June 12, 2015 – LaRouchePAC Friday Webcast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So that’s what I’d like to say.

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

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

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

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