presidency against that background.

STEINBERG: I think it’s important to bear in mind that that period of the 17th Century that you were referring to—the period that, in effect, begins with Kepler’s contributions, and then really ends and goes into the beginning of the 18th Century with Leibniz and the impact that he in particular had on the American Revolution—after the period of the Renaissance, you had a dramatic counterattack by the European oligarchy, the forces that were being routed by the principles of the Renaissance and the emergence of the system of the nation-state. So, when Kepler was doing his most important scientific work, the backdrop was the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe, which came actually slightly after a prolonged period of almost a century of continuous religious war.

You get a kind of a snapshot if you look forward, and see what the British, in particular, are attempting to instigate with their Saudi allies right now in the Middle East: the prospect of literally a multi-generational Hundred Years’ War in that part of the world, within the Islamic world, between Sunnis and Shi’ites, Persians and Turks and Arabs. It’s typical of the mode of the oligarchy.

Leibniz was born just at the very end of the Thirty Years’ War, and frankly, by that point, many sane leading forces in Europe, particularly in England and in the Low Countries, and Germany, had packed up and gone off to North America, because they saw that the predominant power of the oligarchy in Europe was so overwhelming that the prospects of some kind of revolutionary, republican change in Europe was very, very remote.

So, Leibniz, as a great scientist, as a great natural-law philosopher, and as a great political organizer, not only was looking to basically secure the very fragile Westphalian agreements that had brought the Thirty Years’ War to an end; he did some amazing things: He entered into a long-running, 40-year dialogue with China. He was in contact with many of the Catholic missionaries, who, from a century earlier, had gone to China and were involved in the Chinese court. And Leibniz published extensively, and began a dialogue between the western Catholic Church and the Chinese, over the question of whether or not there was a compatibility between western Christianity and the Confucian system in China. And his conclusion, in a major paper called A Treatise on the Natural Theology of the Chinese, was: Yes, there is a core commonality. And on the basis of this, he developed not just simply the idea of natural law as applied to an individual nation, but he began looking at the foundations for launching a dialogue of civilization, and seeing in the diversity of different cultures certain universal principles that were actually common to the nature of mankind when mankind is thinking creatively and being truly human.

As I said, Franklin was a product of Leibniz’s activities and intervention. As a leading advisor to the Hanoverian court, Leibniz was one of the most important and active diplomats in Europe, and orchestrated the overthrow, the end of the Glorious Revolution in England, and brought the Hanoverians onto the English throne at the very beginning of the 18th Century. Our dear colleague Graham Lowry wrote an epic book called How the Nation Was Won, and basically drew a lot of the elements together of how this Leibniz and Leibnizian faction, had actually been instrumental in creating the potentialities for the American republic. During the brief period—and it was a period of intensive factional warfare—but during the brief period that Leibniz was a prominent figure in shaping the English throne, a number of critical governors—Spotswood and Hunter—were sent by the British crown to North America.

And so, you had individuals who came out of that Leibnizian tradition, and were able to play an important role in allowing the nurturing of some of these republican ideas on the soil of North America, a generation before the American Revolution.

This was the experience that Benjamin Franklin had. He was a product of the New England element of this process, under Cotton Mather and the whole Mather family, that brought some of these core ideas of humanist natural law into the prospects of governance. And the Massachusetts Bay Colony, before it was broken up by the British crown during the Glorious Revolution period, had developed certain principles—core principles—of physical economy: the notion of investment in infrastructure; how you actually, in scientific terms, implement the idea of promotion of the general welfare.

So, not only was Franklin a leading, world-class scientist, but he was one of the people who went back and forth to Europe and was emblematic of the legacy of the great Renaissance traditions of Europe and how they were brought in to help form and shape the American Revolution. So, in a very real sense, Franklin was the genius of the American Revolution, and created the possibilities for what emerged as our Constitutional republic after the victory in the American Revolution.

Hamilton was a key leading protégé of Franklin who understood, probably better than any of the other Founding Fathers outside of Franklin himself, these core scientific principles of physical economy.

So, when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia to deal with the crisis that had come about as the result of the lack of an effective structure of government—a system of checks and balances, a national identity—with the Articles of Confederation, right embedded in the core of the American Constitution, in the Preamble, which was something that all of the participants agreed on as core concepts, right at the beginning, the very first words: “We, the people of these United States.”

The Articles of Confederation listed out all of the original states as if they were quasi-sovereign entities that had some kind of loose affiliation. The Preamble to the Constitution established right up-front, that the United States as a single nation had primacy over the identity of the states. Secondly, that the obligations of government was to promote the general welfare—and that was not merely to satisfy the greed of current generations, but it was to consider the obligations to future generations, to conceptualize physical economy such that you would guarantee a principle of scientific and technological progress for the entire population.

Hamilton was put in the unique position, as Secretary of Treasury, the first Secretary of Treasury, to put those core concepts into implementation, and in a series of Reports to the Congress, he laid out core concepts that are as valid today, as they were in the late 1700s when he put pen to paper and presented those reports to Congress. The Report on Manufacturing, the Report on Credit, the Report on the National Bank, laid out core concepts that elaborated what was already there in the Constitution, both in the Preamble, with the emphasis on the nation as a whole and the emphasis on the promotion of the general welfare and the common defense, and additionally in the actual Articles of the Constitution, which set forward a system of checks and balances, but where all branches of government were committed to the implementation of that principle of the general welfare.

So, although Franklin was quite clearly the scientific genius and architect who synthesized all of these European ideas, all of the American experience, and helped frame the Constitution itself, Hamilton was a crucial follower, a crucial ally and protégé of Franklin in setting forth the course of our republic.

We had other leading figures, and others who were not particularly constructive after the death of Franklin, and particularly after the death of George Washington.

John Quincy Adams was an outstanding representative, of not only this U.S. outlook, but the idea of how to spread this vision in a completely non-imperial fashion, around the world. Lead by example: John Quincy Adams developed the concept, of a community of principles of perfectly sovereign nation-states.

We had many failed Presidencies. A majority of Presidencies of the United States in our several hundred years of history have been profoundly flawed, and, in many instances, failed Presidencies—in some cases treasonous Presidencies. But the durability of this system of checks and balances, and the period development of geniuses who were passionately committed to the survival of the nation, has carried us forward to this point.

Now, the Constitution also makes it very clear that there are obligations for every citizen. We have a system of representative self-government, and the sovereignty of the governing comes from the will of the people.

Now, if you want to put it in fairly blunt terms: In our country, under our constitutional system, it is unconstitutional to be stupid. There is an obligation of every citizen to have to actually understand the issues: to at least be informed enough to be able to actually select those representatives, who will not just serve local constituent demands, but will serve the interests of the nation as a whole for the time being, and into the future.

So, I think this is a much larger issue that we will be probably spending a great deal of time in these Friday night webcasts discussing, going into the Presidential campaign and into the future more generally.

But Mr. LaRouche is absolutely focused at this point on the fact that Obama’s got to go. Every vestige of the Bush apparatus—meaning virtually the entirety of the Republican Party, with individual exceptions—has to go, and we’ve got to go back to core concepts and core principles. And in this upcoming Presidential election, the first step is to define the policies that establish the qualifications of any individual to serve as President. If you’re not committed to the policies of Glass-Steagall; of restoring a Hamiltonian credit system; of massive capital investment in rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, and of going back to our once-excellent space program; work in frontier areas of science; job creation for a viable condition of life for all of our population—if you’re not committed to these principles, particularly if you’re committed to Wall Street money, which you think is the recipe for winning the Presidency, then get out of Dodge, because you don’t belong here in this critical moment.

And above all else, this is not about 2016. This is about right now, and again, the criterion for anybody who’s serious about being President of the United States, you’ve got to realize that Obama’s got to go, and the Bush League’s got to be ended. Otherwise, we will not be a nation, we will not be a republic by the time of those supposed November 2016 elections.

OGDEN: Well, thank you very much, Jeff. Let me just say in conclusion to our broadcast tonight, that again, this was a prelude to the events are that are happening up in Alexander Hamilton’s home town New York City tomorrow. This is the Schiller Institute conference, the latest in a series of conferences. This one is titled “New Dark Age or Renaissance: The BRICS Option, the Only Sure Way Out of World War III.” And again, there will be live coverage of this event streamed on larouchepac.com from 2:00 to 5:00 tomorrow, Saturday, Eastern Time.

So, please be sure to tune in, and do everything you can between now and then to help us build the audience to this event. Get all of your networks involved, all of your family members, everybody you know. Get them to tune in to the live coverage of this critical conference in New York.

So, I’m going to bring a conclusion to our broadcast here tonight. Thank you very much, Megan, and thank you, Jeff, and thank you all for tuning in, and we’ll be looking forward to seeing you again tomorrow.

