Virginia State Senator Richard Black and Janice Kortkamp Fearing recently returned from trips to Syria—reporting on a reality far different than the lies the American people are being fed by the media. EIR’s Jeffrey Steinberg interviews both on their meetings and experiences with top officials and everyday Syrians.
At a press conference in Washington Wednesday, held by the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies and the National Institute of South China Sea Studies and attended by some 70 plus Chinese and American journalists, three leading Chinese scholars and two American scholars, including EIR’s Washington Bureau Chief Bill Jones, were featured. The interest in the topic was at its height with the imminent decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague on the Philippines’ request for a decision on the matter. The decision by the arbitration court, which China refused to be a part of, and therefore, whose decision China will not abide by, is seen as a means for the U.S. to up the ante on its “freedom of navigation” gambit in the South China Sea, pushing the region closer to war.
The Chinese scholars included Dr. Wu Shicun, the president of the National Institute of South China Sea Studies, undoubtedly the most knowledgeable person in China on the issue of the South China Sea; and Professor Huang Renwei, the vice president of the Shanghai Institute of International Studies, one of the foremost think-tanks in China.
The press conference also benefited from a significant question asked from the floor by Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
The Chinese side presented their position on the South China Sea, underlining their case for not accepting arbitration in a matter where there had been no negotiations between the Philippines and China because of the Philippines’ refusal to engage in discussions. Sending the case to the court was also a violation of the Declaration of Conduct signed by all the Southeast Asian Nations, including the Philippines, committing themselves to resolve the territorial disputes through negotiation. The arbitration decision is seen, therefore, as a case of collusion between one of the parties in the dispute and the referee, with, of course, the backing of the United States, which insists it is not a party in the dispute.
U.S. Naval Academy professor Brian Mulveny presented the mainstream — i.e., Obama Administration — view, namely that the U.S. can send their military vessels wherever they want in “freedom of navigation” operations and that China has to adhere to whatever the arbitration court decides.
In his comments, EIR’s Jones underlined the importance of the visit of the Chinese delegation because of the war danger posed by the concentration of military forces in the region by the U.S. and its allies, and because of the systematic distortion of Chinese position in the U.S. media.
“U.S. policy has been totally wrong-headed,” Jones said. “Instead of trying to build a comprehensive relationship with China socially, economically, politically and militarily, it treats China like an outside predator even in its own region. Instead of trying to facilitate China’s relations with its neighbors, it has strengthened its Cold War alliances and encouraged them to get tough with China,” Jones said. “And when the arbitration decision comes down next week, the U.S. will start harping that China must accept this as a tenet of international law, a position which many legal experts even in the U.S. consider as absurd.”
“I ask myself,” Jones said, “how would the U.S. react if it had a fleet of foreign vessels belonging to an alien alliance patrolling 12 miles off of California’s coast? Well, I think we know how the U.S. would react, but China would tend to show more restraint,” he said.
“China has put forward an important ‘good neighbor policy’ with its Belt and Road Initiative, Jones said, “offering hope and development for a region that is still plagued by poverty and destruction. And the U.S. has seen this as hostile intent by China, in spite of the fact that the U.S. has been invited to take part in this major program of infrastructure development.”
“If nothing else, the South China Sea crisis has shown us most clearly that we need a new type of relationship between our two countries, perhaps in line with what President Xi envisions with his idea of a major power relationship. Because if we continue with the zero-sum game of geopolitics, it will only lead to war.”
The reaction from the audience was enthusiastic, with several questions directed to Jones.
In an intervention from the floor during the Q&A session, Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche again broached the war danger in a question directed to Mulvaney.
“There are many military experts internationally who are warning that the situation today is more dangerous than at the height of the Cold War,” she said. “Furthermore, we are about to experience another financial crash worse than 2008. I think the terrorist activities, especially of the last two weeks, in Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, and European countries clearly show that terrorism is out of control. And actually with the Brexit, the European Union is in a process of disintegration, very dramatically.
“So my question is: Can Mankind not rise to a higher level of cooperation and go for a New Paradigm where geopolitics is overcome and replaced by the commons aims of mankind? I mean, the world is in dire need for the United States and China to work together, because I think without the two countries joining hands, the world is in trouble. So the question is: Can the world move to a New Paradigm of peaceful cooperation for the future tasks of all of humanity?”
In response to Mrs. LaRouche’s question, Mulvaney downplayed the danger of any serious military conflict in the South China Sea, saying foolishly that if an incident occurs in the region it won’t lead to war, but will be contained. (Perhaps on the thesis that a single bullet does not a war make. But tell that to Archduke Franz Ferdinand.) Mulvaney also tried to ridicule the need for a new paradigm, saying that he would love a world in which people lived together in harmony, but, consummate pragmatist that he was, he said that this was not the world we lived in.
After the event, many journalists came up to Jones asking many more questions on the South China Sea crisis and how China should react to the arbitration decision.
The press conference followed two days of private discussions with the Chinese delegation, one with the Carnegie Institute for World Peace (something of a misnomer) and the other with the Schiller Institute and friends, including Schiller Institute president and founder, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
Full video proceedings of the press conference will be available soon.
London-Saudi Global Terror
Video of IvR7s0hahmA
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 Representatives Walter Jones (R-NC), Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), along with 9/11 widow Terry Strada held a press conference on Capitol Hill introducing H.R…
In discussions on Thursday with his Policy Committee and other colleagues, Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that the current financial system is breaking down, and the system, as a system, cannot survive. The major financial institutions, including the central banks, are hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt. LaRouche noted that, while there is a terrible possibility of war, driven by the desperation of those circles whose power derives from the current financial system, much of the threats coming from the mouths of Barack Obama and some NATO officials are really all bluff. The threats they are issuing against Russia and China do not work.
Nevertheless, that meddling, both on the financial and war fronts, can lead to a serious collapse that mankind is not ready to deal with.
This week, both the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements issued reports spelling out the systemic disintegration of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system. Lending by banks, throughout the advanced sector, has collapsed altogether. There is no capital flow into the real, productive economy, according to the data produced by the BIS. The IMF has issued a dire warning that Deutsche Bank is about to explode, and this alone could trigger a systemic crisis.
As NATO officials finalize plans for the July 8-9 heads of state summit in Warsaw, Poland, the frenzy against Russia is building up even further. On Wednesday, President Obama was in Ottawa for his final summit with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts. He used the occasion to launch into a tirade against Russia, practically begging Canada to dispatch a combat battalion to the Baltic States.
