Author: Alicia

In a document summarizing the results of the Nov. 17-19 XXIII national congress of the Peruvian Association of Economists, Roberto Vela Pinedo, the Dean of the Association of Economists of Ucayali (which hosted the event), wrote:

“We economists of Peru, gathered in the city of Pucallpa, informing national and international public opinion of our position regarding the current situation of the country and the world, state the following:

“1) That, analyzing the keynote address presented to us by Dr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, we share the perspective on world development that her message presented, and which can be seen at the following link:

Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote address to the 23rd National Congress of the Association of Economists of Peru.

After this opening point of emphasis, Vela went on in his message — which was sent to all 24 regional Economists Associations in Peru, which have some 20,000 members — to write:

“6) To overcome this crisis, the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), led by China and Russia, proposed and initiated the construction of a new financial architecture directed at developing nations’ physical economies, in a sovereign relationship in which everyone wins (the `win-win’ [original in English—ed.] strategy, that demolishes the ancient regime’s zero-sum game, under which some win and others lose… Peru must join this process in order to achieve growth.

“7) We must restructure the state’s economic policy and replace the neoliberal model with a model of development of productive transformation with equity…

“8) We need to apply science, technology and innovation in our economic development, as the basis for being competitive…

“11) We must create a Ministry of Strategic Planning to formulate the vision of the country we wish to be… and have a new Ministry of Technology and Production…

“16) The first great step along the path of industrial development and the promotion of scientific and technological capabilities, is that Peru, as a paradigmatic example of this new sovereign relationship in which everyone wins (the `win-win’ strategy), should approve the proposal of the government of the Popular Republic of China to build a trans-continental railroad along the Northern Route, which would link the ports of Santos in Brazil and Bayovar in Peru, emphasizing the development of hundreds of complementary projects, such as: agriculture, agro-industry, manufacturing, fishing, ports, nuclear energy, petrochemicals, scientific and technological innovation, road infrastructure, the creation of new intelligent cities, and the creation of thousands of jobs, etc.

“After four days of deliberations, we have agreed to demand that the central government [of Peru] accept and promote the construction of this mega-project, given that it is the only one at this time focused on continental integration, and which already has a signed Memorandum of Understanding among the governments of the China, Brazil and Peru.” 

In a document summarizing the results of the Nov. 17-19 XXIII national congress of the Peruvian Association of Economists, Roberto Vela Pinedo, the Dean of the Association of Economists of Ucayali (which hosted the event), wrote:

“We economists of Peru, gathered in the city of Pucallpa, informing national and international public opinion of our position regarding the current situation of the country and the world, state the following:

“1) That, analyzing the keynote address presented to us by Dr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, we share the perspective on world development that her message presented, and which can be seen at the following link:

Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote address to the 23rd National Congress of the Association of Economists of Peru.

After this opening point of emphasis, Vela went on in his message — which was sent to all 24 regional Economists Associations in Peru, which have some 20,000 members — to write:

“6) To overcome this crisis, the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), led by China and Russia, proposed and initiated the construction of a new financial architecture directed at developing nations’ physical economies, in a sovereign relationship in which everyone wins (the `win-win’ [original in English—ed.] strategy, that demolishes the ancient regime’s zero-sum game, under which some win and others lose… Peru must join this process in order to achieve growth.

“7) We must restructure the state’s economic policy and replace the neoliberal model with a model of development of productive transformation with equity…

“8) We need to apply science, technology and innovation in our economic development, as the basis for being competitive…

“11) We must create a Ministry of Strategic Planning to formulate the vision of the country we wish to be… and have a new Ministry of Technology and Production…

“16) The first great step along the path of industrial development and the promotion of scientific and technological capabilities, is that Peru, as a paradigmatic example of this new sovereign relationship in which everyone wins (the `win-win’ strategy), should approve the proposal of the government of the Popular Republic of China to build a trans-continental railroad along the Northern Route, which would link the ports of Santos in Brazil and Bayovar in Peru, emphasizing the development of hundreds of complementary projects, such as: agriculture, agro-industry, manufacturing, fishing, ports, nuclear energy, petrochemicals, scientific and technological innovation, road infrastructure, the creation of new intelligent cities, and the creation of thousands of jobs, etc.

“After four days of deliberations, we have agreed to demand that the central government [of Peru] accept and promote the construction of this mega-project, given that it is the only one at this time focused on continental integration, and which already has a signed Memorandum of Understanding among the governments of the China, Brazil and Peru.” 