Transcript now available. Join host Matthew Ogden, Jeffrey Steinberg and Megan Beets as they discuss the latest developments with the Chinese-led AIIB, the Obama Administration’s disastrous opposition to it and Mr. LaRouche thoughts on the situation.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, my name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome all of you to our LaRouche PAC webcast for March 27th, 2015. We’re holding this broadcast tonight on the eve of the upcoming Schiller Institute conference tomorrow, in New York City, which will be live covered on LaRouche PAC, so we ask you to tune in again at 2 p.m. Eastern Time tomorrow. So our webcast here tonight is intended to be sort of a prelude to that event which is coming tomorrow in New York City.

Now, I’m joined in the studio here tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review and Megan Beets of the LaRouche PAC Basement Scientific Team. And the three of us did have a chance to confer with Mr. LaRouche earlier this afternoon, so the discussion that you hear tonight will be informed by that discussion.

I’d like to start our broadcast tonight by posing the institutional question for this week to Jeff, who will deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response. The question reads as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, or the AIIB, is to have an initial capitalization of $50 billion, which may be doubled in the future. It will finance development projects such as roads and railways in the developing countries of Asia. China is to be the biggest shareholder with many other Asian countries joining, while non-Asian members have also been invited to be founding members, but will be restricted to 25% of the shares. Several European countries, including Germany and Italy, have decided to apply. The Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said that he supports a Chinese-led Asian regional bank, as long as it is transparent and not run by a single country. However, here in Washington, the AIIB, which is expected to be fully established by the end of 2015 has raised concerns that it would compete with the dominant, established international lenders, such as the World Bank.

“What is your view of the Obama Administration’s opposition to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Well, first of all, since the question was first presented yesterday, there’s been quite a lot of movement. March 31st is the deadline that’s been established by the AIIB for initial charter members, and over the last several days, on Thursday alone, South Korea and Turkey both made official announcements of their intent to be founding charter members of the AIIB. Even the head of the Asian Development Bank, a Japanese banker, indicated that he’s enthusiastic about the AIIB, and the prospect of collaboration.

So, in effect, the Obama Administration’s opposition is nothing short of a clinical evidence of insanity, and in fact, criminal insanity on the part of this President and if this administration. Now, Mr. LaRouche was very explicit: He said, in a certain sense, the question itself is a diversion from the much more fundamental issue, which is that the very survival of the United States as we know it is not a very likely proposition if the Obama Presidency is not brought to screeching halt, very, very soon. The President is guilty of a laundry list of impeachable crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors against the American republic, so there is no shortage of bases for his removal from office. If that action is not taken, then the future prospects of the institution of the U.S. Presidency are, in fact, very poor, indeed.

Now, from the discussion with Mr. LaRouche, he had a number of very sharp and very precise things to say, and so I’d actually like to read the contemporaneous notes. This is not a verbatim transcript but fairly close to it, of what Mr. LaRouche has to say in answer to this question. He began, he said:

“To restore the mission of the U.S. Presidency—without which the United States cannot survive—President Obama must be forced out of office, and all vestiges of the Bush family must be removed. After the experience of eight years of Bush-Cheney, following the earlier 12 years of George H.W. Bush, occupying the posts of Vice President and President, it is an abomination beyond belief that yet another Bush name has reappeared, as a potential Republican Party Presidential candidate.

“Until such time as Obama is removed from office, and the other legacies of the Bush name are removed, the U.S. Presidency will be crippled. Only after such a cleansing can the mission of the Presidency be restored. The Bush family disease did not start with George W. Bush or even with George H.W. Bush. It began with Prescott Bush and his Nazi collusion before and during World War II. That Nazi collusion persists to this day, within the Obama Presidency, in the form of former Dick Cheney national security aide Victoria Nuland, who is the Obama Administration’s liaison to the Ukrainian neo-Nazis of today, as well as the criminal oligarchs.

“The Bush problem was persistent in the Reagan Administration, from the moment that Bush was chosen as Vice President. His influence, in fact, became all-the-more dominant over time, following the attempted assassination of President Reagan, early in his first year in office.

“It is this Bush disease, and the shadow of this disease that hangs all over the Obama White House, that is on the edge of causing a war against Russia and in the Persian Gulf.

“The deeper truth that cannot be ignored is that the entire trans-Atlantic financial system is hopelessly bankrupt. The U.S. and Western Europe are bankrupt, and the surrounding areas are mush, as the result of that reality.

“The United States is facing an existential decision: Either a qualified U.S. President is elected, after the early ouster of President Obama from office by Constitutional means, or the only hope for U.S. survival is to cut some kind of a deal with Russia and China, both to avoid war, and to enter into the Eurasian BRICS process.

“All of Hillary Clinton’s problems stem from the fact that she made a bad choice, accepting Obama’s poison pill offer to join the administration as Secretary of State. Had she stayed in the U.S. Senate, with the backing of 16 million Democratic voters who had cast votes for her in the primary elections, she would have retained her independence, deepened her experience, and avoided the trap that she was drawn into by associating with the Obama Administration.

“Fortunately, we now have a pre-candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination—former Maryland Governor and former Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley—who is doing the right thing, putting policy above personality, and setting the basis for the United States to enter the new global paradigm, being set in place by the BRICS, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the growing array of nations entering into that new ‘win-win’ arrangement. This is the rejection of geopolitics and the rejection of war. This is the proper basis for creating a new U.S. government and putting the United States back on the course of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton, to name the two leading figures.

“To restore a genuine American Presidency, the Obama-Bush League must be removed, before they start yet another insane war. The recent actions of Bibi Netanyahu have opened the gates for the Republican yahoos to start a new war in the Persian Gulf.

“So, the time has come to get rid of Obama. He should be forced to resign tomorrow. The cheerful effect, of such an action, would both guarantee war prevention, and set the basis for restoring the historic mission of the U.S. Presidency, as envisioned by Franklin and Hamilton, and enshrined in our Federal Constitution.”

So that was Mr. LaRouche’s comment in answer to the question. So, of course the United States should be dropping its opposition to the AIIB. Yesterday, two of the major voices of the Chinese government, the China television [cctv] and Xinhua, the state news agency, both published editorials from their editors, reiterating President Xi Jinping’s invitation to President Obama for the United States to fully participate in the new BRICS process and to directly join the AIIB. The statements that were issued yesterday made the point very clear: These are not geopolitical games. This is a full, alternative system aimed at developing a system of cooperation, among sovereign nation-states for the development of Eurasia and every other part of this planet.

But it would be a fool’s errand to simply go off and say, “yes, of course the United States should join,” without facing the harsh reality that so long as Obama is in office, not only will the United States remain outside of the AIIB and the other BRICS developments, but the United States will be increasingly isolated and cast aside, and furthermore, in response to that, the Obama Presidency will become one of the key instruments for pushing major war confrontation, as we’re seeing both on the Ukrainian front against Russia, and now, with growing intensity, literally hour by hour, in the Persian Gulf.

OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. As you just heard, the major emphasis that Mr. LaRouche had in our discussion with him, and has had over the course of this entire week, beginning with our Monday discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, is the theme of what the mission of the United States Presidency must be. And what the proper standard must be, to qualify an individual to become a qualified candidate for the office of the United States Presidency at this moment in history.

And, as Jeff said, as of now, there is only one individual, among the otherwise sordid array of prospective candidates for President in various stages of declaration or non-declaration of their official or non-official candidacies. There’s only one individual who has distinguished himself as rising to that standard, that is, Martin O’Malley.

As Jeff highlighted, Martin O’Malley is running a campaign right now, based not on ego, not based on personality, but based on defining a necessary program, for saving the United States, starting with the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, and shutting down, explicitly, the criminal activities of Wall Street. As O’Malley said in an op-editorial that was published on the eve of his recent campaign trip to Iowa in the Des Moines Register, “It’s time to put the national interest before the interests of Wall Street.” Which is precisely the point.

He also showed that he’s ready for the right which this entails, by starting his stump speeches in Iowa by saying that there are many defining moments in the history of the United States, which seem at which point the continued existence of the country itself hangs by a very slender thread, and he cited, one such moment during the War of 1812, when the invading British armies which had just burned Washington, D.C., were preparing to invade the city of Baltimore. And he said that, these invading British armies were met by the people of his city, the city of Baltimore, who said, when they saw the British coming, “instead of digging graves, let us dig trenches,” and prepared to fight.

So that’s precisely the spirit that is going to be required from a candidate for President, if we’re going to win the war today, to save the people of the United States from the criminal policies of Wall Street.

Now, what’s key to recognize here, and I think, to premise my question, is that O’Malley’s campaign for Glass-Steagall did not come out of nowhere. This is not just one among a laundry list of single issues. This is a central question that he’s taking up and it’s not just an isolated phenomenon disconnected from a process of history; but rather, what O’Malley has done here, reflects precisely the program that Lyndon LaRouche has defined as the necessary first step for a program to save the United States and a platform for a new Presidency, which really goes all the way back to when Mr. LaRouche launched what became the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, with the campaigns for the United States Congress, first with Rachel Brown all the way back in 2010 against Barney Frank in Massachusetts, which was based on Glass-Steagall; she debated Barney Frank on live statewide television on precisely this issue, and really showed what a disgrace he was. And this was long before Glass-Steagall became a household word.