Counter-pose this madness with the extraordinary Schiller Institute conference that took place last weekend in Berlin, where leaders from four continents came together, to take up the question of a new paradigm of thinking to get the world out of the present existential disaster.
As both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche emphasized during the weekend proceedings in Berlin, what is urgently needed is a revolutionary shift in thinking, focused on building a future of cooperation among sovereign nations and integrated regions of the world. China’s One Belt, One Road program is paradigmatic of the kind of new thinking that must be adopted by leading citizens of the world.
The current system is dead and cannot survive for very much longer.
On June 26 the Schiller Institute and the Foundation For The Revival Of Classical Culture co-sponsored a symposium/concert, “In Praise of Sylvia Lee”. This concert will begin a one year celebration and commemoration of the life of one of America’s great classical musicians and vocal teachers, Sylvia Olden Lee (June 29, 1917-April 10, 2004), a member of the Schiller Institute Advisory board from the 1990s until her death. Our goal is that at the end of that period—by June 2017—the 1500-person Schiller Institute Community Chorus project will be achieved.
During 1993-2000, Sylvia Lee worked particularly in Washington, D.C. with the Schiller Institute to create a community chorus there. The focus of the work was upon D.C.’s youth, and used African-American Spirituals contained in the play “Through The Years”, written by the late Amelia Boynton Robinson. Amelia was the Schiller Institute’s vice-president for 22 years, and the originator of the 1965 Selma, Alabama civil rights campaign. Amelia was simultaneously a board member of the Martin Luther King Center for non-Violent Social Change in Atlanta, founded by Coretta Scott King, serving at Mrs. King’s request in that capacity.
Schiller Institute founder Helga LaRouche had for years advocated that Amelia’s play be performed be revived, complete with the 20 Spirituals contained therein. Twenty performances of the play were presented, including to an 1800 person overflow audience at Howard University. This work was in turn embedded in frequent concerts given in D.C. at many churches and at locations such as Constitution Hall, featuring William Warfield, George Shirley, Elvira Green, Robert McFerrin, Gregory Hopkins, and many other Classical music vocalists, often accompanied by Sylvia.
Sylvia firmly believed that the great practitioners of the Classical repertoire of the future were going to come from the garage stations, convenience stores, bowling alleys and street corners of the United States. Great music could not merely be occasionally passively experienced, but must be actively lived. In that way, the mind is inspired to assist the soul in the highest of human aspirations, no matter in what field. LPAC Policy Committee member Diane Sare worked with Sylvia in Washington in this capacity, as did John Sigerson, co-author of the Schiller Institute’s Manual On Registration And Tuning. They also worked closely with Silvia’s colleagues Robert McFerrin and William Warfield, who was also a Schiller Institute Board Member and a 50-year associate of Sylvia’s, from 1942, even before their joint work with the Institute.
The Manual On Registration And Tuning, which establishes the necessity of a C equal to 256 cycles per second, proves that the A must be no higher than 435, and should lie in the range of 427 to 432 cps. This pitch has been also known for over a century as the “Verdi pitch”, because of Giuseppe Verdi’s successful campaign to pass legislation to that effect in the Italian parliament. The idea for the “music manual” originated with economist Lyndon LaRouche, who insisted from the mid-1980s on this correction of the much higher A at 440, 445, 450, etc now “criminally standard” in today’s concert halls. Sylvia’s “Saving Young Lyric Voices In Advance” campaign fit perfectly with the aspirations of the Institute in this regard.
Sylvia was, as teacher, researcher and vocalist Elizabeth Nash stated, “an untapped vein of marching American musical history.” Her mastery of the operatic repertoire was so complete that she virtually never referred to scores, and could transpose at will even the most complex of arias. Her self-assigned life mission, which brought her into an eleven-year collaboration with the Schiller Institute starting in 1993, was called “Project SYLVIA—Saving Young Lyric Voices In Advance”. The project was dedicated to her mother, a world-class singer and pianist, after whom Sylvia was named. (Her father was also a musician, singing in the renowned Fisk Quartet, which also included the extraordinary tenor Roland Hayes.)
Sylvia was uncompromisingly proud of her African-American heritage, and the fact that her grandfather, who was born in 1845, after escaping from a Kentucky slave plantation had served in the Civil War, first as a water boy and then as a combatant. Sylvia’s mother was given the opportunity to sing at New York City’s Metropolitan opera, but only if she agreed to “pass for white”, which she refused to do. It was not until 1946, merely 70 years ago, that Camilla Williams would become the first African -American to sign with a major American opera company, despite the fact that composer Antonin Dvorak, who lived in New York City from 1892 until 1895, performed at that time with African-American singers and instrumentalists as soloists (soprano Sissieretta Jones et al.) at locations such at Madison Square Garden, demonstrably in opposition to the racist policy of the Metropolitan opera.
Sylvia, in a “willed historical irony”, would become the first African-American to be contracted by the Met, as a vocal coach, in 1954. It would be through Sylvia that the great Marion Anderson would “break the Met color bar” in 1955, an event in the field of music as important as Jackie Robinson’s “breaking the color bar” in sports in October 1945.
The Brexit vote has exposed (not caused) the bankruptcy of the entire western financial system, but also the political bankruptcy of the Blair/Cameron era of the British Empire.
Cameron has resigned, but won’t leave for at least four months, and Britain won’t file the “Article 50” required to activate the rewithdrawal from the EU until after the new PM takes over.
The Blairites in the Labour Party have unleashed a blitz against Jeremy Corbyn, demanding that he resign for not having campaigned hard enough for staying in the EU. Since the vote on Brexit, 21 members of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet have resigned (out of nearly 50), following Corbyn’s dumping shadow Foreign Minister Hillary Benn, who openly denounced Corbyn over his role in the vote. Corbyn refused to resign, saying that only an election within the Labour Party national membership could replace him, and that he would run in any such election.
Tony Blair, himself, is thoroughly distraught. In a June 24 New York Times op-ed, he says the vote is the result of anti-immigrant sentiment on the right and anti-banker sentiment on the left, concluding (correctly, if ironically) that “underlying it all is a shared hostility to globalization.”
In Scotland, Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon said that the regional legislature could vote to reject the Brexit (although they would be overridden by the national legislature); that Scotland may appeal to the EU to keep them in; and that a new independence referendum could be initiated. Northern Ireland may make similar moves.