Happy Thanksgiving from LaRouchePAC. As you celebrate this most American of holidays, we wanted to give you a gift to clear the mind and help shape the way forward. As you know, we view the recent electoral earthquakes throughout the world as signaling the birth of a potentially profound new human era in the history of mankind – rejecting the nostrums of perpetual war, economic Malthusianism, and savage genocide against both domestic and foreign populations which have characterized the Obama/Bush legacy. Coupled with the bold economic and scientific development perspective put forward by China, there is an actual potential for great and wondrous change.

On January 19, 2014, 50 years to the date when Mozart’s Requiem was performed just months after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston Massachusetts, members of LaRouche’s political movement commemorated the occasion with a performance of Mozart’s Requiem at the same Cathedral. The mass was introduced with select quotes from John F. Kennedy challenging the American population to realize its truly human nature through building great economic development projects and exploring and colonizing space.

We hope you will find the time to listen to the above performance over the holiday and to share it with friends. Just as the Kennedy assassination marked a descent by our population into the hellish conditions which have characterized the recent past, if we embrace the mental state evoked by both the Mozart Mass itself and the mental challenge posed by our former President, a far better future appears within our grasp, just on the horizon.

The following statement, by Republican Senator Richard H. Black of the Virginia Senate, came in response to a warning from Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) that U.S. support and collaboration with Saudi Arabia in the criminal war against Yemen was putting US military personnel at risk of prosecution for war crimes. Sen. Black was the former Chief of the Criminal Law Division in the Office of the Judge Advocate General at the Pentagon.        

“I agree with Rep. Lieu’s legal analysis.  However, I believe the more practical aspect of this is the legal exposure of our most senior officials, who directed our servicemen’s actions.  Under the precedent set by the American War Crimes Tribunal of Japanese General Yamashtia following WWII, the senior commander is criminally liable for generalized criminal misconduct by his subordinates.  This applies to conduct of which he knew or should have known.        

“America has widely flouted international norms of conduct in its wars of aggression against Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Yemen.  Some acts appear to constitute common law crimes — such as our refusal to accept the surrender of Col. Kaddafi when he offered to leave Libya.  The U.S., GB, and France reportedly conferred before deciding to ignore his offer to abdicate, and facilitated his murder instead.        

“By flouting settled norms of wartime conduct, the U.S. has severely undermined its moral authority and diminished its power across the globe. While I support a robust defense, we gain nothing by fighting wars to advance globalism particularly when such wars violate the Law of Land Warfare.”
 
President Donald Trump is increasingly indicating that he agrees. His appointment of General (ret.) Michael Flynn is one such indication — Gen. Flynn, as former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, famously warned Obama that his adventure in Syria, as also in Libya, was supporting the establishment of a “caliphate” of the most extreme, Saudi-funded Islamic terrorists. Gen. Flynn also ridiculed Obama’s massive drone assassination program, which so delights the killer president, as militarily worse than useless, as each kill “just made them a martyr, it just created a new reason to fight us even harder.” Like Trump, Gen. Flynn advocates working with Russia to defend the Syrian state and the world against the terrorists.        

Trump also met on Monday with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), with indications that she is being considered as U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Gabbard, a veteran of the Iraq war, has been an outspoken critic of Obama’s perpetual warfare, and his failure to combat terrorism in favor of “regime change” against secular governments. Contrast that with Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power, who has joined the braying dinosaurs by ranting at the UN today that she would “bring to justice” the Syrian commanders who have been leading the counter-terror operations in their country.        

The world is in a revolutionary transition. European leaders who followed Obama and the British dictates to sanction Russia and prepare for war are dropping like flies. The election of Francois Fillon, a pro-Russian candidate in the French Republican Party primary this week, follows the election of pro-Russian leaders in Bulgaria and Muldova last week. At the same time, the European banks, with Deutsche Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland in the lead, are hanging by a thread and could bring the entire western banking system down on any given day — unless the U.S. Congress comes to its senses and imposes Glass Steagall, now, without waiting for the new government in January.        

Even more crucial is the fight to restore creative thinking in the western nations, after decades of intellectual poison from the violence and perversion of Hollywood and the rock-drug-sex counter-culture. Three years ago on this date, on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Schiller Institute, founded by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, presented a memorial concert for JFK featuring the Mozart Requiem Mass in D Minor in the Washington area, followed on January 19 by a repeat performance at the Holy Cross Cathedral in Boston, the site of the Solemn Pontifical Requiem Mass in memory of JFK celebrated by Richard Cardinal Cushing 50 years earlier, where the same profound expression of classical beauty had been performed and watched on television around the world. It is precisely the identification of beauty with truth which has been lost in the West, and must be restored, to bring the world together for peace, through shared and cooperative development.