This continued through Kesha Rogers’ campaigns for both U.S. Congress and for United States Senate down in Texas; along with all of the other members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, all of whom has been candidate for Federal office, which was created by Mr. LaRouche. The LPAC Policy Committee specifically, as a unified, national leadership cadre organization, which was intended to set precisely this standard, for what the platform for a new Presidency must be, and what qualifies an individual to run as a candidate for that office. And the Policy Committee continues to serve that function.

Now, as you can see, in a very real way, LaRouche PAC is an integral part of what has happened in this process, which is being reflected in what Martin O’Malley is doing with his campaign, and we continue to play that. And I think this is the point that I want to emphasize, and I’ll ask Jeff to elaborate on: Any successful Presidency of the United States is not based merely on a single individual. It represents a top-down national institution which is comprised of an array of highly qualified persons, both with and without official positions. And Lyndon LaRouche himself is exemplary of precisely the type of person, which plays an integral part in shaping the policy, of the institution of the United States Presidency, despite never having served in any official position in that regard, at least publicly.

Ever since Mr. LaRouche’s first campaign, as a U.S. Presidential candidate back in 1976, he has played a critical role, in this institution in a very real way. And I think perhaps the clearest example of this is the SDI, or the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was adopted by President Ronald Reagan as the official policy of the United States, which was announced for all the world to hear on March 23, 1983, on a national television broadcast. And we just observed the 32 anniversary of that speech this past Monday.

But the true story of the shaping and the adoption of this policy of the SDI by President Reagan at that time, and really, the subsequent history of the entirety of the past 30-plus years since that time, cannot be understood, without understanding the role that Lyndon LaRouche has played in his capacity as a member of this extended network, of Americans, known as the institution of the U.S. Presidency; which is a role that he continues to play up to the present moment, which we’re seeing at this time.

So this role, of defining the mission of the United States Presidency and setting the standard which must be met by any qualified candidate for that office, is the mission of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, and by extension is the mission of each of you, who are watching this broadcast tonight, in your capacity as LPAC activists and members.

So I think it’s in our viewers’ interest to understand precisely how this works. So, I’d like to ask you, Jeff, to elaborate a little bit on Mr. LaRouche’s role, so that we can understand this, as an institution, and, the existence of this as a unique institution in the United States of America. And I know this is something you’ve had a unique perspective on, Jeff, from your experience, working very closely with Mr. LaRouche, in this capacity over this entire period, from his first campaign for President, all the way up to the present day.

STEINBERG: Thanks Matt. I can tell you, you don’t go to the post office to pick up a membership application. It’s not that kind of thing. And Mr. LaRouche was basically approached by a number of leading government figures, mostly from the Second World War generation, some of whom were military veterans, others of whom were particularly veterans of the OSS.

It began really in 1976, with Mr. LaRouche’s Presidential campaign, where he stood out from everyone else, by being willing to say the unpopular, but devastatingly truthful things that needed to be said, if you’re actually committed to the survival and prosperity of the United States, and by extension, the rest of the world. During the 1976 Presidential campaign, Mr. LaRouche made it a point, that if the Jimmy Carter/Trilateral Commission administration were to be elected, that the United States would be immediately thrust into a situation of provoking a thermonuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union and it would jeopardize the survival of mankind. This came down to the Election Eve of the November 1976 elections, when Mr. LaRouche delivered a half-hour, prime-time nationwide TV address and spelled out in very precise terms, the dangers represented by the Trilateral Commission government that would basically come into power, if people actually foolishly went ahead and voted for Jimmy Carter for President.

He said what had to be said, with no expectation whatsoever, other than that his words would be part of an effort to prevent the United States from being drawn into a war that could be the last war of mankind. And in response to that, there was a series of approaches to Mr. LaRouche, by people with long backgrounds in government service, in some cases in private sector service, but with affiliations with this institution of the Presidency. And LaRouche was basically tapped, and told, what you did was outstanding, and we want to work together.

There was no official contract, there was no security clearances; but it was made very clear that he was considered to be part of an institution that was, in effect, the guardians of the republic. Very soon after that, after studying some published documentation, of breakthroughs that Soviet scientists had made in the area of particle beams that had applications for defensive weapons systems, LaRouche commissioned, and we published a pamphlet called Sputnik of the Seventies: The Science behind the Soviets’ Beam Weapon, that discussed the widening gap between the Soviet Union’s advances in developing the potential for defensive weapons system that could kill income ballistic missiles, and on the basis of that, Mr. LaRouche continued his Presidential campaigns, going into 1980 with that as a major theme.

And the SDI issue, what then referred to as the missile defense cooperation between the United States and United States and the Soviet Union, not only became a core issue of the 1980 Presidential campaign, by which time Mr. LaRouche was running as a Democratic candidate, but it became a basis for a dialogue between Mr. LaRouche and President Ronald Reagan, when Reagan was elected as President.

Now, as I said earlier, as Mr. LaRouche actually said, the flaw in the Reagan Presidency was the fact that, for no particularly good reason, Ronald Reagan chose George H.W. Bush as his Vice Presidential running mate. And as the result of that, we came to know intimately, when President Reagan fully agreed with LaRouche’s proposal for joint Strategic Defense Initiative with the Soviet Union, to bring an end to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and to replace it with an alternative policy of scientific collaboration for Mutually Assured Survival. So that program was endorsed by President Reagan, as Matt just said, on March 23rd, 1983, President Regan gave a nationwide television address, in which he announced that initiative, and made very clear that he was inviting the Soviet Union to fully participate.

Now, by the time that President Reagan gave that speech, Mr. LaRouche had been engaged in a back-channel negotiation with representatives of the Soviet government, on behalf of the Reagan White House and National Security Council. And so, there had been a two-year process of discussion, back and forth, between American and Soviet officials at a very high level, at the level of the American Presidency and the top levels of the Soviet leadership. So there was no confusion that what Reagan was proposing was a process of joint development, in effect, an end of the Cold War and an end of the scourge of the danger of thermonuclear holocaust.

There was a very intensive countermove against Reagan, against LaRouche, and against the SDI policy, which unfortunately at that time, did succeed. The British pulled out all of the stops. They used assets in the United States; they used assets that they had in the new Soviet leadership under Yuri Andropov.

The policy was killed, but Mr. LaRouche’s relationship with the institution of the Presidency was never broken, even after there were criminal assaults, raids, illegal prosecutions, jailings and all of the rest.

When Bill Clinton was elected as President of the United States in 1992, bringing a sudden end to the George H.W. Bush Presidency, that effectively opened the jail doors for Mr. LaRouche’s freedom and the beginning of a participation, once again, in a direct dialogue, with representatives of the Presidency of the United States. In that case, again, one of the crucial topics of cooperation was the now U.S.-Russia relationship, and the prospects of building an alternative framework of cooperation, from the two nations that still possessed the greatest offensive arsenals of nuclear weapons on the planet, more than enough to wipe out all of humanity.

So the issue of the Presidency, as Matt said, goes far beyond the simple residence of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and the man or woman sitting in the Oval Office. It’s an Executive branch function, with many auxiliary people, who are in the private sector or who are in and out of government, depending on different administrations and different policy requirements, but Mr. LaRouche has been a fixture within that institution. And very often, as we’ve seen for the last 14 years, and this is something that people should try to grasp the implications of, you’ve had a friction between the outlook and intensions of the institution of the Presidency, and the policies coming out of the White House, out of the President himself. You had strong institutional opposition, to the war that was launched in Iraq, following the 9/11 attacks, the 2003 March invasion, of Iraq, based on fabricated intelligence, coming from a neo-conservative apparatus that was not generally representative of the intelligence community.

Under President Obama, you’ve had a similar situation: Where the Presidency has repeatedly stomped on the principles of the Constitution and where the larger institution, of the Executive branch, of the Presidency, has actually at times been in a direct, head-on conflict with the occupant of the Oval Office.

So, this is one of the resilient institutions, and you really have to go back, to fully appreciate and understand this, to the ideas that were put together by our Founding Fathers, and I think you’ve got a particularly, as Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our discussions earlier today, you’ve got a particularly consider the genius of Benjamin Franklin, and of Franklin’s key protégé Alexander Hamilton. And you’ve got to dig a little bit further back in history, to understand that Franklin himself, was a product, of a Leibnizian system in Europe, a scientific revolution and a political revolution, that was carried out, in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, by a critical political figured named Gottfried Leibniz.

Franklin was a student of Leibniz, although Leibniz died before Franklin’s political career really got seriously off the ground. But he went to Europe; he sought out people who were students of Leibniz; he read and obtained copies of key writings of Leibniz back in the 1750s. And, some of the core concepts on which the American Republic was founded, the notion of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as distinct from John Locke’s perverse idea of “life, liberty, and property,” all were an outgrowth of the Leibnizian revolution in natural law, of the period that immediately preceded the American Revolution.

So, it’s critical, in looking at where the United States stands right at this moment, to know that we’re a nation of institutions, and that we’ve gone through a horrible period of the last 14 years—since the end of the Clinton Presidency—we have been on a downward trajectory to Hell, as the result of the policies that came out of the Bush-Cheney administration, and subsequently out of the current Obama administration.