The bank stock collapse continued Monday, with both Barclays and RBS falling the legal limit of 8%, causing a temporary freeze in trading, only to then fall further. Barclays is now down 32% since the Thursday vote, RSB by 31%, and Lloyds by 30%. The pound is down 12% since the vote.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard’s Telegraph column yesterday desperately called for a “soft-Brexit” in which the City of London “could still thrive” — namely, “by switching efforts to global bodies that increasingly set the rules above the EU level, such as the Financial Stability Board, the Basel Committee, or the WTO.” Bankers’ dictatorship, undisguised.
Classical RenaissanceNew International Economic OrderLondon-Saudi Global TerrorStop WWIII
Video of VBKtx9DZFTo
Throughout history, Aleppo has witnessed many moments of greatness as well as decline and turmoil, but it always arose again like the bird…
The two-day international conference of the Schiller Institute began this morning in the German capital under the theme, “Common Future for Mankind, and a Renaissance of the Classical Cultures.”
Over 320 people from some 22 countries on four continents participated in the deliberations, with an array of prominent speakers from across the planet. (Further details forthcoming.)
The first panel addressed the “Strategic Crisis Is More Dangerous Than at the Peak of the Cold War.” Before the presentations, master of ceremonies Elke Fimmen introduced the speakers and particularly welcomed the presence of Lyndon LaRouche at this conference. Then the pianist from China, Ya-ou Xie, played a piece from Bach’s Hunting Cantata.
The keynote was then delivered by Schiller Institute international president Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who focused the conference from the outset:
“I think we all have come to this conference because everybody who is in this room knows that we are experiencing an absolutely unprecedented systemic and existential crisis of civilization. We have the coincidence of a war danger, where NATO is confronting Russia in a very, very aggressive fashion—which could lead to a Third World War. We have a U.S. confrontation against China in the South China Sea. You have the danger of a new 2008-type of financial crisis, which could blow up the financial system, and naturally you had two days ago, the Brexit—Great Britain voting to leave the European Union. And as we all know, this was not a vote against Europe as such, but it was a vote against a completely unjust system and a corrupt elite.
“Now this conference has one topic, or one subsuming topic, and that is to define solutions to these crises: to discuss what would be the new paradigm, and is mankind capable of solving such an existential crisis?
“We have distinguished speakers from four continents, from many countries, and obviously these are the people, or they are representative of the kinds of people, who are determined that a solution is to be found. And before I go into touching upon these various mortal dangers, the solution is easy. So be addressed and be calm. If mankind unites for a good plan and acts in solidarity with courage, any crisis in human civilization can be overcome, because that is the nature of human beings—that when we are challenged with a great evil, an even greater force of good is awakened in our soul.”
World renowned American statesman Lyndon LaRouche returned to this theme in his remarks during the question and answer session, stating: “This means that we are responsible essentially for what is going to happen to humanity.”
“How do we actually solve this problem? What you do is, you can go out and do some science. You apply science to create a method of creativity. Therefore, you base the whole thing not on mankind as such; you base it on the power of creativity. And that’s what my responsibility is; that’s what I do in main. What I’ve done in general through most of my life, is that. You’ve got to increase the productive power of labor of the human mind. You have to give the individual human being a greater power of creative means for human life.”
At the end of its two-day summit in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) produced its final Tashkent Declaration, touching on a number of strategically and economically-important issues. Uzbekistan’s 24.ky news agency noted that to counter the slowdown in economic growth, the SCO one of the best strategies is the “implementation of long-term, mutually beneficial projects, in the priority areas of cooperation and infrastructure development.” The SCO leaders backed China’s Silk Road Economic Belt initiative, stating they would act to implement it to promote regional cooperation.
As reported by Sputnik yesterday, the Declaration pointed out that the
Directly addressing the Obama administration’s provocative positioning of a ballistic missile defense system in Europe, the Declaration adds that member states
Special reference was made to protecting the “unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity and stability of Syria,” stressing that there is no alternative to a political solution to the crisis, the Iranian news agency FNA reported today.
Addressing the issue of disputes in the South China Sea, the Declaration states that the SCO countries support international law, according to provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, AKI press reported.
The 16th summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, which concluded Saturday, included intense discussion among the members, and in many bilateral meetings, on the positive role the SCO can play going forward, both i…
In addition to the direct dialogue between the Russian and Chinese Presidents, their summit included talks in “expanded format” that involved dozens of cabinet ministers, their deputies, and businessmen on both sides, that featured the signing of over …
The Presidents of Russia and China, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, met in Beijing on Saturday, and issued three major statements of great import regarding their relationship and the world strategic situation. This is Putin’s 15th visit to Beijing, and …
LaRouchePAC Policy Committee member Diane Sare keynotes an EIR seminar in New York titled, “Declare Independence from the British Empire—Join Russia, China and India in Global Economic Development”. Diane’s keynote, “Bringing the US into the New Silk Road” is followed by Dennis Speed of the Schiller Institute on “The Role of Great Musical Culture”, then Albert Pozotrigo, ASCE, “US Infrastructure Today” and finally LaRouchePAC Science team member Jason Ross, Co-Author, EIR’s “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” on “The Role of Science Today”.
The following is Diane Sare’s keynote along with the Q & A which followed.
DENNIS SPEED: It was a year ago this weekend that the economist and founder of Executive Intelligence Review, Lyndon LaRouche, began a dialogue—in this very room, actually—with citizens of Manhattan, as part of a project that he had started nine months earlier, in October 2014, which he called the “Manhattan Project.” This project was intended to re-introduce the concept of Alexander Hamilton’s American Presidency in the aftermath of the shutdown of that concept, just after September 11, 2001.
Alexander Hamilton was the founder of the idea of a Presidency that he and George Washington, in the first two administrations of the Presidency, based upon four documents written by Hamilton. Those documents dealt with Credit, the Creation of the National Bank, the Constitutionality of the National Bank, and On Manufacturing. The implementation of the concepts within those documents and the Constitution which was created by Hamilton, Franklin, Washington, and Gouverneur Morris of New York, as well, created the most productive and successful nation in history.
That is not our present circumstance in this nation. We have veered away from that. We have a combination of processes that are in fact far more familiar to those that were characteristic of the British Empire that we left, rather than the America that was created.