The Schiller Institute’s performance of Mozart’s Requiem in Vienna, Virginia on the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, November 22, 2013.

Jason Ross sits down with EIR’s Paul Gallagher to discuss how to finance the trillions of dollars required for a U.S. recovery, taking up questions that have come in from activists and from YouTube. We cover topics from Glass-Steagall to national banking to the needed projects for today and the international cooperation necessary to effect a recovery in the U.S.

Referenced material:
• larouchepac.com/econ-faqs
• bit.ly/HamiltonsVision
• Lincoln and Greenbacks

he Nov. 18 New York Times carried on its front page an exhortation, “Trump-Size Idea for a New President: Build Something Inspiring,” discussing and proposing a number of regionally important infrastructure projects.

But the leading economic power of Asia, China, is rapidly building new infrastructure projects, domestically and internationally, which make the Times‘ proposals appear not very “inspiring.” A national high-speed rail network surpassed 12,000 miles built, in 10 years, to cite just one example.

Though the Times proposed high-speed rail lines along parts of the East and West Coasts, it was unable to conceptualize the great projects the U.S. economy really needs. These include an entirely new, continental water management and water creation (desalination, ionization) system to rescue the whole West from advancing desertification; a continental high-speed rail network which includes going across the Bering Strait to Eurasia and down into Mexico and through the Darien Isthmus into South America; a project to industrialize the Moon; breakthroughs to fusion energy and plasma industrial technologies; a major revival of NASA’s solar and deep-space plans.

Thus, two conditions for president-elect Trump’s “big plans” for infrastructure. They must be carried out in cooperation with China and its new international development banks. And the proposals for financing them — including that suggested by the Times — must be scrapped, in favor of Alexander Hamilton’s design of national credit institutions.

Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Corners” and other infrastructure great projects are cited as exemplary throughout the Times piece. The Hoover Dam was a tunnel-and-dam project on a scale never attempted before, requiring tunnel-boring machines and other industrial capacities which did not exist. The Tennessee Valley Authority was, among other things, a near-continental integrated system of water management, flood control, power production, rural electrification. Very large national science facilities which were developed at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Livermore, and Chicago were also large industrial projects at the very frontiers of the nuclear sciences. And so on.

President Kennedy’s Apollo Project was human “transportation infrastructure” into the Solar System. It was infrastructure work at both the scientific and industrial frontiers.

Building these “things that are hard,” as Kennedy called them, caused productivity leaps in the U.S. economy and labor force which were unprecedented since the 1870s. There has been no such productivity growth in the last 50 years.

For these purposes, the “public-private partnerships” (PPPs), made famous in Democrats’ policy shop-talk since their invention by Felix Rohatyn of Lazard Bank 50 years ago, are completely incapable. Here there are no private financial profits to be had (except for the constructors and their lenders) on a scale of less than a decade at best; there are only new levels of productivity. A breakthrough to fusion power will not provide “user fees,” only a new future for America and humanity.

From the Republican side, the circulated “Trump plan” for an infrastructure bank is even more unworkable; it could be called a “private-private partnership.” The Treasury merely provides $140 billion in tax credits up front to induce investment funds to form an “infrastructure bank”; then Uncle Sam steps aside and guarantees these plungers while they borrow another $850 billion and control the selection of infrastructure projects to be financed by the trillion-dollar bank!

With the infamous zero-interest rates already rising rapidly at the very smell of this kind of thing, that’s one big mass of debt service incurred by this perhaps-Trumpian bank. The Treasury is supposed to recoup its $140 billion, gradually, by taxes paid by construction workers, engineers, etc. on the projects. But the lenders of the $850 billion are to be provided for by “user fees” (which are also a big feature of PPPs).

But at the frontiers of “great projects,” such as described above, there are no user fees for quite some time! If user fees are the means of paying the infrastructure bank’s debts, its managers will grab at short-term “things that are easy” like new airports, toll bridges, etc. Forget productivity advance. A great chance to rebuild America’s economy will be thrown away.

Real Economics

Enter Alexander Hamilton — who invented national credit for manufacturing, productivity, and infrastructure — and his students: John Quincy Adams (2nd Bank of the United States); Henry Clay (Fiscal Bank of the United States); Abraham Lincoln (Greenback and National Banking Acts of 1862, 1863 and 1864); and Franklin Roosevelt (Reconstruction Finance Corporation).