But, that does not mean that there’s been a complete collapse and disintegration of the institutions. You have the opportunity, now—and this is, I think, really the basis for understanding what the initiatives coming out of Martin O’Malley represent. He’s not a “Lone Ranger,” he’s not just “an individual,” a “gifted person,” who’s come up with these ideas, or has even simply absorbed these ideas from the interventions of the last decade by the LaRouche Political Action Committee and by Mr. LaRouche. There is a grouping within the Democratic Party that sees the danger. If you look at the Republican list of candidates, these are truly the “Seven Dwarfs.” Donald Trump could do the world a favor, by just simply buying toupees for himself and the other six wannabe Republican candidates, and send them off, because none of them, remotely, have the qualifications to be President of the United States.

But, O’Malley is working with a grouping within the Democratic Party who themselves have certain important institutional ties. Some of this goes back to the former Presidency of Bill Clinton. Some of it involves other individuals who had critical cabinet positions during the Clinton administration. You’ve got [New York] Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who was [Housing and Urban Development] HUD Secretary under Clinton. You’ve got Robert Reich, who was Labor Secretary under Clinton. You’ve got Eliot Spitzer, who was a leading official of the New York State government; he was a State Attorney General and Governor. So, you’ve got people who themselves are part of both a political party and a larger national institutional framework, who are moving, in response to the fact that we are facing the gravest crisis perhaps in the entire history of our nation.

Under those kinds of circumstances, there is no basis for holding back. Back in 1976, Lyndon LaRouche was the prominent voice that refused to hold back, and told the “truth to power,” by warning that the world was on the brink of thermonuclear destruction if the Carter administration was allowed to come in unchecked. As the result of that, and actions of others, that administration was put in check, and after four years, it was replaced by the Reagan Presidency, which, even with the Bush flaw, represented a significant turnaround, and made possible LaRouche’s deeper engagement, around the SDI.

So, it’s a bit of a background history that must be understood and absorbed. Without that, you are really clueless about what’s been the actual dynamic of American policymaking for the last quarter century.

MEGAN BEETS: So, as you just mentioned, toward the end of your remarks, Jeff, when we discuss the unique leadership role of the institution of the U.S. Presidency, in carrying out the mission of the United States, we’re obviously hitting upon something which goes much deeper than solving an immediate crisis, or addressing the short-term survival of the American people. The more profound issue at hand, is the principle of the United States Constitution itself, which recognized a mission, not only for the United States, but for all of mankind, into the future. And, that was based explicitly upon a principle of natural law, which, as you mentioned, was the genius of the insight of Hamilton, and especially, Benjamin Franklin.

Now, a few weeks ago in this broadcast, we took up the issue of the genius of insight of somebody else: Joan of Arc, and the crucial role that her intervention played in securing that principle of natural law, as an active factor in society. The way that Mr. LaRouche expressed that a few days ago, is, he said, “The Joan of Arc case is an example of exactly how the history of mankind produces a kind of mankind, which is never simply a copy of the predecessor, or the predecessor species. Mankind develops to a higher level.”

This is absolutely true of Joan. She was not a product of her time. She lived during one of the deepest dark ages in man’s history, and she was born into a completely collapsed society. And yet, she showed the spark of inspiration of a future, which was “impossible,” or seemingly impossible, under the current circumstances, but which was absolutely necessary, and by her actions, she set that future into motion.

Now, as we discussed, the goodness of her mission, and the evil of what was done to her, sparked people like Nicholas of Cusa, the father of the 15th Century Renaissance, to fight to establish, in mankind, a completely new type of organization of society, a completely new type of government, which was based on a conception of the immortal nature of man, as against the image of man that came from the system of oligarchy.

Cusa authored a document two years after the murder of Joan of Arc, which was called Concordantia Catholica, where he states:

“Therefore, since all are by nature free, every governance—whether it consists in a written law, or in living law in the person of a prince … can only come from the agreement and consent of the subjects. For, if men are by nature equal in power and equally free, the true, properly ordered authority of one common ruler, who is their equal in power, can only be constituted by the election and consent of the others, and law is also established by consent.”

So, I think people should hear in that an echo of our later founding documents, very clearly.

This principle expressed by Cusa—natural law—this reappeared in the government of France’s King Louis XI, who was the son of the King Charles VII, whom Joan of Arc led to victory. During the reign of Louis XI, which was from 1461 to 1483, Louis implemented revolutionary reforms in France, based upon the mission of shifting the system away from the arbitrary power of feudal lords, and toward that of the development of the common good.

Exemplary of this were some of his economic reforms. For example, he implemented a tax policy, where he taxed the population inversely to their productivity, thus bankrupting much of the feudal oligarchy, taking away their power to run private wars, and uplifting the power and the skills and the education-level of the population.

Toward the end of his reign, Louis wrote a treatise called The Rosebush of War, which was written to teach his son, the future king, about the true nature of government. In this treatise, Louis wrote, “None should fear death, having defended the common good, for therein is merit.”

From that first establishment of the modern nation-state government, under Louis XI, and the later echo of that in England, under Henry VII, following on this, we have the emergence of the same principle, in a much more developed expression, about a century later, in the person of Gottfried Leibniz, who you just brought up.

Leibniz not only defended modern science, in the form of defending the follower of Cusa, Johannes Kepler, against the fraud of Isaac Newton, but he also vehemently asserted the principle of “life, liberty, and happiness,” against Locke’s “life, liberty, and property,” which clearly expresses the same idea of man that was fought for by Joan and Cusa. And it was exactly this principle which was chosen by Benjamin Franklin to be inserted into our Declaration of Independence.

So, with that background, I think it’s clear that our republic is the outcome of an historic struggle to bring about a form of government which is based on enabling man to fulfill a higher mission. So, Jeff, I’d like to give you a chance to elaborate on that more in depth, specifically with reference to what you brought up about Franklin and Hamilton, but also to address the role of the U.S. Presidency against that background.

STEINBERG: I think it’s important to bear in mind that that period of the 17th Century that you were referring to—the period that, in effect, begins with Kepler’s contributions, and then really ends and goes into the beginning of the 18th Century with Leibniz and the impact that he in particular had on the American Revolution—after the period of the Renaissance, you had a dramatic counterattack by the European oligarchy, the forces that were being routed by the principles of the Renaissance and the emergence of the system of the nation-state. So, when Kepler was doing his most important scientific work, the backdrop was the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe, which came actually slightly after a prolonged period of almost a century of continuous religious war.

You get a kind of a snapshot if you look forward, and see what the British, in particular, are attempting to instigate with their Saudi allies right now in the Middle East: the prospect of literally a multi-generational Hundred Years’ War in that part of the world, within the Islamic world, between Sunnis and Shi’ites, Persians and Turks and Arabs. It’s typical of the mode of the oligarchy.

Leibniz was born just at the very end of the Thirty Years’ War, and frankly, by that point, many sane leading forces in Europe, particularly in England and in the Low Countries, and Germany, had packed up and gone off to North America, because they saw that the predominant power of the oligarchy in Europe was so overwhelming that the prospects of some kind of revolutionary, republican change in Europe was very, very remote.

So, Leibniz, as a great scientist, as a great natural-law philosopher, and as a great political organizer, not only was looking to basically secure the very fragile Westphalian agreements that had brought the Thirty Years’ War to an end; he did some amazing things: He entered into a long-running, 40-year dialogue with China. He was in contact with many of the Catholic missionaries, who, from a century earlier, had gone to China and were involved in the Chinese court. And Leibniz published extensively, and began a dialogue between the western Catholic Church and the Chinese, over the question of whether or not there was a compatibility between western Christianity and the Confucian system in China. And his conclusion, in a major paper called A Treatise on the Natural Theology of the Chinese, was: Yes, there is a core commonality. And on the basis of this, he developed not just simply the idea of natural law as applied to an individual nation, but he began looking at the foundations for launching a dialogue of civilization, and seeing in the diversity of different cultures certain universal principles that were actually common to the nature of mankind when mankind is thinking creatively and being truly human.

As I said, Franklin was a product of Leibniz’s activities and intervention. As a leading advisor to the Hanoverian court, Leibniz was one of the most important and active diplomats in Europe, and orchestrated the overthrow, the end of the Glorious Revolution in England, and brought the Hanoverians onto the English throne at the very beginning of the 18th Century. Our dear colleague Graham Lowry wrote an epic book called How the Nation Was Won, and basically drew a lot of the elements together of how this Leibniz and Leibnizian faction, had actually been instrumental in creating the potentialities for the American republic. During the brief period—and it was a period of intensive factional warfare—but during the brief period that Leibniz was a prominent figure in shaping the English throne, a number of critical governors—Spotswood and Hunter—were sent by the British crown to North America.

And so, you had individuals who came out of that Leibnizian tradition, and were able to play an important role in allowing the nurturing of some of these republican ideas on the soil of North America, a generation before the American Revolution.