Today, Mr. LaRouche is not here with us, but the dialogue process is going to be continued here in his absence. Our first speaker, a lot of people here know, both because of her involvement with the Policy Committee of the LaRouche Political Action Committee; and also because she’s a choral director of the Schiller Institute New York Community Chorus; our first speaker will give us our keynote, and then from there we will begin a process of dialogue. We’ll take three or two questions just after her presentation, and then resume our presentations. So, I’d like you to help me welcome to the podium Diane Sare. [applause]
DIANE SARE: Thanks. Well, I’m definitely honored to be here and be on the podium with my long-term collaborator Dennis Speed; and Jason Ross, who’s from the LaRouche PAC Science Team; and Mr. Albert Pozotrigo from the American Society of Civil Engineers.
There’s a lot to say today, especially with what just happened in Britain with the Brexit vote; and, the danger that we are facing, in terms of the proximity to thermonuclear war, with the provocations of NATO along the border of Russia, the provocations of the United States in the South China Sea, and our certain clamoring in the U.S. for the overthrow of President Assad in Syria, when we should actually be working with Russia to combat ISIS. The backdrop of all of this is the collapse and utter bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic system.
But, there is a new paradigm that is being organized. And the United States, if it were acting in its actual identity as a Constitutional republic, would be joining this and playing a crucial role.
Clearly, the Brexit vote is a certain kind of inflection point. But, in a discussion that some of us had with Mr. LaRouche two days ago, he said it was wrong to characterize the eruptions of economic collapse in the wake of the vote, as a “reaction” to the Brexit vote. He said that what we’re in right now is something that’s much larger than that, and that’s very uncommon, and it’s something that we have not experienced before. I would just say that the point of this meeting here today, is that the people of New York City have a very important responsibility, because Manhattan is the actual capital of the United States, and our job is to transform the policy of the United States in a direction which is beneficial for mankind.
First of all, I will say that there is no doubt that President Obama did absolutely everything in his power to cause the Brexit vote. I’m not sure he intended to cause the Brexit vote. I don’t know what Obama intended. He’s insane. [laughter] But people may remember that he went to London, ostensibly I think his number-one point was to celebrate the birthday of the Queen who turned 90 and whom he adores.
And then he made extremely inappropriate meddling comments in the upcoming referendum. This was April 22nd. I’m just going to read them to you verbatim. You don’t have to take my word for it. Part way through the press conference with David Cameron at 10 Downing Street, Obama said: “And yes, the Prime Minister and I discussed the upcoming referendum here on whether or not the U.K. should remain part of the European Union.
“Let me be clear. Ultimately, this is something the British voters have to decide for themselves, but, as part of our special relationship, part of being friends is to be honest and to let you know what I think. And, speaking honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep interest to the United States because it affects our prospects as well. The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a partner. And the United Kingdom is at its best when it’s helping to lead a strong Europe.” And, Europe is really strong right now, I hope people notice that; the economy is doing great. “It leverages U.K. power to be part of the European Union.
“As I wrote in the op-ed today, I don’t believe the EU moderates British influence in the world—it magnifies it. The EU has helped to spread British values and practices across the continent. The single market brings extraordinary economic benefits to the United Kingdom. And that ends up being good for America, because we’re more prosperous when one of our best friends and closest allies has a strong, stable, growing economy.
“Americans want Britain’s influence to grow, including within Europe.” [[as written]
That’s what he said. So, maybe you have some understanding why so many people went to vote against this. I would just say, just for that last sentence, Obama should be tried for treason. Why do we want Britain’s influence to grow? So they can collaborate more closely with Saudi Arabia to inflict terror incidents? Or maybe so we can have a thermonuclear war with Russia and China, because it’s Britain that is the driver of the sanctions and all of the anti-Russia propaganda? But at any rate, the people of Britain disagreed with Obama.
Mr. LaRouche, a few days before that, had made the point that Obama is a loser, that anyone who bet on Obama would lose, and that Vladimir Putin was a much better bet.
Putin actually, as people may have observed, or you actually did not observe, Putin saying anything about the Brexit vote; Putin was extremely meticulous and careful to make no comments on this whatsoever.
In fact, it is the case now, that President Vladimir Putin is the most influential leader on the planet. He has outflanked the British and their puppet Obama, again and again. First, they hoped to provoke him by organizing a Nazi coup in Ukraine, where George Soros pumped in $5 billion, and we overthrew the elected government and brought a bunch of swastika-waving Nazis into power. But, he allowed Crimea to hold a referendum, where they voted to rejoin Russia.
As American troops were then being deployed to back up the swastika-waving battalions, Putin went to China, where he already had a very strong relationship. He attended the V-J Day parade. People might recall there were spectacular, new weapons on display, including certain aircraft-carrier-destroyers that go at some number of times faster than the speed of sound; and China’s figured out how to mass-produce these things.
From this position of strength, Putin then came to the United States, to the UN General Assembly in September 2015, and announced that he was forming an actual coalition to crush ISIS, and to stop ISIS from overthrowing Assad in Syria.
Now, I just want people to remember that before Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq, there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq. And before Obama overthrew, and Hillary Clinton so viciously gloated over the brutal murder of Qaddafi, there was no al-Qaeda in Libya either. Now, thanks to Bush and Obama, and their British and Saudi handlers, there are over 60 million displaced people in this region of the Middle East and Northern Africa, who are fleeing from war and torture. And large numbers of them are drowning in the Mediterranean and dying in the Sahara Desert.
So, Putin moved into Syria, and within six months he was not involved in the quagmire that President Obama predicted, but he successfully liberated most of the major cities from ISIS. And the Russians actually had a practice of allowing the Syrian Army to take the lead in this, because it was important for Syria to liberate itself, and they provided a certain amount of backup and, obviously, re-moralization. People recall the phenomenal concert organized by Putin in Palmyra, where his friend [valery] Gergiev, of the Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra, performed a concert of Bach and Russian composers on the stage of an ancient amphitheater, where only a few weeks earlier, ISIS had been executing all of its prisoners.
In spite of provocations from the U.S., including—people may remember—an American plane piloted by Turkey, that took off from an American base, shot down a Russian plane and killed the pilot on the ground—in spite of this, Putin did not react, and continued.
I think it’s important to remember, for Americans, that people in Russia and China have a very different relationship to the concept of world war, than we do here in the United States. Both of these nations lost tens of millions of people in these wars. In the case of President Putin, his family—as the families of probably most Russians who are adults today—have very vivid memories. Putin’s father was part of a small brigade of 28 soldiers, after the siege of Leningrad, that went to try to blow up a bridge, or something. Anyway, only 4 of them came back alive. His father was crippled after that, and his brother died. The brother was taken from the family to try and help him avoid starvation. He was an child at the age of 3, and the mother thinks that he died of diphtheria, later.