Using Hamilton’s principles, a national bank should be capitalized with existing Federal and state debt, stretched out by the Bank to the timescale of the great infrastructure projects themselves; the capital subscribers are rewarded by healthier interest rates and a Treasury guarantee. A Hamiltonian national bank is a commercial bank as well — states and municipalities, as well as businesses, will use it as a bank of deposit, while it buys or discounts their own infrastructure bonds.

A means of servicing the longer-term debt of the bank (“extinguishing it,” in Hamilton’s words) must be provided which is — for the initial building period — independent of the Bank’s great projects. A NEW TAX — or, the assignment and increase of an existing one. Neither Hamilton, nor Washington, nor Lincoln, nor FDR, nor JFK were sissies about imposing the taxes necessary — and no more! — to sustain the credit for their great advances in our nation’s productivity.

These principles of productivity are those of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws to Save the United States. They are the actions which deserve to be called “inspiring.”

he Nov. 18 New York Times carried on its front page an exhortation, “Trump-Size Idea for a New President: Build Something Inspiring,” discussing and proposing a number of regionally important infrastructure projects.

But the leading economic power of Asia, China, is rapidly building new infrastructure projects, domestically and internationally, which make the Times‘ proposals appear not very “inspiring.” A national high-speed rail network surpassed 12,000 miles built, in 10 years, to cite just one example.

Though the Times proposed high-speed rail lines along parts of the East and West Coasts, it was unable to conceptualize the great projects the U.S. economy really needs. These include an entirely new, continental water management and water creation (desalination, ionization) system to rescue the whole West from advancing desertification; a continental high-speed rail network which includes going across the Bering Strait to Eurasia and down into Mexico and through the Darien Isthmus into South America; a project to industrialize the Moon; breakthroughs to fusion energy and plasma industrial technologies; a major revival of NASA’s solar and deep-space plans.

Thus, two conditions for president-elect Trump’s “big plans” for infrastructure. They must be carried out in cooperation with China and its new international development banks. And the proposals for financing them — including that suggested by the Times — must be scrapped, in favor of Alexander Hamilton’s design of national credit institutions.

Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Corners” and other infrastructure great projects are cited as exemplary throughout the Times piece. The Hoover Dam was a tunnel-and-dam project on a scale never attempted before, requiring tunnel-boring machines and other industrial capacities which did not exist. The Tennessee Valley Authority was, among other things, a near-continental integrated system of water management, flood control, power production, rural electrification. Very large national science facilities which were developed at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Livermore, and Chicago were also large industrial projects at the very frontiers of the nuclear sciences. And so on.

President Kennedy’s Apollo Project was human “transportation infrastructure” into the Solar System. It was infrastructure work at both the scientific and industrial frontiers.

Building these “things that are hard,” as Kennedy called them, caused productivity leaps in the U.S. economy and labor force which were unprecedented since the 1870s. There has been no such productivity growth in the last 50 years.

For these purposes, the “public-private partnerships” (PPPs), made famous in Democrats’ policy shop-talk since their invention by Felix Rohatyn of Lazard Bank 50 years ago, are completely incapable. Here there are no private financial profits to be had (except for the constructors and their lenders) on a scale of less than a decade at best; there are only new levels of productivity. A breakthrough to fusion power will not provide “user fees,” only a new future for America and humanity.

From the Republican side, the circulated “Trump plan” for an infrastructure bank is even more unworkable; it could be called a “private-private partnership.” The Treasury merely provides $140 billion in tax credits up front to induce investment funds to form an “infrastructure bank”; then Uncle Sam steps aside and guarantees these plungers while they borrow another $850 billion and control the selection of infrastructure projects to be financed by the trillion-dollar bank!

With the infamous zero-interest rates already rising rapidly at the very smell of this kind of thing, that’s one big mass of debt service incurred by this perhaps-Trumpian bank. The Treasury is supposed to recoup its $140 billion, gradually, by taxes paid by construction workers, engineers, etc. on the projects. But the lenders of the $850 billion are to be provided for by “user fees” (which are also a big feature of PPPs).

But at the frontiers of “great projects,” such as described above, there are no user fees for quite some time! If user fees are the means of paying the infrastructure bank’s debts, its managers will grab at short-term “things that are easy” like new airports, toll bridges, etc. Forget productivity advance. A great chance to rebuild America’s economy will be thrown away.