This was the experience that Benjamin Franklin had. He was a product of the New England element of this process, under Cotton Mather and the whole Mather family, that brought some of these core ideas of humanist natural law into the prospects of governance. And the Massachusetts Bay Colony, before it was broken up by the British crown during the Glorious Revolution period, had developed certain principles—core principles—of physical economy: the notion of investment in infrastructure; how you actually, in scientific terms, implement the idea of promotion of the general welfare.

So, not only was Franklin a leading, world-class scientist, but he was one of the people who went back and forth to Europe and was emblematic of the legacy of the great Renaissance traditions of Europe and how they were brought in to help form and shape the American Revolution. So, in a very real sense, Franklin was the genius of the American Revolution, and created the possibilities for what emerged as our Constitutional republic after the victory in the American Revolution.

Hamilton was a key leading protégé of Franklin who understood, probably better than any of the other Founding Fathers outside of Franklin himself, these core scientific principles of physical economy.

So, when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia to deal with the crisis that had come about as the result of the lack of an effective structure of government—a system of checks and balances, a national identity—with the Articles of Confederation, right embedded in the core of the American Constitution, in the Preamble, which was something that all of the participants agreed on as core concepts, right at the beginning, the very first words: “We, the people of these United States.”

The Articles of Confederation listed out all of the original states as if they were quasi-sovereign entities that had some kind of loose affiliation. The Preamble to the Constitution established right up-front, that the United States as a single nation had primacy over the identity of the states. Secondly, that the obligations of government was to promote the general welfare—and that was not merely to satisfy the greed of current generations, but it was to consider the obligations to future generations, to conceptualize physical economy such that you would guarantee a principle of scientific and technological progress for the entire population.

Hamilton was put in the unique position, as Secretary of Treasury, the first Secretary of Treasury, to put those core concepts into implementation, and in a series of Reports to the Congress, he laid out core concepts that are as valid today, as they were in the late 1700s when he put pen to paper and presented those reports to Congress. The Report on Manufacturing, the Report on Credit, the Report on the National Bank, laid out core concepts that elaborated what was already there in the Constitution, both in the Preamble, with the emphasis on the nation as a whole and the emphasis on the promotion of the general welfare and the common defense, and additionally in the actual Articles of the Constitution, which set forward a system of checks and balances, but where all branches of government were committed to the implementation of that principle of the general welfare.

So, although Franklin was quite clearly the scientific genius and architect who synthesized all of these European ideas, all of the American experience, and helped frame the Constitution itself, Hamilton was a crucial follower, a crucial ally and protégé of Franklin in setting forth the course of our republic.

We had other leading figures, and others who were not particularly constructive after the death of Franklin, and particularly after the death of George Washington.

John Quincy Adams was an outstanding representative, of not only this U.S. outlook, but the idea of how to spread this vision in a completely non-imperial fashion, around the world. Lead by example: John Quincy Adams developed the concept, of a community of principles of perfectly sovereign nation-states.

We had many failed Presidencies. A majority of Presidencies of the United States in our several hundred years of history have been profoundly flawed, and, in many instances, failed Presidencies—in some cases treasonous Presidencies. But the durability of this system of checks and balances, and the period development of geniuses who were passionately committed to the survival of the nation, has carried us forward to this point.

Now, the Constitution also makes it very clear that there are obligations for every citizen. We have a system of representative self-government, and the sovereignty of the governing comes from the will of the people.

Now, if you want to put it in fairly blunt terms: In our country, under our constitutional system, it is unconstitutional to be stupid. There is an obligation of every citizen to have to actually understand the issues: to at least be informed enough to be able to actually select those representatives, who will not just serve local constituent demands, but will serve the interests of the nation as a whole for the time being, and into the future.

So, I think this is a much larger issue that we will be probably spending a great deal of time in these Friday night webcasts discussing, going into the Presidential campaign and into the future more generally.

But Mr. LaRouche is absolutely focused at this point on the fact that Obama’s got to go. Every vestige of the Bush apparatus—meaning virtually the entirety of the Republican Party, with individual exceptions—has to go, and we’ve got to go back to core concepts and core principles. And in this upcoming Presidential election, the first step is to define the policies that establish the qualifications of any individual to serve as President. If you’re not committed to the policies of Glass-Steagall; of restoring a Hamiltonian credit system; of massive capital investment in rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, and of going back to our once-excellent space program; work in frontier areas of science; job creation for a viable condition of life for all of our population—if you’re not committed to these principles, particularly if you’re committed to Wall Street money, which you think is the recipe for winning the Presidency, then get out of Dodge, because you don’t belong here in this critical moment.

And above all else, this is not about 2016. This is about right now, and again, the criterion for anybody who’s serious about being President of the United States, you’ve got to realize that Obama’s got to go, and the Bush League’s got to be ended. Otherwise, we will not be a nation, we will not be a republic by the time of those supposed November 2016 elections.

OGDEN: Well, thank you very much, Jeff. Let me just say in conclusion to our broadcast tonight, that again, this was a prelude to the events are that are happening up in Alexander Hamilton’s home town New York City tomorrow. This is the Schiller Institute conference, the latest in a series of conferences. This one is titled “New Dark Age or Renaissance: The BRICS Option, the Only Sure Way Out of World War III.” And again, there will be live coverage of this event streamed on larouchepac.com from 2:00 to 5:00 tomorrow, Saturday, Eastern Time.

So, please be sure to tune in, and do everything you can between now and then to help us build the audience to this event. Get all of your networks involved, all of your family members, everybody you know. Get them to tune in to the live coverage of this critical conference in New York.

So, I’m going to bring a conclusion to our broadcast here tonight. Thank you very much, Megan, and thank you, Jeff, and thank you all for tuning in, and we’ll be looking forward to seeing you again tomorrow.

Our webcast has now concluded, as always, thanks for joining us. Be sure to tune in next Friday at 8PM Eastern.

Our webcast has now concluded, as always, thanks for joining us. Be sure to tune in next Friday at 8PM Eastern.

Transcript now available. Join LaRouchePAC every Friday night at 8PM Eastern for this live discussion of the current strategic issues, and their remedies.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s March 20, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly webcast here from larouchepac.com. I am joined in the studio tonight by Dennis Small from Executive Intelligence Review, and by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Basement Scientific Research Team. And the three of us had an opportunity to meet with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier this afternoon.

Now in light of that discussion we had with Lyndon LaRouche, before I ask Dennis Small to come to the podium tonight, I wish to make a few remarks by way of prologue; which will reflect the discussion that we had with Mr. LaRouche earlier today. Our task for tonight, and in general, is to present to you, our viewer, a mental experience of the world as a single global process. A single planetary process of history in motion which cannot be broken down into single issues or isolated locations as such. And through this mental experience of the universals which are shaping history right now, you will — hopefully — be enabled to understand what must be done to act on that history, and to consolidate the great potential which has been unleashed over the past ten days; which Mr. LaRouche identified in his written statement which was released this past Sunday, “On the Subject of Germany’s Role” — which is available on this website.

Mr. LaRouche mandated in our discussion with him earlier this afternoon that the specific subjects we take up tonight, will be selected not because they possess the characteristic of static, dead facts, so-called, but because they reflect the overall flow, or the process of world history, the current which is sweeping the world forward and underlies the individual events which we perceive to be experiencing. Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis was that today, more than ever — more than ever before in history — the planet is operating as a single integrated unity. A process in which he said “the pressure of ideas is being felt everywhere. ” The pressure of the future and reflections of this pressure are erupting in seemingly geographically separated points of the globe, erupting simultaneously, not because of some sort of process of mechanical transmission, but because the planet is operating according to the character of what the scientist Johannes Kepler identified, as the Solar System, a single unified process in which everything is being moved by a single invisible universal principle. How do we understand the world right now as Kepler understood it? Or Kepler would understand it? How do we reveal to ourselves that single universal which is guiding what is now a global process as a one?

And I think this could not have been made more clear than what we saw last week, in which three separate individuals from both the United States and from Europe, all acted simultaneously to address, each in their own way, to address the common threat of war and financial disintegration — Martin O’Malley, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, and former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. Together, with the identification by Mr. LaRouche of the unity of that process, the unity of the action by these three individuals, and the option that was created by the aggregate of these three interventions. What Mr. LaRouche did in identifying this, is what created the effect of inducing a dramatic and ongoing shift in world history which we currently find ourselves in the process of; which is what we will elaborate more on tonight.

So, what we intend to provide for you tonight is what I said, a single global picture of mankind. This moment in the living history of mankind; not as some sort of static or concrete fact. As Mr. LaRouche said, “If something is concrete, it’s dead.” But as a process that is in motion now, a process that’s alive, which is being created; which is coming into being. A moment that is pregnant with the potential for a future which has never before existed. And in experiencing this mental image of the future, and then acting to bring this imagination into actuality, mankind is acting as himself; as mankind, as opposed to the experience of a simple animal which can only react to past events. Rather, according to the character of the greatest individuals in world history, such as the case of Joan of Arc; which we elaborated on in this forum a couple of weeks ago.