Given this, Americans should reflect on how it looks to the Russians to have 50,000 NATO troops doing exercises on the border of Russia, exactly as the Nazis did when they launched their Operation Barbarossa, which occurred on June 22nd, 1941. We’re doing this on the exact anniversary of the Nazi invasion!
Putin made this very clear in a speech that he gave on the 75th anniversary of that invasion, where he said the following. He said it was the Nazis who unleashed this war. “Their ideology of hatred, blind faith in their own exceptional nature and infallibility and desire for world domination, led to the 20th century’s greatest tragedy. We know the biggest lesson of that war: It could have been prevented. It could have been stopped, if efforts had been made to firmly reign in the Nazis and their accomplices’ wild ambitions in time, but this did not happen. Our country, the Soviet Union, made direct proposals for joint action and collective defense, but these proposals were simply left hanging.
“The leaders of a number of Western countries chose instead to pursue a policy of containing the Soviet Union and sought to keep it in a situation of international isolation. But it was Nazism that was the real and terrible global threat. Politicians underestimated its danger, overlooked the threat and did not want to admit that enlightened Europe could give birth to a criminal regime that was growing ever stronger.
“Today, we bow our heads before this heroic generation. Our fathers and grandfathers gave their lives to save Russia and all of humanity from the fascist scourge. We will always remember their sacrifice and courage.
“The international community let its vigilance down and lacked the will and unity to prevent this war and save the lives of millions and millions of people. What other lesson do we need today to throw aside tattered old ideological differences and geopolitical games and unite our forces to fight international terrorism?” [as written]
The fact that the trans-Atlantic system is fully and completely bankrupt, and that no leader yet from Western Europe or North America has been willing to face this fact, and address it with the measures which Mr. LaRouche has proposed, and which Dennis mentioned earlier, modelled on Alexander Hamilton’s work, greatly increases the likelihood of war.
Now, in contrast to the calm and strategic leadership of President Putin, let’s look and the pathetic, and I would say embarrassing, behavior of our members of Congress, this past week. So, you have a situation where the U.S. economy is crashing; we have record suicides; heroin overdoses; the infrastructure is in disrepair; NATO has put 50,000 troops on the border of Russia. And what is the Congress doing? Are they trying to get Obama out? No! The Democrats are sitting on the floor, pretending that they’re with the civil rights movement, and demanding gun control, from a President who has a weekly meeting on Tuesdays to decide who he’s going to kill with drones! And, the Republicans, rather than calling for President Obama’s removal, are saying, what we actually need is more guns, especially for gay people, for African-American people, for female people, and for — six year olds. Because, if they had guns, they could defend themselves!
Now, you, the citizen, are supposed to choose: How do we solve this crisis — less guns, or more guns?
Well, I would say that perhaps this is the wrong question. This is like an election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Maybe we should ask the question: Why was it that the FBI decided that Omar Mateen was no longer a person of interest? Or: Why was Omar Mateen in Saudi Arabia? Oh, yeah. I should have remembered: John Brennan has assured us that Saudi Arabia is a very important partner in fighting terrorism! In fact, that’s what Omar Mateen was doing in Saudi Arabia, he was learning from the CIA how to fight terrorism, and he did exactly what they wanted him to do.
And then, there was no connection between what the FBI did or didn’t do in this case, and what happened in the Boston Marathon bombing, where the Russians warned the FBI about the Tsarnaev brothers, and somehow the bombing occurred. And, there’s supposed to be no connection between this, and what happened to the United States, on September 11, 2001, which still has not been addressed, 15 years after the fact.
So, I think that it’s clear, that there is actually something amiss about the way that American people think. How should we think? Or, maybe we should say: Should we think? [laughter]
Why is it that Lyndon LaRouche has been able to forecast the future, when everyone else fails to do so?
How many people think that the Brexit vote is what caused the crash? Didn’t we just discuss, last week, when I was here, that Wells Fargo and Bank of America are right back to their old subprime lending schemes? And, that actually, since the crash of 2008, nothing fundamental has been changed about the policies that led us to that crash, except we’ve printed a huge amount of money, which has made the things that are likely to crash, that much bigger?
What has the United States done during the last two administrations? What I wanted to do, was for people to reflect what we’ve done in the last 15 years, compared to some of the things that China has done, recently.
Let’s compare what happened: So, I took a few slides from a website called Tech Insider, but you can find a lot of these things. A guy named Chris Weller, who wrote about, “30 Giant Infrastructure Projects that the Chinese Are Building.”
So this is the $110 million, it’s supposed to be completed in 2016: the Pingtang telescope, which will be the world’s second-largest radio telescope.
Next: Now, this is $1.8 billion, he had a slightly lower figure, but I looked it up, somewhere else, so, we’ll say it’s $1.8 billion: the Tianhuangping hydroelectric project, which is the biggest in Asia, and it produces 1,800 megawatts of power.
Next: This is a new Metro station in Nanjing, that was $1.7 billion, that was completed in 2005, and its used by 2 million people a day, or 717 million people in a year.
Next: This is a site, you can see the design in the upper left, a planned “new city,” which will be home to 1 million people, which they’re going to invest $4.5 billion in.
Next: This is the Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant, phase 2, and you can see the two, large reactors, there, which are built by CANDU, from Canada. But, if you see, on the bottom corner, there are several smaller reactors, as well. This is a site where there’s going to be 11 nuclear reactors. So, the largest number of nuclear reactors in one site in the world.
Now, if you add up all of the figures for the 30 projects, and it also includes something which is near and dear to my heart, which is a new opera house, which cost $200 million; and then the space program, where they’re launching something called the Hainan Wenchang Space Center, which is the farthest south in China you can get, so it’s as close to the Equator you can get, so you can launch super heavy loads. And they’re spending $12 billion on that. All of these 30 projects add up to somewhere around $80 billion, or a little over.
Now, I chose that figure of $80 billion, because, as people might remember, $80 billion is what we spent in the United States on the first AIG bailout! [laughter] So now, that’s really great, because, if we had a choice, would you rather have 20,000 miles of high-speed rail and a dozen new nuclear power plants, — and we need probably thousands of nuclear plants, but just say we added a dozen to power our high-speed rail; and I mean like 250 miles an hour, not the Acela Express, which is really embarrassing that we call that “high-speed” rail. So, we could have had that, or we could have an $80 billion bailout, which means that three bankers who were in jail, got very large bonuses, and the stock market was inflated.