Real Economics

Enter Alexander Hamilton — who invented national credit for manufacturing, productivity, and infrastructure — and his students: John Quincy Adams (2nd Bank of the United States); Henry Clay (Fiscal Bank of the United States); Abraham Lincoln (Greenback and National Banking Acts of 1862, 1863 and 1864); and Franklin Roosevelt (Reconstruction Finance Corporation).

Using Hamilton’s principles, a national bank should be capitalized with existing Federal and state debt, stretched out by the Bank to the timescale of the great infrastructure projects themselves; the capital subscribers are rewarded by healthier interest rates and a Treasury guarantee. A Hamiltonian national bank is a commercial bank as well — states and municipalities, as well as businesses, will use it as a bank of deposit, while it buys or discounts their own infrastructure bonds.

A means of servicing the longer-term debt of the bank (“extinguishing it,” in Hamilton’s words) must be provided which is — for the initial building period — independent of the Bank’s great projects. A NEW TAX — or, the assignment and increase of an existing one. Neither Hamilton, nor Washington, nor Lincoln, nor FDR, nor JFK were sissies about imposing the taxes necessary — and no more! — to sustain the credit for their great advances in our nation’s productivity.

These principles of productivity are those of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws to Save the United States. They are the actions which deserve to be called “inspiring.”

Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed on Saturday afternoon by Republican Party strategist Roger Stone on his “Stone Cold Truth” radio show. Stone began the interview with a long introduction of Mr. LaRouche, noting his presidential campaigns from 1976-2004, and his close relationship with President Ronald Reagan. Stone was the Northeast Coordinator for Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign, and he explained to his listeners that he knew personally that Reagan and LaRouche developed a friendship during that campaign. He quoted Reagan in a personal conversation that, while he did not agree with everything that LaRouche said, he did agree with much of LaRouche’s policies, and considered him to be a friend.

During the back and forth, LaRouche made clear that the election of Donald Trump was a defeat for those, like President Obama, who were seeking to provoke a world war against Russia. In one exchange about the Bill Clinton presidency, LaRouche made clear that Clinton was targeted by the British Queen and was under major attack when he capitulated to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and that Hillary Clinton contributed to the demise of the Clinton presidency. Stone agreed with that assessment.

Stone showed tremendous respect for Mr. LaRouche throughout the interview, and delighted in the fact that some people on Wall Street will go berserk over the fact that LaRouche appeared on Stone’s radio show. He asked, towards the end of the interview, for Mr. LaRouche to say something about the political frameup to silence him, and LaRouche pinned the railroad prosecutions on President George H.W. Bush, to which Stone, the author of a recent book on the Bush “crime family,” fully agreed.

LaRouche repeated that the Trump victory represented a global defeat for those provoking war against Russia, and that, while it is not yet known what Trump will accomplish in office, the halt of the war drive is a major contribution in itself. Stone made clear that one of the issues that he is certain that Trump will pursue is the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, a policy that Stone noted has been promoted by Lyndon LaRouche for a long time.

At one point, Stone noted that he has been a close friend and collaborator of Donald Trump since the 1980 Reagan campaign, when Trump and his father, Fred Trump, were early strong political and financial backers of Reagan.

Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed on Saturday afternoon by Republican Party strategist Roger Stone on his “Stone Cold Truth” radio show. Stone began the interview with a long introduction of Mr. LaRouche, noting his presidential campaigns from 1976-2004, and his close relationship with President Ronald Reagan. Stone was the Northeast Coordinator for Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign, and he explained to his listeners that he knew personally that Reagan and LaRouche developed a friendship during that campaign. He quoted Reagan in a personal conversation that, while he did not agree with everything that LaRouche said, he did agree with much of LaRouche’s policies, and considered him to be a friend.

During the back and forth, LaRouche made clear that the election of Donald Trump was a defeat for those, like President Obama, who were seeking to provoke a world war against Russia. In one exchange about the Bill Clinton presidency, LaRouche made clear that Clinton was targeted by the British Queen and was under major attack when he capitulated to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and that Hillary Clinton contributed to the demise of the Clinton presidency. Stone agreed with that assessment.

Stone showed tremendous respect for Mr. LaRouche throughout the interview, and delighted in the fact that some people on Wall Street will go berserk over the fact that LaRouche appeared on Stone’s radio show. He asked, towards the end of the interview, for Mr. LaRouche to say something about the political frameup to silence him, and LaRouche pinned the railroad prosecutions on President George H.W. Bush, to which Stone, the author of a recent book on the Bush “crime family,” fully agreed.