And I think this is something which was brilliantly captured in the conclusion of Mr. LaRouche’s recent paper that I referenced earlier; and which is available for you to study if you haven’t done so already. And I would like to read you the concluding two paragraphs of that paper before asking Dennis Small to come to the podium. So, this comes from the final section, which is subtitled “The Challenge by China,” in which Mr. LaRouche says the following:

“China is presently unique for reason of its currently progressive achievements within the bounds of Solar Space. Its achievements on this account, both within the range of the role of the Moon and related concerns, is also, implicitly, a crucial point of interest for its association with the unique, presently known, and prospective achievements of its discovery of the most essential features of the Solar System, itself. Thus, the present characteristic of mankind’s relationship between the development of society and of the Solar System’s relationship to the role of mankind’s own development, are to be regarded as being interlocked in a matter of future experience, not for the individual as such, but for the future needs of mankind. Thus does the mortal human individual share the mission into the future as did, for one, the mission of Jeanne d’Arc, and such of her successors as Nicholas of Cusa and Johannes Kepler, and their destinies for mankind’s now present future, lies within not the human flesh, but mankind’s having had a necessary future existence. The essence of that matter is not what the individual has achieved, but in the beauty of what the human individual has fought to become achieved. The future mission of each servant of the cause of their own existence, lies within the future which their experience expresses by and for the mission of mankind, as it had been the fruit of genius or martyr, alike, as for, incidentally, China today.

“The present option for all deserving humanity, lies essentially, in creating a better future for all mankind, in the option for realizing the seemingly impossible necessity, which makes for the sweetest of the achieved dreams of mankind’s achievements: for the sake of realizing that the future of all mankind, is the seemingly impossible.”

DENNIS SMALL: It was precisely one week ago in this venue that Mr. LaRouche’s evaluation of the significance of the conjoint statements of the three statesmen that Matthew just identified — Steinmeier and Schmidt from Germany, and former Maryland Governor O’Malley of the United States — was presented to this audience. Those statements had actually been made, curiously enough, the day before; probably unbeknownst to the three individuals involved, because clearly there was a greater underlying process that was afoot that was transforming the entire situation. Mr. LaRouche described the situation created by this trio of statements as one that is “a major shift which is not yet secured, but is promising.” And he described that this was a global process underway in which “new ideas, not habits and precedents from before, but completely new ideas, were in the process of shaping history.”

Now this week, that process as forecast by LaRouche one week ago today, has taken on a very powerful shape. And actually the result of this is that Obama and the British have taken a tremendous thrashing on numerous fronts around the planet. For them, the seemingly impossible is happening; they’re being hit by forces that they didn’t even know existed, and in fact, did not actually exist — at least from the standpoint of deduction — ten days or two weeks ago. Again, the way that Mr. LaRouche discussed this with us today is that the entire planet right now is being swept by the pressure of ideas. And that’s bursting out everywhere; we’re getting reactions all over the planet to this situation. There’s turmoil everywhere, but it’s all integrated. And to have a planetary view of the process, he said, is the essential point that has to be communicated in order to act to change that situation.

One such example which he selected and mentioned is the riots that occurred this week in Germany; which erupted in a partially orchestrated manner, but not, because there is a tremendous underlying pressure inside Germany and inside Europe as a whole that actually takes very little to ignite. He said that the population is upset; it’s despairing, because it sees what is happening to itself and it’s looking over its shoulder to see what’s happening to Greece. And they know that everything that they’re being told is a lie. And therefore, we are increasingly going to see explosions of this sort.

Now, you also see this process — and here it’s very directly the thrashing of Obama that comes into clearer focus — in the re-emergence into the center of American politics of the Glass-Steagall issue. And this was presented over a week ago by Martin O’Malley; but he presented it in an even more forceful way in the course of this week. And in fact, yesterday in the Des Moines Register, an op-ed that he wrote in that newspaper. Now the reason that this issue is so significant in terms of understanding the global process underway, the reason that this is actually a universally significant development, is because the fundamental issue which is facing mankind — the crisis before us — is that having abandoned, the proper way to think as real creative human beings, we have allowed a process of usury and speculation, and the financial values which are a product of that outlook, to dominate over and destroy the actual underlying physical process on which the very existence of our species depends.

In the article which Matthew was mentioning that Lyn wrote about a week ago — “On the Subject of Germany’s Role” — the way he put it is the following; and I am going to read the paragraph in question, because I think it puts the issue of not only Glass-Steagall, but other developments into the proper focus. The way he put it was the following; he said: “Notably, merely speculative financial attributes per se, have overpowered what were in fact, the efficiently relatively physical values of upward movements within the domains of genuine productive output. The practice of perpetually successively reduced scientific rates of per-capita human productivity, relative to nominal, chiefly speculative, costs of production, both respecting net output-per-capita, as in Europe and the U.S.A., typify the relevant, actually parallel decline of both the standards of family incomes and also net productivity per capita… [and] the general, relative decline of energy-flux density, in production, per capita”

Now this domination of what should be a never-ending continuously growing process of creative scientific discoveries, leading to greater and greater power of man over the universe which he inhabits and which surrounds him, this has been largely destroyed by the process of the speculative bubble which has been created. The first and necessary step to address that problem, to deal with that problem — not the only measure — but the first absolute sine qua non, is to return to the Glass-Steagall standard established in 1933 by President Franklin Roosevelt, which separated, the way a surgeon separates cancer from healthy tissue, the actual productive commercial part of the banking system from the speculative investment banking side.

Now to his credit, Martin O’Malley has placed that issue front and center not only in the Presidential campaign — the Presidential campaign is a long ways away — but now, today, in the debate before the United States, he has made this a central issue. And in the op-ed in the Des Moines Register which I was mentioning, he begins by explaining that the crash of 2008, as a result of this speculative bubble, actually cost every single American an average of $120,000. You may not know that you had $120,000, and you didn’t, but you certainly don’t now, because this was taken out of the hide of the productive capabilities of the economy.

And then he said, “The most serious structural reform we can make is reinstating the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that kept commercial banks separate from investment banks. Under Glass-Steagall, our country did not see a major financial crisis for nearly 70 years. If that law hadn’t been repealed in 1999, the crash would have been contained…. It’s time,” he said, “to put the national interest before the interests of Wall Street.” And that is absolutely the case. The idea of the national interest is the idea of those per-capita measures of physical productive output of the economy, as contrasted to the speculative financial instruments.

So this is a fairly dramatic development, which you can be sure the Obama administration and the Queen of England and Wall Street and the City of London are not exactly amused by. And they’re certainly not amused by two other developments which I wanted to mention.

The first of these other developments is the rapid, dramatic expansion of the AIIB. The AIIB is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. It was established, proposed by China, with an open invitation to all countries of the world to join in, for the purpose of providing funding not for Wall Street speculation, not for bailing out the “too big to fail” banks, but for actual productive investment in infrastructure — i.e., a Hamiltonian-style bank. Now President Xi Jinping of China at the APEC meeting at the end of last year — November 12, 2014, to be precise — took the occasion of a joint press conference with President Obama to offer the United States, to invite the United States to join in this effort, not only of the AIIB, but the broader activities of the BRICS countries, towards reversing the slide into collapse with speculation, and rather to get on board with actual development.

In response to that invitation from Xi Jinping, Obama said “No way. Out of the question. Not on your life; nobody is going to join you. Not me, not any of our allies; it’s out of the question.” Well, he was wrong. While Obama did succeed so far, and has succeeded so far in shackling the United States and the American people to the deck of the sinking financial Titanic, as it goes down, countries in Europe that were previously so shackled, announced this week they’re jumping ship. And, Germany, France, Italy, and even the United Kingdom—that kind of elbowed its way to the front of the line on this thing—said, “We are joining the AIIB.” And, in fact, if you take a look at the map, which we’ve drawn up for your consideration, you will see that there are now 34 countries that have announced that they will be joining the AIIB.

The LaRouche organization, of course, as you’re undoubtedly aware, from the very outset, insisted that the United States should take up Xi Jinping’s offer. We put out a pamphlet on why the United States and Europe must join the BRICS. We have an international petition which is circulating, with very prominent people signing as of this moment, calling for exactly the same thing. [http://larouchepac.nationbuilder.com/petition] The obstacle is Obama; the obstacle is the Queen of England, and, they took a good, unexpected, thrashing this week, because of this process which has been unleashed, where people are recognizing that if they want to exist, they’re going to have to follow reason and get on board with the only thing that’s actually going to survive.

This has led to, really, a rather major humiliation, a political humiliation, of Obama. In fact, so much so, that the New York Times today editorialized on this subject, attacking Obama, saying, ” The Obama administration, to its embarrassment, has been spurned by Western allies flocking to a China-led Asian development bank, defying White House pleas to stand back….” And, then they say, “In significant ways, this is a problem of America’s own making…. President Obama has also mishandled the issue.”

That’s certainly the case, and I think it reflects there is an immense potential, just under the surface, certainly in Europe, but also in the United States, to do what LaRouche, alone, said had to be done, when the BRICS developments emerged full-force on the scene of the world back in July of 2014, which is: that’s the direction we have to go in.