And, in a sense, I think people have been bought off, because so many Americans have money in the stock market, that they like the idea that the stock market is up, even though there’s absolutely nothing in the real economy that corresponds to the value of the stock market! So, you’ve been bribed, and blackmailed, to say that there’s been an Obama recovery, when the state of the actual physical economy is — um — nonexistent, and collapsing. And, many of the people who think they’re doing well, because they have money in the stock market, are actually just one paycheck away from being foreclosed upon.
Now, Jason may have more to say on this, later, because measuring things in terms of dollars is really silly, and it doesn’t really reflect reality. But I wanted to do that to just give you a sense, that there is no reason for the United States to be in the condition that it’s in, except for a willful choice of policy by our nominally-elected leaders.
And, the point is, there is a new paradigm on the planet, which the United States could join. And, in fact, the principles of the new paradigm, or even greater principles, are already embedded in our Constitution, as Hamilton intended.
Now, we saw a little bit of what China was doing, but it’s not really just China. The LaRouches, 40 years ago, called for a “new just economic order,” and it’s worldwide. And people may know, they had meetings with Indira Gandhi, when she was the head of the Non-Aligned Movement, and then, later, Prime Minister of India, and LaRouche met with [José] López Portillo, when he was President of Mexico; and many people. And this is now coming together. China and Russia are leading this, and there’s many different organizations coming together, like the BRICS, which people are familiar with — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which the United States has still not joined. But, what you have is that larger nations are working with smaller nations, and they’re doing what Chinese President Xi Jinping calls “win-win collaboration.” This is transforming the entire planet, and it’s opening up entire new trade routes, which will bring the fruits of many cultures to people who had been isolated and impoverished.
Now, I wanted to just read you a little bit of an interview that President Putin gave with Xinhua, which was released just before the opening of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization conference, which just ended yesterday. So, Xinhua says: [as written from en.Kremlin.ru] “Last year, you met with the Chinese President five times. With your engagement and assistance, as well as through the efforts made by you and Mr. Xi Jinping Chinese-Russian collaboration has been constantly deepening and enhancing.
“In your opinion, what areas of cooperation between Beijing and Moscow would you describe as priority ones at the moment? What areas are to be developed in the future? And what do you think of the expectations related to your upcoming visit to China?”
And Putin said, ” In fact, you already defined our relations when you said they were at a very high level…. 25 years ago, we announced the launch of new relations, those of strategic partnership, and 15 years ago, we signed a friendship and cooperation treaty. Since then, hard work has been done resulting in an unprecedented level of mutual trust on which our collaboration is built.
“As we had never reached this level of relations before, our experts have had trouble defining today’s general state of our common affairs. It turns out that to say we have strategic cooperation is not enough anymore. This is why we have started talking about a comprehensive partnership and strategic collaboration. ‘Comprehensive’ means that we work virtually on all major avenues; ‘strategic’ means that we attach enormous inter-governmental importance to this work….”
And then, Putin referred to some of the projects, including the Moscow to Kazan railroad, which is here; and, this is relatively a small distance compared to the magnitude of the Eurasian landmass, but I just think it’s interesting, if you look at the difference in time: At the present, it takes 14 hours and 7 minutes to get from Moscow to Kazan; it will take 3 hours and 30 minutes, when this is completed. And you can see all the different routes around the way.
Next: This gives you a little bit of a sense, That railroad which is way over, emanating from Moscow, and going just part way, but what they’re thinking of is much larger. And, what you see here, is the route from Wuhan, China, to Lyon, France; that’s that big purple arc on top, that was just completed. The first freight train from Wuhan arrived in Lyon a few weeks ago. Yes, that’s connected, now.
And then, I think that’s Tehran, Iran leading up to that. And then, underneath, that larger purple dot is the Chabahar port, in Iran. Prime Minister Modi was just in Iran, and the President of Afghanistan, Ghani, all met there to inaugurate this new port, because what it is going to do is to open up Afghanistan for development.
And I think it is important to think about this region the way these leaders think. Afghanistan, for decades, has just been a hub for drug production, terrorism and so on. If you want to dry that up, you need economic development. And the way that they are thinking of developing it is recruiting all of the nations surrounding Afghanistan and developing the region, which is the way you will bring stability to the region and the planet.
Next: Now, this is, of course the LaRouche’s grand proposal, which is very large. The red links are the rails that don’t exist yet. You can see that once we get from Moscow to Kazan, we are going to go up to Yakutsk and Ufa, and cross the Bering Straits and come down into Alaska. And, hopefully, before too long, we could get on a train in Manhattan and go to the tip of South Africa, if we wanted. But this is what people should be thinking about.
Next: Now, this is wonderful. This is the Suez Canal. On the left is the “before” picture, with the Suez Canal was too narrow in most parts to have two-way traffic. So, President el-Sisi announced that they were going to complete a parallel canal, so you can have two way traffic the entire way, which opens it up for much, much greater trade. This was supposed to take three years; and he got the military involved and got it done in one year and celebrated its opening just a few months ago, but this creates phenomenal potential for development of Egypt as a whole.
Next: This is the new, newly widened Panama Canal, which was becoming obsolete because the new giant freight vessels from China were too big, to get through the locks in the other canal, so now they have built new, wider locks that can handle the mega-freight containers which are now coming around the planet.
Next: This is a project near and dear to Mr. LaRouche’s heart, the Kra Canal, which he has been calling for, for 30 years or so, and it is now on the drawing board and being discussed. And it would alleviate having to travel through the Strait of Malacca, which is pirate infested, and a long way out of the way if you’re trying to get across here. You can see in the lower corner, where this is located in the world.
But I would say that the most important announcement of China and Russia recently is their collaboration on long distance space flight, where China is going to be purchasing some of the very, very powerful RD-180 engines from Russia — which the United States, by the way, just cancelled our order of — and Russia will be getting Chinese microradioelectronics for use in space. The Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that China has “taken a keen interest” in Russian proposals for “joint experimentation for the development of new pharmaceutical products, for creating new possibilities for the protection of the human musculoskeletal system.” In other words, that their intent is this research, this long-distance space travel and ultimately manned space missions, will be of benefit for all human kind.
And I think people can reflect on how long it’s been and how, if we had a revived space program and collaboration, there are so many diseases that affect us here, that we don’t have adequate understanding or cures, that we could actually start developing cures to many of these things.