LaRouche repeated that the Trump victory represented a global defeat for those provoking war against Russia, and that, while it is not yet known what Trump will accomplish in office, the halt of the war drive is a major contribution in itself. Stone made clear that one of the issues that he is certain that Trump will pursue is the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, a policy that Stone noted has been promoted by Lyndon LaRouche for a long time.

At one point, Stone noted that he has been a close friend and collaborator of Donald Trump since the 1980 Reagan campaign, when Trump and his father, Fred Trump, were early strong political and financial backers of Reagan.

Taking stock of the significant strategic advances achieved planet-wide in the recent period, and of the crucial conceptual strides that still remain unrealized, Lyndon LaRouche on Sunday told associates that “what’s happening now is, to a large degree, progress, but it’s not conclusive…. We are making progress, but this kind of progress does not satisfy the requirements of Mankind…. The question is, what Mankind can do to change the behavior of the universe as such.”

LaRouche’s in-depth discussion, as laid out below, is critical to meeting the challenges Mankind currently faces.

The week ended with another devastating defeat of Obama, this time of his British free trade policies at the APEC summit in Lima, Peru, as the global center of gravity shifts to the successful initiatives undertaken by China and Russia. Where we now stand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche told associates, is that “I think we are witnessing a continuation of the very rapid dynamic which has been dominant for the last two and a half months, or a little bit more, starting with the Vladivostok meeting; the integration of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the One Belt, One Road; the continuation of that in the G20 Hangzhou meeting; then the ASEAN meeting in Laos; followed by the BRICS conference in Goa, India in October; and now the APEC meeting in Lima, Peru.

“What is very clear is that the center of gravity and power has fully shifted to this dynamic, especially the integration of the policies of China and Russia.  And what goes along with that, is a continuous explosion of infrastructure and other development projects which, if you take them as a totality, are really a breathtaking dynamic which unfolded with an increasing speed in the last three years.

“And that is definitely the power center of the world right now, because it is very clear that the trans-Atlantic establishments are completely incapable of understanding that their model of globalization and neo-liberal distribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, has completely failed. And they are neither able to predict developments, nor can they cope with the consequences of such things as the Brexit or the Trump vote.”

But the immediate challenge before us—of using the political tidal wave sweeping the United States, as expressed in the Presidential election, to finally bring the U.S. on board to the World Land-Bridge New Paradigm—requires recognizing and addressing a much more profound question. In his discussion with associates, LaRouche stated in part:

“I know that what we’re doing now, while it looks brilliant, in many cases, is not really that good…. Because if we don’t see these higher considerations which people try to overlook — saying ‘we’ll reach that later, we’ll come to that, don’t push yourself too much’ — that’s what I’m concerned about

“It’s the Einstein principle, which is a good measure, a good standard, to see what this problem is….

“What we’ve come to in this change that’s hitting now, we’re hitting probably a mistaken confidence. That doesn’t mean we’re doing something bad as such, but it means we have not really captured what the principle is, on which the future of mankind depends….

“The question is the intrinsic nature of mankind, which Einstein did grasp in certain of his scientific operations.  He did!  And that is what we’ve lost.  We turned away from that kind of conception and decided to come up with a more economical approach, a more practical approach and economical approach….

“We’ve done some good things.  We’ve improved the class for Mankind in general, the classes for Mankind in general, on the basis of certain projects, on certain things.  But we have lost the question of what is the meaning of the existence of the human individual. That is, what is the nature of the actual existence, of the possibility of the human individual?…

“What we’re doing is good, in large part; in certain parts of the world and in certain parts of aspects of life.  But it’s not what mankind actually needs.  Mankind needs to know what the reason is, for human beings, human individuals, something which is never understandable by merely mortal people, who look at themselves in some category like that….

“What is the meaning, what is the intrinsic meaning, of a human being? Of the existence of any human being?  Or all human beings?

“And what’s happening now is, to a large degree, progress, but it’s not conclusive….

“What you’re looking at is, what is the nature of creation. The question is, what is the fundamental purpose of the human being? What is the nature of Mankind as a universal thing? The universe is organized and therefore you have to think about a universe which is intrinsically organized. Not practically organized, but intrinsically organized….

“People don’t know what makes the universe work. What is the characteristic of humanity, that makes it superior to every thing we know about all kinds of animals….

“We are making progress, but this kind of progress does not satisfy the requirements of Mankind. There is something in the universe that is controlling and defining what the universe means as a mission.

“What makes the universe do what it does for the function of Mankind as such? The question is, what mankind can do to change the behavior of the universe as such.”