All of Europe took a giant step in that direction with this action around the AIIB. It is not yet complete, as Mr. LaRouche warned; it is not yet secured, but this is an undercurrent of dramatic proportions. It’s unseen to many people, it is unknown to even more people, but it is one of the major currents which is actually shaping world history at this point. Don’t be surprised if soon we see a very significant move, more significant mood, from Europe, away from the sinking Titanic, unlocking their chains which Obama and the Queen of England have used to shackle them to the sinking Titanic, and actually saying, “Sorry, we’re not going down with you!”

Now, the real potential on this thing lies in what’s happening in Greece. This is of note, because, under immense pressure, Greece continues on its decision, its sovereign decision, to not commit suicide, and to not accept its destruction at the hands of the Troika. They have simply said, “No.” They are refusing to implement those policies, and, they have begun to look in a very serious direction towards Russia, towards China, towards Brazil, and other countries in the BRICS. In fact, one can ask the question—and I think the answer is in the affirmative—”If Greece is going to be the first European nation to actually bolt from the trans-Atlantic financial system, and join the BRICS?”

This is not unlike what happened with Argentina in the spring of 2014, where we asked the question, would Argentina be the first nation in South America to break with the trans-Atlantic system, and join the BRICS, which they in fact did. That action by that country and that political leadership, in combination with the forces in motion around the BRICS, has led to a dramatic sea-change all across South America. In point of fact, with some exceptions and ups and downs, South America has followed Argentina onboard with the BRICS.

So, I ask the question: “Is Greece, over the next week or two, going to be an actor that produces an effect, which we will see the effects of at the next BRICS summit un Ufa, Russia in July of this year, where we’ll see a process, where Europe—apparently all of a sudden, doing the seemingly impossible under these circumstances—is going to be off the financial Titanic in large measure, or in the process of doing so, and joining with the BRICS?” That, in fact, is the direction which this is going, and I think that the financial media and the British press are reflecting a level of hysteria that indicates that they’ve got some inkling that this is, if fact, the direction its going in.

Bild-Zeitung, in Germany, ran an editorial in which the complained that Greece has a “Plan P,” for Putin. The Guardian, of London, wrote an article that was quite hysterical, that if we keep pressuring Greece on the debt question, we’re just playing right into Putin’s hands. And, the Economist this week wrote a horrified editorial, demanding that Greece stop acting in such a unilateral fashion, and gave instructions to the Tsipras government, of precisely which ministers they wanted fired. I think they shouldn’t hold their breath.

Now, again, the issue here, is that all of Europe is being shaken by this. Perhaps the best reflection of this, in one sense, is the speech that was given before the Italian Senate, by Italian now-Senator, former Finance Minister, Giulio Tremonti, in which he said, “The problem, is not that Greece entered Europe, but that Europe entered Greece.” And then he explained. He describes the lending, the looting, the rape of Greece, the austerity. And he said, after the European cure, (meaning all of the Troika’s austerity measures), the Greek government debt has risen, and Greek GDP has fallen.

Now the Troika is demanding more and more cuts, demanding further and further destruction, in a country which has been devastated by these policies, and Tremonti added, with more than a touch of irony, “Not even Margaret Thatcher would ask for such kinds of measures.” He concluded by noting that these are not real European values. These come from our “pre-Christian and pagan past.” He cited, in particular, the completely odious Roman Emperor Elagabalus. I leave you to look it up, as I had to, as well, to find out what he was talking about.

Now, what this dynamic might be, I think, is reflected in the following map, which was produced by the Chinese government, as you can tell, immediately, by the labels on the different points on the map, which reflect the New Silk Road that the Chinese government has been spearheading for total integration and development of the economies of the Eurasian land-mass, and also of the Maritime Silk Road, which is part of the same process, which you can see, drawn in the blue lines, connecting—again—numerous ports along the Pacific and the Indian Ocean, and so on, up to and through the New Suez Canal, which is being constructed in Egypt at this point, and into Europe.

You can see a bright green circle, there, that the entry point, in point of fact, is the Port of Piraeus, in Greece. That is the port which the Chinese are investing in heavily. Not for the purpose of looting, but for the purpose of development—a “win-win” development approach, which does not mean you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours. That’s not what “win-win” means. “Win-win” means that man is a unique species, who can develop in such fashion, that he’s always producing an increased level of productivity, vis-à-vis the nature that surrounds him, making it possible, though increased energy flux-density, for man to be increasingly in control of and perfecting his relationship within the universe.

And, that, I think, that map, with that circle drawn, properly puts into focus the process which is actually underway around the Greek question.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Dennis.

Now, I’m going to present the next question, which was presented to Mr. LaRouche earlier this afternoon—our so-called “institutional question” of the evening, to which Mr. LaRouche had a very particular response. I’ll ask Dennis to deliver that specific response that Mr. LaRouche had. The question reads as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche: U.S. President Barack Obama has told the Iranian people that a deal to transform the relationship between the two countries would be within reach. He said, in an video message for the Persian New Year: We have the best opportunity… we have the best opportunity in deciding to pursue a different future between our countries. Six world powers are negotiating a deal aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear activity with a March deadline drawing near.

“What is your view on a fair deal with Iran?”

SMALL: What Mr. LaRouche said in response to this question is that it is a piece of stupidity to deny Iran access to the development of its nature talents, to treat it as if were sick man. He said that Iran can be a leading intellectual force in the region and for mankind as a whole, even though their powers are not fully developed and played out yet. And as such, they are an asset for humanity and must be treated as such.

And Mr. LaRouche elaborated that this approach and conception applies not only to Iran, but to other nations as well, whatever their momentary shortfalls may be.

Now, this approach of Mr. LaRouche’s to war-avoidance and construction of a peace, because Iran is a one of the flashpoints under which the British are attempting to trigger a thermonuclear confrontation between the U.S. and NATO, and Russia and China, this type of approach stands in stark contrast to what is actually the ongoing, continual approach coming from Obama and the British this week, despite the thrashing they’re getting on numerous fronts, they have proceeded with provocations in Ukraine as much as they possibly can, Venezuela has been declared a “national security threat” of the first order to the United States, which is hard to imagine where that possibly came from; we have the developments in Israel, with Bibi Netanyahu achieving reelection by essentially calling for totally confrontation and warfare throughout the region, and so on and so forth.

But the other development, which again may have seemed to have come out of nowhere, for the British and Obama, but which radically changes the global strategic situation in the direction that Mr. LaRouche was describing last week, is that Russia engaged in snap military maneuvers, of a planetary scale, and simultaneously issued stark warnings, as they have in the past, over the fact that they will not tolerate and will not stand for, any threat of a nuclear confrontation without their response. There will be a response.

I won’t go through all the details of their military maneuvers and the exercises they carried out. Suffice it to say that overall evaluation of the speed and the professionalism with which this was carried out, provoked General Hodges, the United States head of the European command, to say “Damn! That was impressive!”

One of the most significant components of that deployment was that Russia deployed their nuclear-capable Iskander missiles into Kaliningrad, which is the closest point to all Western Europe on Russian soil. And this is something which then President Dmitri Medvedev, back in 2011, had warned would be Russia’s response, should the process of the U.S. and NATO continue extending their activities right up to Russia’s border with the Nazi coup in Ukraine, and especially with the deployment of anti-missile system which itself is a threat to Russia’s actual existence as a nation.

So, four years ago, Medvedev has warned that this would be their reaction if things reached a certain point. Russia did it this week.

There have been also been statements from Russian officials putting into words what the body language communicates; there is no mistaking what they’re talking about, which is, they do not like and will not stand for this anti-missile system which is a total provocation. But on the other hand, they have said explicitly, and this came from Deputy Defense Minister Antonov, who also issued the warnings about the anti-missile system, he said that they are prepared to talk to the United States, and that if the incoming Defense Secretary of the United States [ashton] Carter were to call Russian Defense Minister Shoigu on the phone, he is quite confident that Shoigu would respond, because dialogue is needed between the countries.

So this response from the Russians this week, really does box the British and Obama in, because their bluff won’t work. And this means, are they prepared to actually proceed and not simply bluff? So there’s an extremely high penalty which is put on this, which has totally kicked over the chessboard, in point of fact.

So this is all part of this global sea-change which is under way, and on the military and the war front, this is of great significance. But, real war prevention, real war avoidance come from a higher level, not simply responding to the immediate military and strategic situation, and that brings us back to the issue which LaRouche posed for this webcast, and posed as the central issue in his article “On the Subject of Germany’s Role.” And where he said that “the proper notion of design for the organization of the entirety of the planet” is based on being “responsive to the principles of Johannes Kepler.” And that in fact, is the only premise, the only basis on which we will be able to organize our way out, from a dangerous situation of a threatened species, on both the military front and the economic front, into actually a process of not simply survival, but man acting in such a way to continue the ongoing process of participation in the creative development in the universe.