So, today I wanted to just reference, as you know we are celebrating one of our dear collaborators, Sylvia Olden Lee — and Dennis will have more to say about her. Another one of the Schiller Institute board members was the famous German-American rocket scientist, Krafft Ehricke, and my colleagues Kesha Rogers and Megan Beets are holding an event today in Houston, Texas, reviving Krafft Ehricke’s work. And Sylvia Lee and Krafft Ehricke both would be 100 years old in 2017, which I find very interesting, and Mr. LaRouche, who is still kicking very hard, is only five years younger than they would have been.
In 1962, in a study of early manned interplanetary missions, Krafft Ehricke says, “In terms of natural resources, it is unlikely that the Earth can support an ever growing population with progressively higher living standards forever. By giving man the necessary exploitation and transportation systems, he can make the entire Solar System his raw material source and calculate Earth as a biological center of a growing mankind.”
Now think about that. Most people today don’t even think we should have a growing population, and they certainly don’t think we should have a growing population with a higher and higher standard of living from one generation to the next. Many people, maybe even some of you here, would be embarrassed to be exposed agreeing with President Barack Obama, who famously told people in in one African country that they should not expect to have air conditioning like people in the United States.
How evil is it, and supremely arrogant, not to mention suicidal, for any one of us today to want to be the best that there ever was in all time?
Do you think that Beethoven hoped that someone would surpass him? Do you think Albert Einstein believed that he had discovered everything there was to discover under the sun? The truth of the matter is that these geniuses, their lives become more meaningful as future generations perfect the discoveries that they were in the process of making. Think about how much more important Haydn is, because of what Beethoven, his student, did. Think about how much more important Bach was because of what Mozart did; or that Brunelleschi contributed something to Kepler; Kepler contributed something to Leibniz, and so on. And Leibniz made great contributions to the founding of the United States.
This is what each of us here living today is actually responsible for. The means for doing this in the United States are here in Manhattan, with the decisive work of Alexander Hamilton and his establishment of the Constitution of the United States, which, everyone should remember, talks about “our posterity.” Hamilton, with his policies on a National Bank, On the Subject of Manufactures, and public credit, demonstrated that it is possible to establish a system of economy, which is based on human creativity, which is the source of wealth, and is unlimited.
Now, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are on the edge of something very, very big, which none of us has experienced before, and I want to stress here, since we are in the United States, that President Obama’s remaining in the White House right now at this time, is probably the single biggest real threat to mankind, at the moment. Our leverage to either remove him or neutralize him as a force, is to get at the truth about the Saudi-British role in the 9/11 attacks, which killed close to 3,000 Americans. Americans having the courage to demand the truth about that crime would allow us to liberate ourselves, finally, from the British Empire.
What Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche are doing today is shaking the world. And our job is to shake Manhattan by demanding and securing justice — not revenge, but justice — and I mean shake, in the sense that all of the ugly things fall off, and only the beautiful is left standing. [applause
Speed: What we are going to do is to take, for approximately ten minutes, a couple of questions at this point, and then we will resume.
Q: I am Al Korby, I am a World War II veteran. I am one of the three World War II veterans that are here today. There is Bill Monroe and I from the United States, and there is our comrade, Nicolai from Russia. [applause].
We did our part to help win World War II and we are here working together at this moment for the joy of accomplishment, that we can achieve a natural, human world as our reward. We are looking forward to enjoy more exploration and discovery here on this planet, and more adventures together in the universe, such as we have already begun. It is our duty to those who come after us, and it is a joyful duty. It’s what Lyndon LaRouche calls “having fun.” [applause]
Q: My question is regarding the collaboration between Russia and China. Supposedly the two Presidents are supposed to meet today and discuss all kinds of deals, but with respect to their previous agreements, they sign a lot of deals, a lot of agreements, and my concern is that not much has really been done. So I’m just wondering how you feel, despite the recent economic turmoil in both countries, the declining ruble and the slow growth of China, how do you feel that these two leaders can offset these types of challenges, and actually make some substantial progress and achievements in this regard? Thank you.
SARE: Well, I’m just wondering about your definition of what’s been done. Because I think perhaps the media would say there’s nothing done, but if you look at all of these things that have already been built, have already been completed, and I think the most important thing that has been done is we have not had World War III, — at least so far — which is very big deal, and is a direct result of the collaboration between China and Russia. Because if they had not been unified in this matter it would have been much easier to provoke conflict.
And the people advising Obama are insane enough to think there is such a thing as a limited nuclear war, that you could have a nuclear war which would only get rid of the people you wanted to get rid of, and would not get out of control.
So, there has been actually an enormous amount of progress, which may not be that visible, but I think perhaps the most important is that we are still alive.
Q: [Translator for Russian speaker] I’m going to be translating. This is Nikolai Zaitzev. He’s a World War II veteran [applause]. And he’s thankful for you for being here and it’s a great pleasure for him to talk in front of American people, who have similar views to world politics as he does.
He’s happy to see some of the people he knows already. He’s happy to see and greet Al Korby, whom he met already at the Immortal Regiment Walk, which was done in memory of the World War II veterans, people who died during World War II, and which showed that the new generations still remember what was the effort to win World War II and to fight what he called “brown plague,” that horrible fascism.
He wrote an article about that Immortal Regiment, and there are also some pictures of some of your members who walked with us. And he’s saying that it is really important that Americans joined us. He’s saying that it is specifically important because the memory of the past war will help us to prevent the new war.
He was saying no one wants the new war, not the Russian people and not the American people. Only politicians are talking about the war, and American people, as well as Russian people, do not talk about the war; they do not want the war. American people lost more than 400,000 people during World War II, about 500,000 people. Russians lost 50 to 60 times more, but both of our nation’s common people, they don’t want the war and he is happy to hear that from American citizens.
He was saying thank you for inviting him, once again, for giving him a chance to talk, and he is saying in case there’s going to be any problems, the veterans are going to solve it. They’ll talk it through. [laughter, applause]
Q: Hi, Diane, Dennis and Jason. Alvin here. So, there are two systems before the world. I read about this through the organization years ago, and as the years have gone by I thought I understood it then, but it is ever so clear now, and of course, the tension that goes along with it. Now, when the FBI-, Obama-inspired massacre of Orlando took place, people wouldn’t talk about it, and that’s since that took place. Over 72 hours you have this Brexit thing going on and now people are approaching because an event took place. And the question comes, “So, what do you think? What’s going to happen next? How’s this thing going to play out?” Kind of like a chain reaction thing, and Lyn’s emphasizing that we have to calmly lay out that if you think in terms of events, as opposed to systems and processes playing out, that that’s your only way to actually help any citizen, and starting with yourself, because oftentimes the reaction, I think, even amongst ourselves, is just those same questions. We have to catch ourselves. We have go back to Lyn and remember that, “No! That’s not it.” This was dead for a long, long time and we’re just beginning to see the carcass; the stench of it is coming up. So, we have to move against that. And then, I think in terms of our continuing education in music, where we realize it’s not just notes, and phrases, that we’re stringing together, but actually trying to master ideas that are embedded in the works. So that’s a system, that’s a process. So, for myself and our audience, can we talk more about this idea of not being trapped in mere events, and understand that 9/11 was not an event, that the Reichstag fire, these were not events, but actually a series of actions with a very intent purpose in mind, a matter of processes again playing out?
SPEED: We’re going to take that up and anything else when we get to the questions as a whole. We’re stopping now, and we’re going back to our scheduled program. I said three; we had three. And now we will continue.
[In the Q&A following Jason Ross’s presentation, the first question raised was Alvin’s]
SPEED: We’re going to go right back to questions. Do you need Alvin to restate his question?
JASON ROSS: I wish I’d written it down. Before, Alvin had asked people like to think in terms of events, it’s easy to think in terms of events; this event happened, the Brexit vote, what’s the response? What did that set off? How does one thing cause another? And that that misses something in terms of thinking that you get from the standpoint of thinking about processes.
This is topic that Mr. LaRouche speaks about very frequently: That events don’t cause processes. Processes and intentions cause events.
So that when an event occurs, say, for example, when 9/11 occurred, Mr. LaRouche was by chance on a radio talk show at the time. He was seeing the news on TV, and his assessment at that time, — both at that time, and leading into it, — was that the incoming Bush administration would be one where, because of the collapse of what were then the financial conditions, instead of normal government, there was going to be a shift, by some kind of war, some kind of provocation, towards crisis-management. That was LaRouche’s assessment going into the Bush administration and with the nomination of John Ashcroft as attorney general.
There hadn’t been any particular event, that disposed Mr. LaRouche to say that. What he saw was, given the conditions, this would be the response, government by crisis-management. 9/11 certainly provided the means to make that occur. And it didn’t occur as a single event, and it can’t understood that way.
This is one of these big issues, that, as it gets unravelled, as we get the 28 pages out, as we unravel the connections of Saudi Arabia, of Britain, we get to the top issues, of what is the British outlook towards the world? What is the British outlook towards the way the world ought to move, and what are the opportunities that Britain makes for itself, to cause those things to happen?
It was a really good question. I don’t think that was in any way an adequate response to it. And I look forward to some other thoughts from our distinguished speakers here, on that theme. [laughter]
SARE: [off mike] I was thinking of something, you probably remember the quote, which I can’t remember, about Einstein and the things being like a note in a Bach fugue. Do you remember?
ROSS: Oh! I can — Well, I’ll say the quote. There was a discussion that Einstein and Planck were having with an interviewer and because of the dilemmas of quantum phenomena, many people said that the idea of “cause” was over, that you couldn’t say exactly where an electron was going to wind up; that there was something inherently probabilistic about our understanding of the world and that the idea that the past would cause the future, in a direct and knowable way, was shattered, and our idea of knowing would have to go out the window. We’d have to have a new idea of knowing, that would be a statistical one; say, what’s likely to occur, as opposed to what’s actually happening.
So some of the things Einstein said about this, were, I’d like to believe the Moon is there, even when I’m not looking at it.” He said, “I don’t believe God plays dice.” And he gave a different idea of cause in a discussion he had in an interview, where he said that, “Maybe our old idea of cause was too simple. Maybe for a beginner taking piano lessons, you think of each note and then leading into the next note, you play the notes one at a time, and the piece of music unfolds that way. But he said, you can’t think about a Bach fugue in that way. Each moment doesn’t just go to the next moment in that way; time doesn’t only move in that direction, and the past doesn’t cause the present, causing the future, moment by moment. There’s a different kind of cause that you have to think about, to get a concept of a piece of music like that, and that we should bring that to understanding cause in a new way, when it comes to physics.
SARE: I think that’s really the point. People who’ve been at some of my solfège classes, and everybody here should arrive at 1 o’clock next week and participate. Because, what you discover about the way the mind works and the way music, classically composed music, as opposed to garbage which is not music, works, is that there is something which is a whole, and the particulars, whether you want to call them the “notes,” are there, unfolding as part of a whole. And you’ll find that, often, the way you perceive things in your hearing, is you actually don’t hear music just going forward, but you often hear it going backwards; or your mind changes, you change what you thought you were hearing based on what comes forward.
And I think clearly, Lyndon LaRouche thinks in this kind of a musical way. None of us knew what the outcome of the Brexit vote was going to be. But over two weeks ago, he was making this point, and I don’t think he was referring to the Brexit vote, either, per se, but he knows something about the mentality of popular opinion and this kind of gambling mentality, and he kept making a point, “if you’re betting on Obama, you’re betting on a loser.” Well, that’s very interesting, in light of what occurred later. But why did he say that earlier?
And I think the question of economics is a similar one, that’s why he said he doesn’t like to use the term “infrastructure” any more, but that you should think of a “platform.” That is, having a particular technology, for example, a plumber who is able to solve complex problems of city plumbing in New York City; if he went to Malawi at this moment, perhaps there would not be so much value to skills that he had, unless the platform of Malawi’s development was elevated to a certain level.
And so, when you think, also what Krafft Ehricke said, for example, if you think about how small the planet Earth is, relative to the Solar System — even relative to the Sun; relative to the Galaxy, it actually is absurd to think of a specific project, like “a port,” or “a highway,” or “a sewage treatment plant.” But the way you want to think about this, is as it’s embedded in a particular platform of where you are living. And I think in a sense, that’s the way that we have to begin to think. And it’s very, very hard: Anyone who’s honest with themselves, you will discover that we all think deductively. And you know it, when you say, “well, can you prove that?” And almost always what you’re asking for is someone to say, “well, because this did this, and that did this, and this did….” and that is actually completely false and fictitious, and not the way the Universe works. And that’s the challenge confronting all of us in being able to address what’s actually happening with mankind.
Tune in tonight at 8 pm eastern and get Mr. LaRouche’s assessment of the Brexit vote and what it means in the broader strategic context going on in Eurasia.