OGDEN: And that’s precisely where I want to pick up to introduce Benjamin Deniston. What you just mentioned, Dennis, about Mr. LaRouche saying in this article that “the notion of the habitation of the planet, … must be responsive to the principles of Johannes Kepler,” I think goes directly back to what I stated from Mr. LaRouche in the introduction to this broadcast tonight, that our task is not to present a collection of parts, of separated parts, but our task is to understand the globe right now as a single, unified process. And the example which Mr. LaRouche gave earlier this afternoon, and has been citing time and time again, is the example of the method of thinking employed by Johannes Kepler.

Kepler understood the Solar System as a single, unified system, not merely as a collection of separate planets that somehow happened to find themselves occupying the same street address in the galaxy, but rather, as Ben Deniston elaborated in this week’s “New Paradigm for Mankind” show, which was on this website on Wednesday, Kepler really was the founder of modern physics, whose understanding of universal principles, Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, must become the basis for the organization of the human society on this planet.

If you remember from what I read earlier, he said, “the present characteristic of mankind’s relationship between the development of society and of the Solar System’s relationship to the role of mankind’s own development, are to be regarded as being interlocked in a matter of future experience, not for the individual as such, but for the future needs of mankind.”

And earlier in this paper, at the beginning, Mr. LaRouche said the following, which I want to use to introduce Ben, Mr. LaRouche said, “The present conditions of the inhabited planet Earth, have reached the point at which the notion of the habitation of the planet, in its entirety, must be responsive to the principles of Johannes Kepler, which must be considered, actually universally, as the proper notion of design for the organization of the entirety of the planet.”

So, Ben, I want to ask you, if we are to adequately develop the ability to understand the globe right now, as Kepler understood the Solar System, what do we have to understand about the mind of Johannes Kepler and his method? And I guess what I’m asking is: How do we think like Kepler?

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Well, that’s quite a challenge. I think the way to start is going back to Mr. LaRouche’s remarks from earlier today. I think the way he defined this challenge of understanding and communicating the present situation, as the way we’ve gone through it here this evening, is really an incredibly useful reference point to get right at this. You know, Matt, as you elaborated in the beginning, Lyn was emphatic that “the reality of the present situation cannot be understood in terms of individual developments, not individual activities or individual facts. We’re looking at a single, unified process, not individualities.” Lyn said that we’re getting developments all over the planet, as we’ve just discussed and gone through, but they are of one planetary process, not different things.

So I think just to underscore that, how do we understand this? How do we understand this process then, and how do we communicate our understanding this process as a single process to others? And as Lyn said earlier, obviously, we can’t cover everything. It’s one totality, but you can’t communicate the totality just by going through every single detail of the world situation. For one, we only have an hour here tonight, but beyond that, it just doesn’t work that way.

Lyn stressed repeatedly, you have to emphasize those partiuclar developments which come the closest to capturing the singleness of the overall process. You’ve got to focus on the examples which best express this totality. Forget the individual facts, go at what captures the nature of the planetary process as a whole.

This formulation that Lyn developed really struck me as something that has a certain, important precision, and I think it has direct and critical implications for understanding how Kepler thought, science from the standpoint of Kepler. It’s just the case that you can never, in strategy and politics, as we’re discussing today, or in science, you can never describe every single fact of a process, and more importantly, you can never know that process simply by describing an accumulation of facts.

Instead of you have to look to present specific examples, which, for them to be understood together, requires the mind to generate a new conception. A new creation of the mind, a product of the mind, which then allows the individual who generated that to experience something which has some degree of coherence with this single process, which is creating and governing those particular events, but also other events, other expressions.

And that is what we seek in science, not let’s discuss as science today as some fantasy of perfect and complete knowledge, of certain fixed laws which define the universe. I would say, we’re looking for something that’s more along the lines of something that’s an increasingly less invalid conception, of this type generated by the mind, and it’s these types of conceptions, increasingly less invalid conceptions, which are more real than any array of individual facts.

Now, some of our viewers might kind of pick up on, this concept is central to the work of Nicholas of Cusa and Cusa’s revolutionary conception of science, which did lay the basis for Kepler’s work later, Kepler’s discovery. As Cusa emphasizes in his De Docta Ignorantia, his On Learned Ignorance, that we have to realize when approaching the question of science, we have to start from a certain respect and realization, that we are dealing with one universe, and everything we think of as existing generally, exists as an inseparable expression of that one universe. And Cusa takes this, then, to a conception which might be somewhat difficult for some people, but the result he comes to is, you can never know anything about the universe per se, in absolute and complete fullness, for this reason.

Because to do so, to have complete, final knowledge of some real physical process of the universe, because that universe is an inseparable entirety, it would require you to know the entire universe, as a unity and, as Cusa stresses, without any contradictions, transcending any contradictories.

Now, people think they know things in these absolute terms. People think they know facts, for example, but these are shadows, these are expressions of a process. And as Lyn was getting at earlier today, the problem is, rarely today are people trained to see the process underlying these expressions, to think about seeking the principles underlying these “facts” which they think are the reality.

Again, to emphasize Cusa’s conception, absolute and complete knowledge of the universe per se, is beyond the capabilities of the human mind, to have this type of absolute and complete knowledge. Because to achieve this, it would require that you actually understand the universe, as a whole, outside of any contradictions, and as a unity.

Now, however, mankind does have a certain unique capability, a capability to generate conceptions, which provide a less imperfect experience of types of processes which underlie and generate facts, events, expressions, something we come to discuss or associate with the power of human creativity, as Mr. LaRouche has come to define and describe this unique power of man.

And we know this, because we do it: Mankind is the only species that has shown the ability to willfully change his relationship to the universe. And as Lyn has emphasized, let’s take the example of Kepler. Look at the example of Kepler from the standpoint we’re discussing here today: Kepler’s demonstration of the validity of Cusa’s conception of science, this particular idea about the relationship between the human mind and the universe generally. Kepler’s discovery of the Solar System was not based on observational facts. Kepler had a brilliant utilization of a few, precisely chosen facts. He chose specific observational facts, which forced the mind of himself and then anybody working through his writings, in working with these specifically chosen facts, these observations that Kepler defines and presents to you, forces the mind to generate a new conception, forces the mind to generate a new ideas, new conceptions which then provide a less imperfect experience of a certain principle, something that can generate and cause the shadows, which we identify as observational facts.

And Kepler did it: Kepler showed that in this way, in particular, man can develop what we might call “physically valid knowledge of the universe.” Again, not complete, final knowledge — you know, Kepler did not define the Solar System as an objective “fact.” Kepler created something in the mind. And mankind acts upon this, not facts about the Solar System.

It’s important to underscore Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis that this is what he sees China moving towards, in their pursuit of their space program, this pursuit of what he defined as this “Kepler principle.” So what does that mean? Are we pursuing the Solar System as an object? As a collection of objects, as an isolated thing, the way most people would tend to think about science today, given the problems of education? Or, are we, as mankind, in doing what China is doing, in reaching out into space, are we actually pursuing Kepler’s creation?

And I think to address that you have to come back, again, to this fundamental question that Cusa addressed in this De Docta Ignorantia that I referenced earlier: How is it that we have valid knowledge? Or in this particular case, how do we have valid knowledge of the principle of the Solar System? Again, is it an objective thing, a collection of facts? No. Today we have a conception, unique to the human mind, created by Kepler which provides people who develop that conception a less imperfect understanding of the underlying principle. And we know this to be true because it is demonstrated, by our ability to have a changed relationship with the universe around us.

So you could say, in these terms then, did Kepler create the Solar System? Well, in a very real sense, for mankind, in a way, he did.

And today we have to go further. We have to go towards the creation of even less imperfect conceptions, which we prove to be valid by their ability to allow mankind to continue to change his relationship to the universe. This is how we have to progress in the domain of science. How are we going to come to know the Solar System, less imperfectly, as an expression of the galaxy as a whole, for example? How will we in effect has to experience the recreation of the Solar System, as an inseparable expression of the subsuming galaxy?

These actions of the mind, these original creations of mankind, are the basis of science and of human progress — not facts, not finding facts or finding objects, but the generations, the creations of the human mind, specifically.

And just to bring it around to a conclusion, I think, this really needs to give us a different, a completely different understanding of the role of the individual in society; that understood in this way, the individual can create the future for mankind. And really, that is the best thing that any individual can strive for: To be participants in this process of successive, potentially endless creation, which is the substance of mankind. No animal can do this. This is what makes mankind unique.

So, I think, in referencing Lyn’s conceptions about where we could be going in potential, and what China is doing in the direction of the world right now, I would say, we have been given this Keplerian future, if we choose to create it now.

OGDEN: With that, we will bring a conclusion to our presentation here this evening. I would like to thank you very much, Dennis, for being with us tonight, as well as Ben. And thank all of you, very much, for participating in this event with us tonight. We hope we’ve provided something of value to you.

So please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

Join us today at 11am Eastern with members of the LaRouchePAC Science Research Team where we discuss the worlds leading scientific topics.

Join us today at 11am Eastern with members of the LaRouchePAC Science Research Team where we discuss the worlds leading scientific topics.

Join us today at 11am Eastern with members of the LaRouchePAC Science Research Team where we discuss the worlds leading scientific topics.

Join members of the LaRouchePAC policy committee today at 1pm Eastern, for a discussion of the worlds leading topics.